User talk:Sharmela.Mela

The owner of this account is suspected of abusively using multiple accounts.

(Account information: block log · CentralAuth · suspected sockpuppets · confirmed sockpuppets · sockpuppet investigations casepage)

June 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Kalenna Harper appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. Pstanton (talk) 03:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Kalenna Harper. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Pstanton (talk) 03:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Kalenna Harper, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Pstanton (talk) 17:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did to Kalenna Harper, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Pstanton (talk) 17:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for vandalism. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Ale_Jrb ^talk 17:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your message

Hi there.

Thanks for contacting me by email. Wikipedia is, as the name suggests, an encyclopaedia, and Wikipedia policies require that you write in an encyclopaedic tone. As you were repeatedly warned on this page, the changes you made were not written from a neutral point of view or with the correct tone. Everyone makes mistakes, but repeatedly re-adding content that has been removed by another editor is considered vandalism, because it damages the integrity of Wikipedia.

From your statement, it also appears that you may have a conflict of interest making you unsuitable to edit the article. The block may be lifted, however, it you agree to contribute in line with our policies in the future. I will also email this response on you. If you agree, let me know by email or here, and I will lift the block.

Thanks, Ale_Jrb ^talk 18:17, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will unblock you this time, but understand that if you make similar edits again, it is possible that you will be indefinitely blocked again without further warning. I strongly advise against editing the same page, but welcome you to contribute to any other Wikipedia articles. Ale_Jrb ^talk 19:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sharmela.Mela for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Pstanton (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked indefinitely the account, Kylecabrol, as a sockpuppet of your account. Please note that using multiple accounts disruptively on wikipedia is prohibited. If you were to continue to use accounts disruptively, your main account will receive a block. If you have any questions or concerns, you can reach me on my talk page. Icestorm815 • Talk 20:40, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]