User talk:CharlieMichelsen

Welcome!
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Simplified Manual of Style


 * Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:
 * Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
 * Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
 * Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
 * No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
 * If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to [ do so].
 * Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
 * Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Doug Weller talk 19:31, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Changing sourced text
At Liberty GB you changed sourced text making it appear that your text was in the source. Please don't do this again. Doug Weller talk 19:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Please take a moment to learn how to edit constructively in Wikipedia before you edit again. Thanks Ground Zero &#124; t 19:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016
Hello, I'm Kaobear. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Liberty GB— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Kaobear (talk) 19y:57, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Charlie, your edits violate Wikipedia policies. If you do that again, you will be blocked from editing. Please heed the warnings you've been given. Ground Zero &#124; t 20:15, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Please refrain from making nonconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Liberty GB with this edit. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Kaobear (talk) 20:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

And so that we are clear, a Facebook page is never considered to be a reliable source, but The Independent is. See WP:RS. Ground Zero &#124; t 20:20, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Liberty GB. RA 0808 talkcontribs 20:22, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I have blocked you from editing for a few hours to stop your edit warring. If you return to this behaviour, you will be blocked for a longer period, and could be blocked permanently. Please review Wikipedia policies. Thank you. Ground Zero &#124; t 20:24, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Liberty GB shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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 your 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. Doug Weller talk 20:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Your accusations about far left editors
Although I've only seen the bit of your email that Notifications shows (if you use Yahoo it won't get throughout) it's obvious that you are making nonsense claims to support your editwarring and violation of our policies and guidelines. User:Ground Zero may have been too optimistic. However bad your politics may be, if you are blocked again it won't be for that but for your behavior. Doug Weller talk 21:22, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Requiring that edits to an encyclopaedia article be based on information from a reliable source is neither left-wing nor right-wing. It's just Wikipedia policy. Ground Zero &#124; t 22:03, 23 June 2016 (UTC)