User talk:Livebymyheart

July 2012
Your addition to Psalms has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:18, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without verifying permission. You have been previously warned that this is against policy, but have persisted. 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. Toddst1 (talk) 15:38, 12 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Please read up on Wikipedia policies about edit warring and encyclopedic style, as agreed among Wikipedia's editors and documented in the Manual of Style. Otherwise, you may end up blocked again. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with Sarek. I reverted your edits this evening because of issues with the tone and style: the text does not read like an encyclopedia article. —C.Fred (talk) 02:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Psalms
Hello! I removed your recent addition to the article Psalms as it did not cite any sources, and appears to be original research. Please use the links on the welcome message above to read about reliable sources and our other content policies. Thank you for your efforts to contribute. I look forward to your future additions to the Wikipedia project. --Tgeairn (talk) 03:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have responded to the message you left for User:Fraggle81 at User talk:Fraggle81. Thank you, Tgeairn (talk) 05:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Psalms, you may be blocked from editing. ''If you would like to discuss the article then please use its talk page. If you have an issue with another editor then please use their talk page. The article is not the place to leave comments.'' Fraggle81 (talk) 03:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Psalms, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ''Once again please use the appropriate place for your comments. '' Fraggle81 (talk) 03:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Fraggle81 (talk) 05:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Article talk pages
Hi Livebymyheart,

Do you know that articles have talk pages? You can use them to discuss changes to an article and come to a consensus. For example, you may be interested in Talk:Psalms.

Yaris678 (talk) 12:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Adding reference on wiki articles
Hello Livebymyheart! Please do not forget to add references from reliable sources for the content you add to Wikipedia. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Adding a well formatted references is very easy to do. This will add a well formatted reference that would be helpful in case the website link (web URL) becomes inactive (dead/link rot) after some time. You can read more about it on Help:Edit toolbar or see this video File:RefTools.ogv. thanks and regards -- D Big X ray  17:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) While editing any article or a wikipage, on the top of the edit window you will see a toolbar which says "cite" click on it
 * 2) Then click on "templates",
 * 3) Choose the most appropriate template and fill as many details as you can,


 * to use this message place  on User_talk

 D Big X ray  17:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, Psalms. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles, nor are such pages a forum. Thank you.  D Big X ray  17:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

September 2012
Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you.  MrOllie (talk) 18:58, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * MrOllie: Before deleting something, it would be courteous and worthwhile to communicate with the author and be precise in your objections, allowing him/her to change it. Especially when claiming an article is not following a neutral point of view which is a subjective judgment. Accordingly, I cannot take your objections seriously but must assume you have other motives. That is reinforced by deleting legitimate links that provide Wikipedia readers with important information such as Christian Translations, Jewish Translations or Non-denominational translations. I realize, of course, that in the long run you will win any dispute about content, but know at least you earn no respect by the manner in whichyou acted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Livebymyheart (talk • contribs)
 * That is not how Wikipedia editing works. Now that your changes have been reverted, it is up to you to go to the talk page and make a case for them. Before you do that, please do read the guidelines on external links and conflict of interest, as well as the one on point of view, since you seem to be including references to a book you wrote and adding external links to a web site you are associated with. Thanks. - MrOllie (talk) 14:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * MrOllie I stand by my earlier comments about courtesy regardless of how "Wikipedia works." 1000 Editors can revert a Contribution for 1000 different reasons, so the burden should be on the "reverter" not the "contributor" to justify with specifics any potentisl action taken. In this case, you could have easily and voluntarily informed me what about my article was "not neutral" prior to reverting it. (You may as well revert the WHOLE section on psalms as none of it is neutral; for example the psalms from the Jewish, Christian and Moslem viewpoint can hardly be considered neutral, but no one has reverted those texts.) But as a trial ballon, since I don't want to waste time justifying what to me is obvious, let's dispense with the outside links and references--which are to my book and website [I may or may not revisit that later with dozens of examples where that is prevalent on Wikipedia--and justified, since the author of a book on a topic would have far more expertise than almost any editor.) and focus on the "Overview" section I coded. I am not a mind-reader so specifically, what in it do you object to and why? If you are truly legitimate, prove it by being specific. I'll be happy to modify the contribution or take out the offending text. Otherwise,

I'll simply conclude you have other motives and you will have won the battle, since I have no interest in fighting an opponent I cannot see or hear. Livebymyheart (talk) 09:43, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

October 2012
Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 17:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

MrOllie: Your threat is empty, because I'm effectively already excluded from editing on Wikipedia as everything I've contributed in the past about the psalms has been deleted by you and others who are far from experts for the most tenuous of reasons. Moreover, you didn't even have the courtesy of answering my previous communication seeking some sort of compromise, so I could share my knowledge of the psalms with others. So while other editors were probably well-meaning, it is clear from your behavior as well as your history, you have no interest in helping contributors but get some perverse pleasure in sabatoging their efforts. In any case, my entry was already reverted, so your communication was unnecessary and shows your true character. Best stay away from me as I have no interest in anything you have to say. Livebymyheart (talk) 02:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)