User talk:Skippy0321

Recent edit to Cincinnati Police Department

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you removed some content from Cincinnati Police Department without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Materialscientist (talk) 12:07, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Cincinnati Police Department. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on Cincinnati Police Department

Your recent editing history at Cincinnati Police Department 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. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:49, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suggest you use the article's talk page to discuss your concerns. As I explained at User talk:Marchjuly#Your rewrite of Cincinnati police, article talk pages are where editors discuss content disputes and try to establish a consensus for certain edits. Your edits have been reverted by Materialscientist for the same reason as I have given: you need to provide a citation to an independent reliable source in support of the content you wish to add, so that it can be verified by others. Continuing to re-add/remove cited content as you have been doing is not to way to resolve this and is likely to lead to an administrator being asked to intervene to prevent any further disruption. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cincinnati Police Department biography of living person concerns

For what it is worth, I made some edits to the area of the article you were considerned with when Marchjuly asked for more eyes at WP:BLPN. I think they made the article more fair to everyone involved, but obviously welcome feedback. Wikipedia has its issues, but we tend to be a very collaborative place if you engage us, especially when it comes to living persons. I would encourage you to read WP:BLP, WP:RS and WP:V, and if you still have concerns on this article, to post them on the article talk page! TonyBallioni (talk) 04:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Using multiple accounts

Hello, I noticed that you have recently created an alternative account, and I am concerned that it might not meet Wikipedia's alternative account policy. After you look over that policy, could we discuss that concern here? I'd appreciate learning your reasons for creating an additional account. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this and this edit made to Cincinnati Police Department, then my apologies for the above notification. There is a saying on Wikipedia that if it quacks like a duck, then it's probably a duck. However, if it was made you, then you should be advised that Wikipedia only allows the use of multiple accounts under certain specific circumstance as explained in WP:MULTIPLE. Inappropriately using multiple accounts is considered to be sock puppetry, which is something that the Wikipedia community takes quite seriously. Certain Wikipedia editors called checkusers are given special technical tools to compare the activities of suspicious accounts and those verified to be sockpuppets are typically indefinitely blocked. Moreover, trying to recruit other individuals to create accounts and perform inappropriate edits is considered to be meat puppetry, which is also something the community also takes quite seriously. As TonyBallioni posted above, you're more than welcome to discuss your concerns on the article's talk page and try and establish a consensus for any changes you would like to be seen made. If, however, you try to circumvent proper process, then your efforts will almost surely fail and will most likely lead to your account (or accounts) being blocked by an administrator. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:59, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]