User talk:GreatTruth123

January 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm Binksternet. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Adam Weishaupt seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. 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. Binksternet (talk) 16:11, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Adam Weishaupt, without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Denisarona (talk) 15:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2014[edit]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Adam Weishaupt. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Adam Weishaupt. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators can block users from editing if they repeatedly vandalize. Thank you. Denisarona (talk) 11:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Adam Weishaupt, you may be blocked from editing. Denisarona (talk) 08:02, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Adam Weishaupt has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. DMacks (talk) 03:27, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Unresponsive and uncooperative fringe editor. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

--John (talk) 20:44, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, GreatTruth123. I see a lot of warnings on this page, including recently one block notice, but no responses from you. Unfortunately you're likely to be indefinitely blocked from editing if you continue to edit in the same way and remain unresponsive. This is a final laundry list of suggestions before that happens.

Please use explanatory edit summaries. Merely putting the word you have added to the article as an edit summary isn't helpful; say why you added it.
If your edit is reverted, don't revert back; go to the article's talkpage to discuss. Please follow the principle bold, revert, discuss. If you keep reverting, creating an edit war, you're likely to be blocked from editing.
What goes into the article is determined by consensus on its talkpage, not by who can revert to their preferred version the most times.
Please click on the blue links to policies and guidelines in this message and read them. They're meant for your information.
Finally, please consider replying below this message so that I know you've seen it. (Even though you're currently blocked, you can still edit this page.) Bishonen | talk 21:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC).[reply]

March 2014[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at September 11 attacks ‎. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. 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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 19:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm Denisarona. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Ingolstadt because it did not appear constructive. 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. Thanks! Denisarona (talk) 09:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Adam Weishaupt, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:26, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notification[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding your sockpuppet accounts and unresponsive editing. The thread is Unresponsive and uncooperative fringe editor takes to sockpuppetry. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GreatTruth123. Thank you. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Illuminati[edit]

I notice a lot of your edits are changing the description of "the Illuminati" "the Bavarian Illuminati" and "the Order of the Illuminati" to just "Illuminati". These edits have, by and large, been reverted by other, presumably equally well intentioned editors. If you wish to make these changes again, you will need to get agreement at the talk pages of the articles concerned, or in some other central forum. Otherwise you are wasting your own time and other peoples.

As you can imagine, this sort of thing happens often, and we have a policy "Bold, revert, discuss" which means that after a bold' edit has been reverted it needs to be discussed.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:32, 12 May 2014 (UTC).

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as shown at sockpuppet investigations, and generally not being here to improve Wikipedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Atama頭 22:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]