User talk:Disinformation Corrector

Welcome!
Hello, Disinformation Corrector, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to  The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Introduction tutorial
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need personal help ask me on my talk page, or. Again, welcome. -- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:33, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

February 2022
Hello, I'm Maylingoed. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Julien Blanc—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. mAyLiNgOeEd  (Talk to me!🗣) (See what else I did on Wikipedia!!📜)  23:19, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, have you had a look at my edits for Julien Blanc's page? What exactly do you find objectionable about them?

Your recent editing history at Julien Blanc 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Kinu t/c 23:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your image was inserted successfully on the page Dougie Smith, but because it appeared to be irrelevant to the article or violated the image use policy, it has been reverted or removed. Please use your sandbox for any tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. --*Fehufangą ♮ ✉ Talk page ♮ 02:05, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I'm 331dot. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Owen Jones seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 21:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Biographies of living persons
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons. Thank you.-- Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:33, 11 February 2022 (UTC)


 * You may want to take a look at this chart of some sources by reliability. Skarmory   (talk •   contribs)  06:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Pending changes
Your recent edits to the Peter Hitchens were pended because the article is protected, either to prevent vandalism or edit warring. I have reviewed your edits and decided to revert as "not an improvement". The lede of an article here is a summary of the content of the body. Editors should take particular care to improve the prose and in most cases the lede does not need citations since the content is cited in the body. Please consider editing articles that are not PC protected to gain experience. — N eonorange (talk to Phil) (he, they) 13:11, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

March 2022
Please read both WP:DAILYMAIL and Daily Mail. This newspaper is not a reliable source. Do not use it as a reference on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 23:31, 15 March 2022 (UTC)