User talk:Wildrock

Welcome

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions. However, some of your contributions are not entirely in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines related to avoiding advertising in articles. For more information on this, see: Take particular note of Guideline on external links -- the external links that you have added in the body of Mission Mountain School do not conform with guidelines.
 * Policy on neutral point of view
 * Guideline on spam
 * Guideline on external links
 * Guideline on conflict of interest

If you still have questions, there is a new contributor's help page, or you can write   below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia. I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! --Orlady 21:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

September 2008
Hi Wildrock, In light of your three most recent edits,  , I would like to make sure that you're aware of the three revert rule. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 02:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Links
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" is strongly discouraged. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. --Ronz (talk) 02:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit-warring
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 a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. MastCell Talk 03:36, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You've now violated the WP:3RR. I'm not going to report it, because this edit is innocuous, but please slow down and continue the discussion on the talk page. MastCell Talk 04:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I was asked by TallMagic to provide the university providing the credential. It was not an innocuous edit. I was correcting a factual error in the article. A factual error that had been reverted twice by others. -Wildrock (talk) 05:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Wildrock, I appreciate your concern for the truthfulness of the Wikipedia article. I'm slightly confused by your comment above since you didn't add the school to the article. I have since done that. The previous reverts that you refer to were targeted more at the apparent claims to accreditation from unrecognized accreditors in your edits. Note that the wp:3RR rule is one of the few quite strictly enforced rules on Wikipedia. I appreciate that you are now communicating rather than reverting. Thanks and regards, TallMagic (talk) 06:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought you meant I should add the citation to my edit summary, not the article. I see many unsourced credentials throughout Wiki. I was making no claims about "accreditation from unrecognized accreditors." I was attempting to draw the distinction between licensing, certification and accreditation. I reverted because no attempt  was made to discuss the issue after my first revert of MastCell's undo. My second revert of your undo was meant to catch your attention to bring up a discussion. My third revert was because I felt bullied by the factual changes I made being swept under the rug. My alternative would be to challenge the factual accuracy and NPOV of the article. --Wildrock (talk) 23:26, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * A very belated note, but " I see many unsourced credentials throughout Wiki". Just because wp:other stuff exists doesn't mean it is good stuff.sinneed (talk) 19:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Brooke Medicine Eagle
I've reverted you and taken this to WP:BLPN. I've also raised an issue over your edit that says " where the roots of her name and ancestry were documented," as there is no documentation in Jaimes article. I do find it a bit odd that you think is a reliable source but not the Center for the SPIRIT (Support and Protection of Indian Religions and Indigenous Traditions). Dougweller (talk) 06:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)