User talk:OrangeWikiAdder

February 2020
Hello, I'm 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello, OrangeWikiAdder. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:


 * avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
 * propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the request edit template);
 * disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Conflict of interest);
 * avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
 * do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you use Wikipedia for promotion or advertising. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Peter Saville (psychologist), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. —— SN  54129  18:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Peter Saville (psychologist), you may be blocked from editing. S0091 (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Peter Saville (psychologist). 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 lose their editing privileges. 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 result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. —— SN  54129  20:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi user [User:2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63|2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63]]. I apologise. I was hoping to simply restore it to how it was this time yesterday... but sadly whoever has punished me for adding a couple of additional lines + an additional reference has now removed around 75% of the content that was there prior to my edit. That seems very unfair and a punitive measure that goes far beyond simply advising me as a novice editor.
 * Hi OrangeWikiAdder, you are not being punished but your edits called attention to a much bigger issue which is now being addressed. I think the best approach is to start a discussion on the article's talk page at this point.  Certainly all the content you are trying to restore will not be restored as most of it it is unsourced and promotional.  However, through consensus there is some possibility that some content, granted significantly trimmed and reworded, might be restored (no promises).  What would really help this article is neutral content/language and reliable sources.  If you are interested  in the same then some progress may be made.  It would be helpful for you to declare any conflict of interest you may have. S0091 (talk) 22:08, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Certainly feels punitive. I believe all I amended was a couple of lines and updated a link or two. Next time I visit, the page has lost over 75% of its content. Peter founded an entire industry and has many tens of thousands of people who have benefited directly or indirectly through his work in psychometrics - in helping create the field of modern occupational psychology. He's spoken at events all over the world and I thought the article was full of references and internal/external links - useful for students who study his work. It's difficult for novice contributors or editors to know what is and isn't doable/editable. I thought it had a good balance. I'll leave it now and hope perhaps at least some of it gets restored at some point down the line by a contributor who better understands wikipedia. I'm sorry for any inconvenience caused.
 * Yes to what wrote. You also received warnings for promotional edits to other articles, all on behalf of Mr. Saville. In addition to the obvious concerns over COI, your edit history and user name suggest an association with . Feel free to shed light on any other accounts you may have used. Thank you, 2601:188:180:B8E0:9587:6555:466B:361D (talk) 23:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

February 2022
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Drmies (talk) 17:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)