User talk:CarolinaPete

December 2016
Hello, I'm Donner60. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Dan Hicken, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Donner60 (talk) 02:05, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Your edits on David O. McKay may be a problem
Hey, CarolinaPete! Hope all is well with you. I am somewhat concerned about your recent attempts to add a claim to the David O. McKay article about him being some kind of vampire. You have not as yet provided any source to prove the veracity of this claim. I don't know how new you may be to Wikipedia and the policies involved, but for what it may be worth, I wanted to let you know that with your continued efforts to include this material without providing a sufficient source, you may be in danger of violating another Wikipedia policy the three revert rule. Such violations, unintentional though they may be, are often subject to potential blocks for the user(s) involved. Please understand me correctly: I am not threatening you here. I have no authority to impose such a block on you, even if I wished to, which I don't. That's why one of the many reasons I probably will never become an admin here. But a violation of this policy is considered serious, and could create problems for you. I would hate for any Wikipedia user to be blocked because they were not adequately informed about policies. Additionally, I want you to know that my conduct has been questioned many times on Wikipedia. But once I had been advised of the policies I had unintentionally been violating, I tried to change my behavior to match my newfound knowledge. Knowledge is a most powerful thing. It can make or break a person. I am arming you with this knowledge to give you a chance to change for the better. I am always reluctant to report policy violations. I only ever do it when there is no other option. But Wikipedia's policies are in place for a reason, and when violations do happen, they need to be reported if behavior isn't changed. Again, I'm just letting you know what procedure is and what might happen if you choose to continue to try and include this information without a sufficient source or consensus. I suppose if anything, I really don't need to let you know all this. Your change has been reverted many times with the same explanation from a variety of editors. That should have been enough to let you know that the change you were trying to make is a problem unless and until it is sourced. You have a great opportunity to change your behavior. I hope you will make the most of it. That's all I wanted to say today. Thanks for reading this. I wish you every success for your continued Wikipedia editing. --Jgstokes (talk) 07:27, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

January 2017
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is only being used for vandalism. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. — CYBERPOWER  (Around ) 03:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation
FyzixFighter (talk) 01:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)