User talk:Henrymark20
Editing philosophy
[edit]- Notability: Not everything that is worthy is also notable, and the other way around. If there exist no good sources on a subject, then it should not have an article on Wikipedia. Even if sources exist, an article is still not justified if there is no encyclopedic information. For instance, if all we can say about a certain person is that she likes coffee and cookies, sings hymns, and lived a long time, then any useful information is better contained in a list.
- Be brief. Don't use 300 words if you can say the same thing in 30. This is not about removing information, this is about presenting information.
- Not everything that can be sourced merits inclusion. Don't include trivial stuff, this is an encyclopedia, not Facebook. Even if, for example, we would have sourced information that Einstein preferred his coffee with two lumps of sugar, that is not encyclopedic information that in any way increases our understanding of him. This means that existing text often needs pruning and rewriting.
- Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promoting your company/journal/band/etc. Articles should be encyclopedic, meaning that articles should be presented in a neutral way. Words such as "famous", "renowned", "foremost", etc. rarely have a place in an encyclopedic article. Hence, our Einstein article starts with "Albert Einstein was a German-born theoretical physicist", not "Albert Einstein was the most famous scientist ever", even though one certainly will be able to find reliable sources saying so.
- Deletion/Inclusion. I don't see myself as an inclusionist or a deletionist. Everything depends on the sources. If there are good sources, then an article should be written. If there are no good sources, then an article should be deleted.
Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts
[edit]
Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rich1982, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.
Randykitty (talk) 18:19, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
April 2013
[edit]
Your recent editing history at OMICS Publishing Group shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Drmies (talk) 19:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)