User talk:1prada

October 2014
Hello, I'm McGeddon. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person   on Derren Brown, 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. McGeddon (talk) 09:05, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Derren Brown. Thank you. McGeddon (talk) 09:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Materialscientist (talk) 09:35, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Derren Brown.  Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 11:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

hello the edit was def not a mistake. His relationship is over with that person as there is someone else involved. How do you wish to receive reliable info if this is not good enough? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1prada (talk • contribs) 13:25, 29 October 2014‎


 * Try clicking some of the blue links that say "poorly referenced", in the multiple warnings that you ignored above. --McGeddon (talk) 13:29, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for persistently adding unsourced content about a living person, despite numerous messages telling you that doing so was unacceptable. Apart from Wikipedia's specific policy on biographies of living persons, there is also the more general policy that any content which is challenged or questioned by one or more editors must not be restored without providing a reliable source. You must have got your information from somewhere, so you must be able to tell us where you got it. If you got it from a reliable source, then there will be no problem with restoring the content that you added, but if it isn't, then it was a mistake posting it, and it must be left out. I suggest that you look at the guidelines Citing sources and Identifying reliable sources Also, repeating any kind of edit over and over again when one or more other editors have reverted it is contrary to Wikipedia's policy on edit-warring. Once someone has expressed disagreement with an edit, please don't just repeat your preferred edit, in the hope that eventually others will give up and you will get your way. Instead, explain the reasons for your edit, and be prepared to discuss the issues involved, with a view to trying to reach agreement. 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:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:56, 29 October 2014 (UTC)