User talk:Ashrald522

July 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Gerald Anderson has been reverted. Your edit here to Gerald Anderson was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://geraldanders.multiply.com/) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 09:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

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 Gerald Anderson 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. Thank you. Blake Gripling (talk) 10:35, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Gerald Anderson edits
Please do not continue to restore your edit to Gerald Anderson, it is problematic for several reasons. First, you are removing valid clean-up templates without resolving the issues outlined in the templates. Second, you are introducing non-neutral and unsourced content to the article. Per WP:BRD, I suggest you discuss your proposed changes on the article talk page and gain consensus for the changes you would like to make. Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 16:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. 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 text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Materialscientist (talk) 22:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Gerald Anderson. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Blake Gripling (talk) 00:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for continued disruption despite multiple warnings and a previous block for the same behaviour. 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 below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 03:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Gerald Anderson. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Blake Gripling (talk) 00:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing. You have been blocked previously for continuing to add unsourced content to articles and refusing to discuss any concerns raised by other editors. I can't see how any time limited block would make any difference, so this block will remain until you are able to commit to 1) including sources for the edits you make to biography articles and 2) acknowledging other editors when they express concerns regarding your edits. I think that seeking a mentor if you choose to edit collaboratively would be a sound choice. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 03:56, 14 July 2012 (UTC)