August 2016 edit

 

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

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 22:31, 13 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

  Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to Gender pay gap. 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 Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Donner60 (talk) 22:37, 13 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Here are some links to pages with useful information that can help you in editing and writing for Wikipedia:
There are quite a few links above and some of them provide further links. However, some of the pages are short, some you may not need to look at, at least right of way and I think you can get the gist of the others reasonably quickly. It is good to know that there is some online help at Wikipedia if you know where it is.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages (but not article edits) by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Donner60 (talk) 22:38, 13 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
 

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Rape culture, 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: Rape culture was changed by Feminist1234 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.921907 on 2016-08-13T22:53:09+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 22:53, 13 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

"just search it up on google" edit

While I agree that there is still unfortunately a gender-based wage gap, Wikipedia doesn't work on the principle of "just search it up on Google." All new information added to articles needs to cite a professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic source, and it is the responsibility of the person who adds that information to cite said source. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

Welcome! edit

Hello, Feminist1234, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! The Stray Dog by Sadeq Hedayat 22:57, 13 August 2016 (UTC)Reply


Please read the links on reliability and verifiability. It is not incumbent on readers or even editors to search out the reliability and verifiability of various edits, especially ones likely to be disputed or controversial. Please learn more about Wikipedia. I am not disputing what you wrote or taking any position on it. That is not the point. The point is that such assertions are controversial and others may well revert the edit and get into arguments with you. Better simply to cite a reliable, verifiable source. I am simply following Wikipedia guidelines. You may also want to read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. You will be more successful if you follow the guidelines and write in a neutral manner rather than simply asserting your are right (which you may be; but if so, you can cite sources) and telling people to look it up. My point is reinforced by the message you just received even before I could finish writing and posting this. Donner60 (talk) 23:00, 13 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

August 2016 edit

 
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for harassing other users, as you did at User talk:RationalObserver100. 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 appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:29, 13 August 2016 (UTC)Reply
Per this edit, it's safe to assume that you're Royer2356. As such, the block has been made indefinite. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC)Reply