User talk:Jilga

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:43, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources
Thank you for your message on my user talk page. I apologise for not dropping you a message the first time I reverted your edits; I intended to do so but apparently that edit failed to be saved. Please take a moment to look at Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. All information in Wikipedia articles have to be attributable to reliable sources, and the information you added to Viral marketing has no reliable source. The reference you added is an article which clearly does not meet the reliable sources policy - needless to say I checked the link before removing it :-) The source article is a promotional text which does not in fact verify the claim made in the Wikipedia article, and which is written by the person itself, which means that it is a self-published source. Self-published sources are not appropriate in Wikipedia articles. In addition, your edit contained promotional language ("engaged the entire youtube comunity") which should always be avoided unles it is a direct quote from a reliable third-party source. Please also have a look at the types of websites that should not be linked from Wikipedia articles. Thanks very much! --bonadea contributions talk 13:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

December 2012
Your recent editing history at Viral marketing 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. Favonian (talk) 13:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. ''

Please take a moment to look at the information provided about reliable sources. You will find that YouTube is specifically mentioned as not being a reliable source. Please also respect Wikipedia's policies about neutral point of view; your edits are repeatedly inserting non-neutral language, as discussed above. bonadea'' contributions talk 13:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

A couple of other notes: it may seem a bit weird at first that an expert's opinions and edits do not per definition carry greater weight than the edits of an editor who does not know anything about a subject. But that's how Wikipedia works, simply because everything is supposed to be verifiable in reliable sources that are independent. I know that it can seem like Wikipedia is all about the rules and impossible hoops to jump through for new editors. I'm sorry if that's the impression you are getting. But it is really important that all the information that our readers see is verifiable, so any reader can go to the source and check for themselves - and that the sources are reliable. We're creating this encyclopedia for the readers, not for the editors, after all.

I recommend that you visit the new editors support forum if you have questions or further comments, because there's a lot of people in that forum who are pretty good at explaining Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Please also note that there is no hierarchy among Wikipedia editors - nobody is a "supervisor" or "more entitled" to edit than anybody else. --bonadea contributions talk 13:50, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on Viral marketing. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. bonadea contributions talk 13:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule&#32;at Viral marketing. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Favonian (talk) 13:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)