User talk:Lydiadavis

August 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Dakota Fanning has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. L Kensington (talk • contribs) 17:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)-- in te la ti 17:13, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry
Repeated vandalism from different IP addresses and usernames is known as sockpuppetry on Wikipedia. Sockpuppetry is one of the more egregious forms of vandalism. Wikipedia has the capability for determining whether a vandal is using different IP addresses or usernames. Not only can an editor be blocked for sockpuppetry, continued sockpuppetry will result in a permanent ban from Wikipedia. This is your only notification. Cresix (talk) 22:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

RE Fanning and Osment
''Please explain how my edits to Dakota Fanning and Haley Joel Osment's pages are vandalism. Lydiadavis (talk) 22:21, 22 August 2010 (UTC)Lydiadavis''
 * Because they have been reverted by two editors but you continue to place them in the article. There is no evidence that the author intended any similarity to the real Fanning and Osment other than the names. I could write a novel and name a character "Barack Obama", but that may be the entire extent of any similarity to Barack Obama. You need to cease edit warring and obtain a clear consensus on the articles' talk pages before restoring your edit. Cresix (talk) 22:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

''Please also explain how I have engaged in sockpuppetry. I have one Wikipedia account as far as I know. I have tried multiple times to edit the same article with relevant information, failing each time because of improper sourcing. This represents a failure of understanding, not of vandalism or sockpuppetry.''
 * I suggest not pushing this issue. If you continue I'll launch a full sockpuppetry investigation. It's a simple matter to determine if you are logging out and then editing from an anon IP. Now, everything important has been fully explained to you. Either seek consensus or drop the matter. Thank you. Cresix (talk) 22:29, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

''The fact that there is no evidence that the author intended any similarity to the real Fanning and Osment has never been cited as a reason for reverts. Reasons cited for reverts were that they were improperly cited, in all cases. ''
 * Please read my comments.  I   explained it to you. Me, Cresix. I explained it it you. In case there is any confusion, I'll say it again: There is no evidence that the author intended any similarity to the real Fanning and Osment other than the names. Now, for the last time, either seek consensus or drop the matter. Thank you. Cresix (talk) 22:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Look, the above statement about sockpuppetry is a precautionary statement because an anon IP made the very same edit you did. Since you appear to be an inexperienced editor, I placed the caution on your talk page to make you aware of the problems with sockpuppety. You can ignore it. That's up to you. But your repeatedly adding improperly source statements to articles after getting warnings is vandalism. Now, can we please move on to more important matters? Cresix (talk) 22:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:39, 22 August 2010 (UTC)