User talk:Etrata93

January 2014
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Unconditionally, but we cannot accept original research. Original research 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. Thank you.  Gloss •  talk  16:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, please do not insert biased claims such as calling a charting "disappointing". While fans might be disappointed that it didn't reach the top 10 in Billboard Hot 100, it doesn't really belong in the article as it is a personal opinion. Wikipedia's policies oppose including bias in articles. You could possibly quote a reviewer of the song who felt its charting was disappointing, which would require a source. Please do not just simply call it "disappointing" unless perhaps it is contained within a quote and cited. Thank you. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 17:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Unconditionally. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. —Josh3580talk/hist 20:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Unconditionally, you may be blocked from editing.  Gloss •  talk  21:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. The block is for disruptive editing. Please work with your fellow editors rather than edit warring to your preferred content. Also please read WP:3rr. Vsmith (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

You were warned plenty. Look up on your talk page.  Gloss •  talk  22:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Stay out of this. It's between me and the abusive admin. Etrata93 (talk) 17:40, January 27, 2014


 * There is no abusive admin. You engaged in an edit war and continued to do the wrong thing after multiple editors reverted you and told you to stop. The block was warranted and you will not be receiving an unblock.  Gloss •  talk  22:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course you will say there's no abusive admin. After all, you're either one of them or a puppet. Yes anyone can ediot, they shouldn't be banned just because they are trying to help a site.


 * To echo what my colleague stated above, I suggest you refrain from telling other editors to "Unconditionally: It's a disappointment. Quit editing on the page.", as you did here, or to tell other editors to "stay out of this", as you did above. Wikipedia allows any editor in good standing to edit any page they wish, or to participate in whatever discussion they wish. No one editor has the authority to dictate otherwise, and such behavior will only result in more and longer blocks if it persists. Please see Clean start. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 23:15, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 02:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)