User talk:LesterLloyd
== LesterLloyd, you are a Wikipedia Vandal== You are hereby warned that continued bogus posting will result in termination of your privileges.
|
Hi LesterLloyd! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join experienced editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from experienced editors. These editors have been around for a long time and have extensive knowledge about how Wikipedia works. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from experts. I hope to see you there! Ushau97 (I'm a Teahouse host) This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:17, 7 September 2014 (UTC) |
September 2014
[edit]
Hello, I'm Amortias. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on :John de Ruiter, but you didn’t support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. 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. Amortias (T)(C) 19:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
September 2014
[edit] This is Planktonium. You have been making malicious edits on John de Ruiter. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people. You have been warned that this is vandalism. 11 September 2014 (UTC)
LestorLloyd has been reported for editing abuse
[edit]You have been reported for vandalizing a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia does not tolerate this type of behaviour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Planktonium (talk • contribs) 18:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Disruptive edits
[edit]Hello, LesterLloyd. Despite Planktonium's statement, you have not so far been reported at WP:Administrator intervention against vandalism as far as I can see; but if you continue your disruptive editing you will be. Looking at your edits, I get that you have strong opinions about John de Ruiter. While I know nothing of him, I have some sympathy with your position. But you are going about your campaign in a way that is disruptive to Wikipedia, and you need to stop.
- First, as you have already been told, you introduced material (and, in particular, critical material) into a biography of a living person without giving any references to a published source which supports your material. This is absolutely forbidden, but the first time you did it our policy of assuming good faith should lead any other editor to just remove your additions and explain to you that this is not acceptable; and this is what happened.
- What you are encouraged to do at that point, is to discuss the matter on the talk page Talk:John de Ruiter, and try to reach agreement with other editors; if you are unable to do so, our dispute resolution procedure would tell you how to proceed.
- What you did do, is to insert your unsupported material again. This is called edit warring, and is a quick way to get yourself blocked from Wikipedia.
Assuming that you are in good faith (i.e. that you think the de Ruiter article is unbalanced), your best bet is to start by finding some reliable published sources which are critical of him (not blogs or forums, but material from reputable publishers). If you can find some, then you may edit the article to add only what is supported by the sources you have found (though in view of your recent history, even in this case you should probably start by discussing it on the talk page). If you cannot find such sources, then I'm afraid you must not edit the page further. Unsupported material and original research are not permitted in Wikipedia articles.
I suspect that you believe that it is important to expose something you think is not right about how de Ruiter presents himself. If that is that case, I'm afraid that Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and you may not use it in that way. --ColinFine (talk) 20:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
- I concur with the advice by User:ColinFine. In particular, your repeated insertion of the term "gobbledygook" into the infobox is inappropriate and is an attempt to introduce a non-neutral point of view. Any insertion of unsourced material into a biography of a living person is not permitted. In the case of the infobox, you were editorializing. If a published author characterized his writings or teachings as gobbledygook, it would be permitted to introduce that with a reference. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Euryalus (talk) 02:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)