User talk:MaeveSim

July 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Adidas appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. Srobak (talk) 18:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Converse (shoe company). Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Srobak (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Cortefiel, you may be blocked from editing. See also WP:SOAP. Srobak (talk) 18:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

This is your last warning; the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Calvin Klein, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. See also WP:SOAP and WP:PROMO Srobak (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising again, as you did at Bauer Hockey, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. See also WP:NEUTRALITY WP:SOAP WP:PROMO Srobak (talk) 18:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Abercrombie & Fitch, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Srobak (talk) 18:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

ARV'ed
ARV'ed for WP:NEUTRALITY WP:SOAP WP:PROMO and WP:AGENDA Srobak (talk) 18:55, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text unblock, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Greenpeace, although often well-meaning, cannot be used as factual reliable sources. Adding possibly unfounded accusations - under s separate subheading no less - is massive non-WP:NPOV and fail the test of giving undue weight.  You were warned multiple times to stop. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 10:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * While the exact wording of some of the templates I used may not have been 100% accurate, I did include links to relevant policy articles and the spirit of what you were trying to do was very clear, despite the content. It is obvious that you have an agenda which you are trying to fulfill by blanketing numerous articles with identical text (regardless of copyright issues) of a subjective and controversial nature.  This is plainly un-necessary and does not serve in the best interest of the core foundations and purpose of WP. Any way you shape it - it boils down to soap-boxing and pushing propaganda in a venue in which it has no place. While this may not be promoting a commercial entity or product - it is still promotional in nature, hence the template. At the very worst, a re-worded and highly condensed version of this might be appropriate on the Greenpeace WP article - simply to indicate the position and actions thusfar... but anything past that wouldn't serve much purpose beyond sabre-rattling. You can read WP:NOT to get a better understanding of why that is not appropriate here. Srobak (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2011 (UTC)