User talk:Veto118

July 2014
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Chuck Grassley has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.


 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: Chuck Grassley was changed by Veto118 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.962844 on 2014-07-08T03:01:02+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 03:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. --k6ka (talk &#124; contribs) 15:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Please do not add unsourced or original content. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --k6ka (talk &#124; contribs) 02:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Veto118, you are invited to the Teahouse!
Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. TLA 3x &#x266d;  →  &#x266e;  04:35, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Please do not add unsourced or original content. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. TLA 3x &#x266d;  →  &#x266e;  04:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Recent edit to Mary Landrieu
Hello, and thank you for your recent contribution. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edit because I believe the article was better before you made that change. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! -  Cwobeel   (talk)  04:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Deb Fischer. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Ditto51 ( My Talk Page ) 16:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Elizabeth Warren, you may be blocked from editing. Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: Elizabeth Warren was changed by Veto118 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.950311 on 2014-07-12T04:00:55+00:00. Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 04:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced content
As has already been noted above, WP:verifiability is a key tenet of Wikipedia. Please stop adding unsourced statements to articles. Thank you.CFredkin (talk) 19:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced attacks in BLPs
Do not add unsourced criticisms into biographies of living people, as you did here: 

Doing so violates Wikipedia's policy on Verifiability and the even stricter policy on Biographies of living people. If you continue to break these policies, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Darx9url (talk) 10:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced attacks in BLPs (contd)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia.

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.CFredkin (talk) 15:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Editing biographies of living people
Hey, I've taken a look at the discussion on your edits at AN/I and I wanted to give you some context for the warnings you've been receiving. Looking at your edit history I can see that you're interested in politics and relatively plugged in to information about current political figures. That can make you a great editor in those areas and Wikipedia always has biographies which need to be expanded and improved. However many (though not all) of your edits have introduced claims about the subjects which need reliable sourcing in order to be retained. Unlike an article on, e.g. Frans Hals, articles on living people can both materially effect the subject if they contain inaccurate information and can, in some narrow cases, rise to the level of defamation. As a result, the foundation and the community both hold the position that all claims about living persons must be sourced when they are added. Occasionally this policy is not enforced for minor or uncontentious claims (even though it does in fact apply) but for claims which are contentious or non-neutral (e.g. this, this, or even this) it always applies.

Often these are claims which could be substantiated through careful sourcing or attributed in text to a particular source. And in any other type of wikipedia article it may be ok to add truthful information and wait for other editors to build on those claims with sourcing (though making unsourced claims is not the best way to go about things). Not on BLPs. If you continue to add these sorts of edits to pages it's likely an admin will block your account, potentially indefinitely.

The way around this is simple. Where you have a contentious claim, source or attribute the claim with an inline reference (just as you have for some of your edits). When you're in doubt as to whether or not a claim is contentious, always err on the side of including a source. If you feel strongly that a claim does not require a source, your best bet is to discuss it first on the talk page of the article in question. Finally, you are allowed to respond to editors leaving messages on your page (in fact, in many situations dialog with other editors is a good thing) and to the discussion on AN/I. Offering up your position on why a particular edit may need a source could clarify the issue for other editors or it could afford them the opportunity to convince you otherwise. Protonk (talk) 18:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

This is your last warning. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Lindsey Graham. TLA 3x &#x266d;  →  &#x266e;  02:28, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Block Notice
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for contravening Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Mike V •  Talk  03:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Gnome de plume (talk) 13:53, 7 November 2014 (UTC)