User talk:Eleanorshellstrop88

April 2022
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Sarah Bolton (physicist), did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. &#8212;CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • C • L) 09:58, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Sarah Bolton (physicist), it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. &#8212;CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • C • L) 04:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Reverted edits on Sarah Bolton (physicist)
See, I wanted to explain the undo on edit summary, but somehow managed to mis-hit the enter button and left it halfway. Sorry for that. I'd rather explain it here. So basically, we can't confirm the authenticity of your claims neither can we confirm your identity. Adding content that lacks references is generally seen as original research (prohibited on Wikipedia), no matter how well you know someone. If it is really true and is notable enough for a place on Wikipedia, it must get covered in some form of reliable secondary sources, which you can then add as a supporting citation to the claims you're making. Remember, Wikipedia has a very stringent policy on biographies of living and recently deceased persons. Changes there can have real life implications as many readers rely on Wikipedia for their information. I hope you understand. Thanks! &#8212;CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • C • L) 08:52, 26 April 2022 (UTC)


 * @Eleanorshellstrop88: Try to never disclose your identity here. NEVER. Identity disclosure may subject you to harassment online as anything you do here is publicly available to all. There has been previous instances of such. And thus, you may not want to go into that territory. See Personal security practices. Also, Wikipedia has a policy that credentials of an editor is irrelevant here. To quote "Proposals to verify as well as to reject them have both been considered and have been decided against". As already said, if something is really noteworthy for a place in Wikipedia, it should get covered in reliable secondary sources. If something isn't noteworthy enough to get covered there, it won't be noteworthy enough to get covered here. Thanks! &#8212;CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 09:08, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

May 2022
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. signed, Willondon (talk) 03:51, 8 May 2022 (UTC)


 * im done i promise, but just know u made a lot of students at the wooster very upset, u couldve at least left it for an hour and then taken it down Eleanorshellstrop88 (talk) 03:58, 8 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia isn't for inside jokes, etc. Stop it.  signed, Willondon (talk)  04:10, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. signed, Willondon (talk) 04:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)


 * sorry that ur life is so incredibly boring u can't take a joke for several hours, it must be rough being so boring and sad Eleanorshellstrop88 (talk) 04:13, 8 May 2022 (UTC)