Jbtvt

Please stop adding linkspam

Please don't add links to your blog to articles it's considered linkspamming. LARPing aint easy (talk) 00:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

July 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Dismember (band) has been reverted.
Your edit here to Dismember (band) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://www.myspace.com/dismemberofficial) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 13:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Welcome, but be careful

Welcome to Wikipedia. Here are suggested readings: WP:SECONDARY and WP:COI. The gist of these guidelines are:

• Wikipedia prefers citations to reviews and books, not primary journal references (tens of thousands appear annually). Citing secondary sources is the encyclopedic style.
• Do not cite yourself or your colleagues. It's called conflict of interest. Many new editors cite themselves mainly. That behavior is unacceptable. You seem to be citing the Flora group repeatedly, which suggests that there is a problem.

If you have questions, many editors can offer advice. Happy editing. --Smokefoot (talk) 14:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

You are out of line. The paper in question is published on the World Health Organization site, and is CLEARLY a secondary source, if you had bothered to examine it, as evidenced by the numerous other primary and secondary sources at the bottom of the page. I would encourage you to read the information you posted regardless, as nowhere does it bar even primary sources, stating that they should be backed up by secondary sources whenever possible if making "an interpretation", which I was certainly not doing! It is common and accepted practice to cite the same article more than once on a Wiki page. And FTR, I am not at all affiliated with any of the publishers,researchers, or authors in question! The information you wantonly deleted was cited in multiple sources, is factually accurate, and widely accepted. You seem to have a minor fixation on the issues of "sourcing" and COI. I encourage you to rethink your actions in the future to avoid conflict with your fellow editors.Jbtvt (talk)Jbtvt (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for leaving a note. The basis of my concern is an editor who suddenly cites many papers by the same research team. --Smokefoot (talk) 18:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Secondary sources

Secondary sources are review articles primarily. Please read WP:MEDRS if you are unsure of the classification. Please use secondary sources. Also please format similar to that of the rest of the article. Have corrected some of it. WP:MEDHOW provides further advice. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

DS notice for Race and Intelligence articles

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Controversial topic area alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

— Newslinger talk 08:20, 13 March 2022 (UTC)