User talk:Wakebrew

May 2017
Hello, I'm McSly. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Psychic seemed less than neutral to me, so it has been removed it for now. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. McSly (talk) 02:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Mediumship, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Betty Logan (talk) 22:08, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Psychic, you may be blocked from editing. Theroadislong (talk) 22:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Psychic. Theroadislong (talk) 15:48, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I am an involved edd but please stop the edit war (and yes I think it is safe to accuse you of that, third revert today). You will only get a block for your trouble. You do not have consensus for your edit.Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Paranormal, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 16:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Paranormal
Various paranormal activities are known to be bunk. Therefore the words "purportedly", "allegedly", etc., are correct description of claims of this type. Please do not remove them. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Wakebrew, please stop making POV changes to Mediumship, Paranormal, Pyrokinesis and Psychic. Let's say for the sake of argument that an authentic medium exists out there, that does not change the fact that the scientific consensus at the moment is that there is no evidence for paranormal phenomena. Wikipedia cannot take a side in these matters: spiritualism must only be presented as beliefs and not as facts, and the scientific consensus must be presented as evidence for those facts. If you think something is badly worded please start a discussion on the relevant article talk page, but please bear in mind we cannot present something as fact when it is unproven. Betty Logan (talk) 16:52, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Seconded (or thirded). Please don't add systemic bias tags to articles unless you have opened a corresponding meaningful talk page discussion.- MrX 20:18, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Block notice
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. - Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Betty Logan (talk) 02:11, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

May 2017
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. S warm  ♠  04:49, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You were asked nicely. You were strongly warned. You were pleaded with. This concept is not difficult. You can hold whatever beliefs you want, but you can not edit articles based on your personal beliefs. As a matter of policy, our articles reflect verifiable information taken from reliable sources. Regarding the paranormal, these articles, as part of an encyclopedia, will quite simply present the information provided by the sources. It would not be neutral for an article to fundamentally take a position that is supported by your beliefs, as opposed to summarizing what we consider to be reliable sources. You can take this virtually anywhere on the internet, but it's not appropriate for an encyclopedic project. You are welcome to edit here, but you must assure us that you've familiarized yourself with WP:CONPOL and WP:CONDUCT and can participate in accordance with them. Feel free to request an unblock when you have done so, but know that you will not be given a third chance. S warm   ♠  05:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)