User talk:Dmohr123

Welcome!

Hello, Dmohr123, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Jim1138 (talk) 21:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

March 2012
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Alcoholics Anonymous, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted (undone) by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
 * Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place " " on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Alcoholics Anonymous was changed by Dmohr123 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.937719 on 2012-03-08T19:58:53+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 19:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Alcoholics Anonymous. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Alcoholics Anonymous
By all means add such information. However, it needs to be reliably sourced (why I removed it). Please do not use original research wp:or. Please see wp:rs and wp:citing sources. Make sure that the information is presented appropriately for an encyclopedia. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 20:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Alcoholics Anonymous has been reverted. Your edit here to Alcoholics Anonymous was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://stevil-speaks.blogspot.com/view/mosaic?z) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, fansite, or similar site (see 'Links to avoid', #11), then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest). If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 20:20, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Alcoholics Anonymous 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 as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because 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 before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Your edit here to Alcoholics Anonymous was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://stevil-speaks.blogspot.com/view/mosaic?z(Not) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, fansite, or similar site (see 'Links to avoid', #11), then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest). If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

AA
Robot got you. Blogs are really not a reliable source. Probably should avoid statements such as "so please consider all of your options before diving into a program like AA" Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * One book "Alcoholics Anonymous Cult or Cure?" by Charles Bufe Jim1138 (talk) 20:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree on what you are doing. However, if your edits are poorly cited or written (especially in contentious articles) they will likely get removed.  Just trying to help even if it is frustrating for both of us.  (just looked and you were reverted again).  Might want to put your proposed changes in talk:Alcoholics Anonymous, get opinions, then move it to AA.  Stuff like this can be very trying on a newcomer.  There are many people out there who will help.  If you have any questions, please leave a message on my talk. Jim1138 (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You might take a look at other articles of a similar nature or which are contentious to see what is being done. Another might be an article on "effectiveness of alcohol rehabilitation programs" which you could add a link to from AA.  (I have heard of studies on this).  Also, try to get others to cooperate on this talk:Alcoholics Anonymous and try to keep potential allies on your side.  Some seem to take a confrontational attitude loosing support from others. Jim1138 (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you please add a web link to your edits? Use  Put the ref on the point where you want the reference number[1] to appear the citation will appear at the bottom of the page (if a  has been placed there).  Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 23:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dmohr123! Drop by the Teahouse anytime!

 * Hi again Derek, it's nice to see that you visited the Teahouse! However, you visited the talk page of the Teahouse, if you want to discuss Wikipedia, please come to the question-asking page of the project. We look forward to talking with you. heather walls (talk) 22:50, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

3RR
Welcome to WP, and the AA page. We are not a forum to argue AA. Also, editing is done by consensus. Repeated reverts, such the 3 you have done today, are guaranteed to have you blocked. If you revert again, I or someone else will file an WP:ANI WP:3RR (this could be done now and will be blocked. Other editors have had this happen, including myself, and have gone to be valuable contributors to WP who have learned that civil disagreements are possible. I hope the same for you. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 02:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Alcoholics Anonymous with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. Tb hotch .™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions.  02:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * We are not a WP:BATTLEGROUND, we are about verifiability and consensus, not truth. Any editor who can't accept that, needs to find another outlet. And for the third and final time, WP is not a WP:SOAPBOX. Please read the policy, has more to say than this following except which says WP is not where we write...
 * Opinion pieces. Although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (for example, passionately advocate their pet point of view), Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. However, Wikipedia's sister project Wikinews allows commentaries on its articles.and we are not about truth.
 * We are very experienced, and indulgent to a point with obstinate editors; don't become one. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 06:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, not that indulgent. A total of 14 reverts! You may want to address admins regarding this. It has been reported as edit warring at [

You have been blocked from editing for a short time for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Kuru  (talk)  12:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Please fill out our brief Teahouse survey!
Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts and staff at Wikipedia:Teahouse would like your feedback! We have created a brief survey meant to help us better understand the experience of new editors on Wikipedia. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you either received an invitation to visit the Teahouse, or edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests page.

Click here to be taken to the survey site.

The survey should take less than 10 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback, and we look forward to your next vist to the Teahouse!

Happy editing,

J-Mo, Teahouse host, 15:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Message sent with Global message delivery.