User talk:Internetspace

September 2016
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. While we appreciate that you enjoy using Wikipedia, please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a social network. Wikipedia is not a place to socialize or do things that are not directly related to improving the encyclopedia, as you did at Steven St. Croix. Off-topic material may be deleted at any time. We're sorry if this message has discouraged you from editing here, but the ultimate goal of this website is to build an encyclopedia (please see What Wikipedia is not for further details). Thank you. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:31, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Steven St. Croix. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Warning is in regard to this edit:  -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Why?

Inappropriate edits to Steven St. Croix
Hi Internetspace. You have already been reverted a few times with the edit you are inserting into Steven St. Croix. The edit is inappropriate for a few reasons. First, it adds material without including any citations to reliable, secondary and independent sources that verify the content being added. Wikipedia runs on sourcing. Second, sourcing standards in articles on living persons are much stricter and more important to get right. Third, the tenor of your addition is all personal opinion, which has no place whatever in an encyclopedia article. Fourth, you have been reverted a number of different times, and you keep returning the edit which is the path to edit warring. Wikipedia runs on consensus. When you are reverted, you don't just keep returning material, but rather you discuss the appropriateness of the edit. See e.g., the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Please Consider this a final warning, to not return the edit again without discussion and consensus for its inclusion (which will not be achieved unless it has great sourcing, and is written quite differently). If you do so you may be blocked without further discussion. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 19:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)