User talk:CG Resident


 * }

January 2012
Your addition to Cottage Grove, Oregon has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. tedder (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Cottage Grove changes
Hi- I've cleaned up some of your recent contributions to Cottage Grove, Oregon. While you appear to be proud of Cottage Grove (which is great), information on Wikipedia should be presented from a neutral point of view, taking care to give citations from verifiable, reliable sources when it is prudent. The article does need expansion, though. The following might be a good resource to help you with expanding it: WikiProject Cities/US Guideline. Certainly one area that has been flagged for improvement for over 3 years is the history section. It needs citations to support the information presented in it. tedder (talk) 03:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I have removed excess external links. Please review the external links guideline for appropriate content.  Imagine how many links Portland would have if using your approach!  —EncMstr (talk) 16:32, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi CG Resident. Please read the links other editors have provided above about how to engage and make successful edits to a Wikipedia article. You have some great information, but a lot of the material doesn't belong in an encyclopedia in its current form and needs links to reliable sources. Please discuss here, or on the Cottage Grove talk page. Continuing to add the same information over and over, especially without discussing, is disruptive. Thanks! --Esprqii (talk) 20:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * CG Resident, I have added many useful links for successful Wikipedia editing to the top of this page. Please spend a few hours reading about the philosophy, purpose, and goals of Wikipedia.  The Five Pillars is a great place to start.  This will quickly make it apparent why adding the external links you are is a problem.  Thanks, —EncMstr (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Please do not continue adding content to the Cottage Grove article that is unsourced and is not neutral, as you did here. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia with verifiable content that's written in a neutral way, as described in the Five Pillars that EncMstr mentioned above. Jsayre64   (talk)  03:16, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at Cottage Grove, Oregon. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to 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. tedder (talk) 03:46, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

February 2012
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for a failure to communicate and continuing to edit war, as you did at Cottage Grove, Oregon. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. tedder (talk) 18:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note you've been blocked indefinitely, which is different than being blocked forever. You control the length of the block; read the notes above to see why your edits have been problematic. Then follow the instructions to unblock and explain what you'll do differently (hint: it involves communicating with others!). tedder (talk) 18:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I reverted your edits to Cottage Grove, Oregon because they introduce signficant material without citing a reliable source, required by our verifiability policy. You had previously introduced much of this same content which was reverted nine days ago with the explanation moving entirely unsourced history section to the talk page at which point you should have joined the discussion there rather than add the content again, especially without explanation. Re-adding properly challenged and removed content is edit warring. Failing to provide edit summary explanations, and failing to contribute to discussion on talk pages is disruptive editing.

Please note that being blocked and the trouble of repeatedly adding material could have been avoided simply by having a discussion with other editors. Much of the content you have added appears valuable, and would be welcome if only there were minimalcitations, or at least hints (on the talk page, inline comments, or even in edit summaries) to find sources. Other editors often contribute in this way, building upon material written by another editor. Properly cited material is actively defended from removal. If you decide to contribute again, please bear this in mind. —EncMstr (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Note that the unsourced history section existed long before CG Resident started editing, but replacing it implies (I am assuming good faith here) an ignorance or misunderstanding of how page histories, edit summaries, and/or talk pages work, despite several messages on this page. CG Resident needs to read all the material contained in the various bluelinks on this page, including the page history of the Cottage Grove page--this would help explain why "someone" removed the history section in the first place. As the main editor interested in maintaining the page, I am entirely willing to help CG Resident work on the article if s/he would learn to collaborate with us. You don't have to know all the layout, formatting, or referencing tricks to edit the article, and we can help with that as long as you are willing to read and understand why some of your edits are being challenged. Also note that though there are many articles that have not had the chance to be brought up to this standard, the guidelines at WP:USCITY show how the section titles and content should be laid out. Finally, it is important to remember that although city articles contain things that might be of interest to tourists or people wishing to relocate, Wikipedia is not here to provide a place for boosterism. I hope this helps explain. Valfontis (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)