User talk:Henrymark20

Editing philosophy

 * Notability: Not everything that is worthy is also notable, and the other way around. If there exist no good sources on a subject, then it should not have an article on Wikipedia. Even if sources exist, an article is still not justified if there is no encyclopedic information. For instance, if all we can say about a certain person is that she likes coffee and cookies, sings hymns, and lived a long time, then any useful information is better contained in a list.
 * Be brief. Don't use 300 words if you can say the same thing in 30. This is not about removing information, this is about presenting information.
 * Not everything that can be sourced merits inclusion. Don't include trivial stuff, this is an encyclopedia, not Facebook. Even if, for example, we would have sourced information that Einstein preferred his coffee with two lumps of sugar, that is not encyclopedic information that in any way increases our understanding of him. This means that existing text often needs pruning and rewriting.
 * Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promoting your company/journal/band/etc. Articles should be encyclopedic, meaning that articles should be presented in a neutral way. Words such as "famous", "renowned", "foremost", etc. rarely have a place in an encyclopedic article. Hence, our Einstein article starts with "Albert Einstein was a German-born theoretical physicist", not "Albert Einstein was the most famous scientist ever", even though one certainly will be able to find reliable sources saying so.
 * Deletion/Inclusion. I don't see myself as an inclusionist or a deletionist. Everything depends on the sources. If there are good sources, then an article should be written. If there are no good sources, then an article should be deleted.

Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts
Randykitty (talk) 18:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

April 2013
Your recent editing history at OMICS Publishing Group shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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. Drmies (talk) 19:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)