User talk:Pittpanther2004

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.

Oakland Zoo
Wikipedia has strick policies against original research. All information must be cited by verifiable sources. Because of the anonymity of Wikipedia editors, there is no way to know whether you are inserting names into the Zoo article as spam or vandalism unless they are accompanied by reliable sources. These types of spam issues exist throughout Wikipedia and thus require vigilance to maintain the integrity of the articles. Therefore, policies prohibiting original research and requiring verifiable sources are carefully enforced by the Wikipedia community at large. For Pitt-related articles, the Pitt Wikiproject works within the established Wikipedia policies and guidelines to carefully monitor Pitt-related articles in order to ensure that their content remains at a high level of reliability. We invite your participation in the Pitt Wikiproject. However, if there is no way to verify the information you are adding, it can not remain per the wider Wikipedia policy of WP:Burden and WP:OR. Until sources can be added to verify the additional "founders", only individuals named in the cited, reliable source material are appropriate for inclusion in this article. Otherwise, WP:OR is violated, and this is a primary tenant of Wikipedia. I suggest you bring the issue of additional founders to the article's discussion page (see Talk page guidelines where it could be further explored. CrazyPaco (talk) 17:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe your intentions are probably noble, and as a Wikipedia newbie you may be unfamiliar with Five pillars and other edit policies|policy and guidelines. It may also be helpful to review What Wikipedia is not. Please enter into a discussion on how the article's talk page so that we can work to improve the article. You can also contact me on my personal talk page. However, unsourced material will likely continue to be removed because these edits violate WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR; may violate WP:Vandalism, WP:NPOV, WP:COI, and with living persons, it is especially essential to be accurate with verified sourced material as to not violate WP:LIVE. You may find it helpful to review these wikipedia policies, etiquette and guidelines and I am happy to help you along. You may also want to familiarize yourself with edit warring, WP:3RR and Dispute resolution. I am happy to help, please contact me for further information. CrazyPaco (talk) 20:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I really do not want to do this, but your unwillingness to discuss the article and your insistence inserting your changes, which also removes sourced material, will leave me with no other alternative than to list your actions at the Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Please enter into a discussion about the article on its talk page before it has to come to that. CrazyPaco (talk) 19:45, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My latest removal of you edits, and restoration of your removed sourced information, is an attempt to engage you in discussion since you do not seem to be responding to messages left on your talk page, or the article's talk page. It is my hope that you respond at least to the edit summary and engage in discussion as requested. If you continue with the edit warring behavior, I will be left with no alternative than to post a notice at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring which may result in your account being blocked. I do not wish to do this, but am left with little recourse. Please engage in discussion at Talk:Oakland Zoo (cheering_section). CrazyPaco (talk) 22:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, please be aware of the following from a Wikipedia guideline essay: "If you make a change which is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit - leave the status quo up. If there is a dispute, the status quo reigns until a consensus is established to make a change. Instead of engaging in an edit war, propose your reverted change on the article's talk page or pursue other dispute resolution alternatives." (see WP:STATUSQUO) CrazyPaco (talk) 22:33, 2 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have now listed a notice of the edit war at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. CrazyPaco (talk) 08:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I have blocked your account from editing temporarily. Taking your edit summaries at face value, it is noble to seek to have credit allocated equitably. There is, however, no way for anyone else to verify what you have written or distinguish valid information from vandalism or malicious edits from someone with a personal dispute with one or more of the parties. If you first publish your story in a reliable source, the article could, after discussion at Talk:Oakland Zoo (cheering section), be updated to reflect the new information. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:11, 4 December 2009 (UTC)