User talk:Kdroya2

Welcome!
Hello Kdroya2, welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place   on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. -- MST  ☆  R   (Chat Me!) 06:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

September 2012
Hello, I'm MelbourneStar. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Exorcism, but you didn't provide a reliable source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. -- MST  ☆  R   (Chat Me!) 06:13, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

January 2019
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Grundy, Virginia, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Natureium (talk) 22:44, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Same with Grundy Senior High School. It's not up to you to determine who's notable and who's not. In fact, we have an easy way to decide on inclusion or exclusion: whether the person has a Wikipedia article. That's it. Drmies (talk) 22:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Natureium (talk) 23:04, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This argument is too difficult for a dumb person like me to follow. Here is the dumb version, which I can still comprehend: a. people (subjects) are notable (that is, "deserve" an article) if secondary sources prove they are, basically. b. if they have an article, they can be listed. The rest is just so much chatter. Make one such edit again and I will block you: you are obviously editing against consensus. Drmies (talk) 23:07, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello
I notice you seem to be jolly upset with me, and that you've managed to get yourself into quite a spot of bother today. I did indeed delete your article on Education in the Health Professions. The reason why the article you created was deleted was simply down to the way you wrote that article, not because (as you erroneously state) I think every academic journal listed on Wikipedia should be removed. You wrote the article in a way which makes it sound/read as an advertisement, encouraging people to submit papers for the journal (you linked to the Instructions to Authors submissions page) and go on to state at the end of your article The mix of content experts both in education and health profession disciplines help ensure only the most innovative, high impact and useful articles are published. What I can do, as I'm such a terribly nice person, is copy the page back into your sandbox and allow you to edit it further. If that's something of interest to you, just let me know (I'll keep an eye out for you replying here over the next day or two). If there are other articles on journals here written in the same way as your article, please do let me know and I'll come along and tidy them up as you suggest. The information in yours and all such articles should be restricted to an encyclopedic description of the journal - what it is, who uses it, etc. No article on a journal should read as if it's trying to encourage submissions from readers here on Wikipedia. Hope this advice helps. Nick (talk) 23:21, 24 January 2019 (UTC)