User talk:CH-BUESI

April 2019
Hello, I'm Zefr. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Hippophae have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Zefr (talk) 15:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * On my talk page, you said: "I merely wished to add a source. The content was in no way advertising, - I don't think people check wikipedia to shop for shower gel! As such the addition was most certainly not spam! I don't think it was at all appropriate to label it as such. The idea was to add an example of how it is used. Perhaps you can suggest an alternative way of going about this. Would it be appropriate or acceptable to add a picture of the shower gel instead?"
 * I understand your point, but please don't use commercial websites as a source. The encyclopedia needs a WP:SECONDARY source, meaning a news report or review articles discussing the products made from seabuckthorn, as an example here or here, although something more recent would be better. --Zefr (talk) 16:22, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation. CH-BUESI (talk) 16:26, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Martha Cope, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page St. Pancras ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Martha_Cope check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Martha_Cope?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

April 2019
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Hermes Group. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. —— SerialNumber  54129  11:32, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You are persistently adding unsourced material to articles. You are also making other non-constructive changes to bios regarding the names of the subjects. If you continue to do this, you risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at David Schofield (actor) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Praxidicae (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Praxidicae (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

You saw that I was trying hard. You didn't like the edits and so set out to destroy me, which I now see you have done by closing my account. I really don't understand how this is allowed or how people like you can do that to others. Cyber-bullying though, what you have clearly just done to me, in any case, is shameful and always wrong. CH-BUESI (talk) 18:13, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Apparently you've temporarily lost the ability to read, but this is your block reason: 17:53, 29 April 2019 Bbb23 (talk | contribs) blocked CH-BUESI (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (: Abusing multiple accounts: Please see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dopenguins)
 * You'll note, it doesn't state "blocked because Praxidicae is a big mean internet bully." WP:GAB is something you should be familiar with, though.🙃 Praxidicae (talk) 18:33, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I have positively no idea what any of all that written about the reason for the block means and am in no means familiar with your link. As for not being able to read, you see, you are still not content with the account closure, you continue to kick someone who is down by adding further insults. I really don't understand how this is allowed or how people like you can do that to others. Cyber-bullying though, what you have clearly just done to me, in any case, is shameful and always wrong. What I do know is that I am extremely despondent that there are people like you out there who set out to destroy others who are clearly in a weaker position. CH-BUESI (talk) 18:49, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't know how they can tell who is abusing multiple accounts and who don't, but cyber-bullying is also illegal now in some states, as I aware.--Biografer (talk) 18:56, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Where do multiple accounts come into it though? Are they saying that I am supposed to have another account? I saw that, but didn't think anything of it, as I was threatened several times that the account would be closed for trying to add useful information (see my edits). I asked for help but was merely stamped on and then the account was closed. I don't know why this has happened, nor do I know how this can even be allowed. I thought the site was for everyone. Clearly it isn't. Here newcomers are obviously not welcome, which is absurd as everyone has to start somewhere. I'm really despondent about this, it's so destructive. CH-BUESI (talk) 19:09, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Talk page access revoked.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Aileen Armitage has been accepted
 Aileen Armitage, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Missvain (talk) 20:41, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Aileen_Armitage help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.