User talk:Correct-corrections

August 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Versa geek  05:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Dpmuk (talk) 21:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 72.78.226.95 (talk) 23:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Why my edits are being deleted? Why are you threatening?
Are you 100% certain about all the facts in Wikipedia?


 * I've mainly been involved with your edits to Weight loss so I comment fist on these edits.


 * These two edits and  looked like advertising or spam and so violated wikipedia's spam policy (see WP:SPAM) and this is the reason for your first two warnings.  In general it's a bad idea to just reintroduce something that you've been warned about without discussing on the article's talk page or at the very least making an edit summary comment of why it should stay.


 * I suspect that this edit was reverted as it seemd to be the start of introducing the same spam.  Without your previous history it probably wouldn't have been reverted so quickly.


 * Personally I think the warning you recieved for this edit was unjutsified as I'd have assumed good faith (WP:AGF) and just reverted as redundant without the warning.  I suspect that the warning was given because of your previous edits.  Also see my comment on Human skin colour below as this warning may have been added for that edit as well (although again I think unjustifably).


 * As for your edits to Archaic period in Greece I suspect these were reverted because, at least in my opinion, they result in a sentence that doesn't make much sense. I'd probably have used something along the lines of 'The archaic period in Greece (750 BC – 480 BC) is a period of Ancient Greek history during which Greece was a small part of the Persian empire'.  It still may have got deleted as I'm not sure it's relevant or should be included in the first paragraph but you'd have been more likely to get a reason in the edit response.  That said people are quite picky on the first paragraph of articles and as wikipedia works on the consensus theory you should be prepared for people to rever changes you make if several editors are happy with the current form (see WP:Consensus).  The fact that three seperate editors reverted your changes suggest to me that the consensus is that the article is better without your addition.  (A note on this comment - I've assumed good faith on your part and that Greece actually was part of the Persian empire at this time and that this fact is commonly accpeted - it's not my area so I've no idea if it's true or not.  If this is not the case the editors were correctly reverted as vandalism).


 * As for your Human skin colour edits it's identified in the edit logs as vandalism (see ) and vandalism is a valid reason to revert. Personally I don't think it's vandalism so you'd have to ask the reverter on their talk page why they thought it was (although as an IP editor you may not get a response).  That said I have my doubts about whether it should be in the article but that's a seperate question to whether it's vandalism and whether you should be warned for it.


 * In respsone to your "Are you 100% certain about all the facts in Wikipedia" question. No. I'm not 100% certain but it is an aim of wikipedia that all facts are verifable (see WP:V) - any facts that aren't true are only there because they haven't been spotted yet.


 * In short I'd check you edits through a bit more to make sure the sentences you're changing still make sense and that you're not introducing spam. Hopefully then you're less likely to be reverted although I think, at least with the weight loss article, mnay people will now revert you quicker than they'd revert other people due to you edit history.  If you want to make constructive edits stick to it and people will start to ignore your earlier disruptive edits.  It's also worth pointing out that it's only luck that I noticed this question on your talk page.  The best place to ask questions of a specific user is on their talk page and in this case more general questions should probably go here: WP:EAR.


 * If you have any questions I may be able to help with please feel free to post on my talk page. Hope this has been of some use. Dpmuk (talk) 12:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)