User talk:FedtotheGhouls

Welcome!

Hello, FedtotheGhouls, 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 edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may be removed if they have not yet been. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to 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. As well, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

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 have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  The Old Jacobite The '45  00:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

September 2012
Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Ghouls in popular culture. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.  The Old Jacobite The '45  13:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

October 2012
Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Ghouls in popular culture. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.  The Old Jacobite The '45  14:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Ghouls in popular culture, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.  The Old Jacobite The '45  12:36, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for repeatedly adding unsourced material to Wikipedia and not responding to attempts to discuss. Wikipedia does not allow editors to publish original research--that is, you can't draw your own conclusions about ghouls, zombies, etc., and add then to WP articles. Instead, you need to find reliable sources to verify what you wish to add. Additionally, when other editors revert you, you need to discuss the matter on article talk pages. As long as you're willing to agree to start editing collaboratively and with verified sources, you can be unblocked early. 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 below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:56, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Zombie, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. -- Doniago (talk) 16:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Ghouls in popular culture, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.  The Old Jacobite The '45  13:05, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for continuation of the same behavior that got you blocked last time. Please read WP:OR during your 1 week block. If you don't understand how it works, please ask here on your talk page. If you resume the same behavior after this block expires, you'll be reblocked for much longer. 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 below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Undead (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Phantom, Wraith and Spectre


 * Ghouls in popular culture (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Tales from the Crypt

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ghouls in popular culture, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Daemon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Content requires appropriate sources
I have reverted your recent edits to Ghouls in popular culture. You did not provide any reliable third party sources to support the claims. Wikipedia is not a repository of stuff that I saw, it is an encyclopedia and the content needs to be more than a trivial list of "Hey lookey, I seen it here!

Using google.books.com you can probably find appropriate sources that will verify content that is appropriate for the article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  14:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I see that you have previously been blocked multiple times for the same offence previously. If you do not learn from short term blocks, you will eventually be permanently blocked. Consider this your FINAL WARNING before you are blocked again. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  15:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

February 2013
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for continuing the same addition of unsourced info that I blocked you for previously. Since you have not changed your behavior, and you have not even once tried to talk to another editor despite prior blocks and numerous warnings, I have to block you indefinitely to protect the encyclopedia. Now, indefinite does not mean forever: if you can explain here what was wrong with your previous editing, and explain how you will edit differently in the future, you can be unblocked. But until you make such a commitment to follow Wikipedia rules, you cannot edit. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)