User talk:VivienneMichel

March 2011
Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Nikki Reed. 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. Thank you. Cresix (talk) 00:39, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

My edits were cited from reliable sources'''. I expect my changes to be added back to the page in question. --VivienneMichel (talk) 00:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this edit provides NO source, and your subsequent edit cites YouTube, a very unreliable source. And "intending to direct" is not the same as directing; Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. You can "expect my changes to be added back to the page in question", but they will not be until you read, understand, and use the policies of WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR. Cresix (talk) 01:15, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The SOURCE is Nikki Reed herself. I suggest that you do more research before criticizing. --VivienneMichel (talk) 01:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Nikki Reed. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Cresix (talk) 01:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

I would really appreciate it if you stopped harassing me. I have given reliable sources. Your vendetta against my edits is both uncalled for and unprovoked. --VivienneMichel (talk) 03:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You are not being harassed. You are being warned about multiple policy violations. You have not provided a reliable source that confirms your edits. Please read WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NOR. End of discussion. Cresix (talk) 03:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I have never submitted any information from the top of my head. That last link was downright insulting. All of the changes I made are from multiple reliable and verified sources. I have made changes though. Does this mean that everything I post from now on, you will remove? I am committed to better the page in question, and I cannot do that if you feel the need to trace my steps, and remove anything I have to add. May I just add that instead of helping me, you have just perpetuated this childishness. I would recommend that you learn to be more constructive in your criticisms.--VivienneMichel (talk) 03:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I am leaving the information about her directing. Do not restore the "official blog" in External Links. I could create a blog, call it "Nikki Reed's Official Blog", post pictures of her, and add her name every time I write something; that doesn't make it her official blog. Now this message is very serious: You have already violated WP:3RR, which could result in an immediate block. If you restore the external link you can be blocked without further notice. Good faith efforts are important on Wikipedia, but not more important than following policies. Cresix (talk) 15:01, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Did you intentionally overlook the reference I added in regards to her personal blog? You must have, since the reference is a reliable source.
 * You're right. It was an oversight, not intentional. My apologies. Normally blogs don't go in External Links, but this one is OK. Cresix (talk) 00:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Improper citations
For edits that are otherwise not a problem but have improper citations, please don't remove them. Either fix the citation, place a "citation needed" tag after it, or leave it alone. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 21:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)