User talk:PedroAnimanga

December 2017

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Capricorn (astrology), but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2018

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Capricorn (astrology). Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Jc3s5h (talk) 20:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Gemini (astrology), you may be blocked from editing. -KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 05:31, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that your edit summaries appear misleading: i.e.: "added links" at [1]. Please make sure that they reflect your changes. Also, I see no evidence of communication when others dispute your edits. Wikipedia is a community project where communication is paramount (please see related: WP:ENGAGE, WP:DISCUSSFAIL, WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:TEAMWORK and WP:RADAR). Thanks, —Paleo Neonate – 23:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Capricorn.

Once again you have falsely attributed statements to Oxford Dictionaries which it did not make. The article contained the statement "the sun transits this area from December 21 to January 21 each year" and there is, and was, a number, ^[2] linking to a footnote, which reads "Oxford n.d., sv. Capricorn and Aquarius." That means go to the alphabetical list of sources and find the publication from Oxford, with no publication date (n.d). The footnote conveniently links to the proper entry, which reads:

"English Dictionary, Thesaurus". Oxford Dictionaries. n.d. Retrieved June 7, 2018.

The "sv." in "sv. Capricorn and Aquarius" means the source is a dictionary or encyclopedia, and you should look up "Capricorn" and "Aquarius". When you look up Capricorn in Oxford Dictionaries you find the statement

The tenth sign of the zodiac (the Goat), which the sun enters at the northern winter solstice (about 21 December).

When you look up Aquarius, you find the statement

The eleventh sign of the zodiac, which the sun enters about 21 January.

But your edit changed these dates. Anyone who knows how to interpret footnotes and citations will interpret the article to say that according to Oxford Dictionaries, the sun transits this area from December 22 to January 20 each year, but that's false, because you changed the dates and put words into the mouth of Oxford Dictionaries that it did not say.

Furthermore your edit summary states "Added the calculated approximate starting and ending date." Since you didn't provide a citation to a reliable source for the calculations, YOU are presumed to have done the calculations, and the no original research policy forbids this. The next time you add your original research or falsely attribute statements to sources which did not make them I will seek intervention from administrators. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:08, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. —Paleo Neonate – 15:15, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Subtle vandalism

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Planets in astrology, you may be blocked from editing. I don't approve of vandalism on Wikipedia, especially if it is sneaky like yours. I agree that you really should heed the block warning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Torrent01 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:11, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Making changes to content with misleading edit summaries like this [2] [3] [4] [5] while ignoring all the concerns raised by other editors is disruptive editing, feel free to ask me if you are confused about anything, but you must stop making unexplained changes to articles. Tornado chaser (talk) 23:16, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for ignoring all attempts at communication and continuing to edit disruptively, see [6].

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | talk 12:32, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I now realize my faults. I didn't originally know how to edit or talk with other users because I wasn't aware of the possible functionality of having a Wikipedia account. I'm still relatively a newbie at this and needed help when it came to conversing. I sincerely apologise for all the trouble I caused. However, I do have rather a certain amount of knowledge on multiple topics of interest and want to help add to the repertoire of info. And I know this'll sound strange, but in my firm yet variable opinion I know for a fact that if there is not enough info available or possibly none at all, then I and/or anyone must be intuitive and interpret a new viewpoint on the topic(s) in question to try and explain how it will effect currently established viewpoints and/or be possibly be revolutionary and create new and improved viewpoints for the betterment of the abundance of knowledge. PedroAnimanga (talk) 06:09, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you still have access to this account, please see the guide to appealing blocks above. The block was mostly because it seemed impossible to reach you. If you intend to communicate with other editors when your edits are contested, I recommend to include that in your unblock request. Thanks and sorry for the late response, —Paleo Neonate – 08:24, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, PaleoNeonate. Pedro, I'll add that if you intend to continue to edit astrology articles to insert information based on your own intuition in order to revolutionize the subject, you will not be unblocked, whether or not you communicate. All changes must be based on reliable sources. Please read our policy Wikipedia:Reliable sources before you appeal the block. Bishonen | talk 08:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]