User talk:Phygoo

August 2017

Hello, I'm Bahudhara. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Goodwood, South Australia, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. See also Wikipedia:No original research. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 22:46, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. While we appreciate that you enjoy using Wikipedia, please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a place for blogging or promotion. So please do not try to use Wikipedia to promote yourself or your family, band, product, or company, as you did at Goodwood, South Australia. The subjects of our articles have to meet certain notability requirements and be written from a neutral point of view. Off-topic material may be deleted at any time, even if it's on your user page. We're sorry if this message has discouraged you from editing here, but the ultimate goal of this website is to build an encyclopedia. Thank you. Bahudhara (talk) 22:57, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Goodwood, South Australia. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Please take note of the two messages i now see above; WP is not a place for unwarranted, uncited hype which appears to be original research and/or opinion. Thanks. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 07:13, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Bahudhara (talk) 07:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your behaviour

Re-doing well-researched content on housing demand

If it's well-researched, provide the sources from which the research was done. Pdfpdf (talk)

Undid revision 795545498 by Bahudhara (talk) - Bahudhara please refrain from needlessly interfering other people's views, just the way I dont interfere with so many of your pages!

Wikipedia is NOT a place where one expresses with one's views. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that expresses facts supported by reliable sources. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bahudhara - Please refrain from wasting my time on the page. My views on property market are well researched. if you have counter research give me the sources. Appreciate your maturity and understanding and hope you dont remove my researched update.

Please refrain from wasting EVERYBODY'S time by adding stuff to wikipedia not supported by reliable sources. Please refrain from insulting people who politely request that you do this. Whether (or not) anyone has a different opinion, or facts, or research, or anything else, to you is irrelevant. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2017

Your recent editing history at Goodwood, South Australia shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 14:28, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Please refrain from using edit summaries for communication purposes. That's not what they are for. Edit summaries are for very briefly describing the edits you have made, If you wish to send a message to another editor, please do it via the article talk page or directly on the editor's talk page. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:04, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]