User talk:72.193.181.8

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sam Distefano, jazz musician and talent executive (November 24)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted information, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work.

• Draft:Sam Distefano, jazz musician and talent executive may be deleted at any time unless the copied text is removed. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

/wia /tlk 18:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello! 72.193.181.8, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! /wia /tlk 18:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Your submission at AfC Sam Distefanov (Musician) was accepted

Sam Distefanov (Musician), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. You may wish to consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Mdann52 (talk) 19:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

December 2015

Your addition to Sam Distefano has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. -- Diannaa (talk) 20:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without verifying permission. You have been previously warned that this is against policy, but have persisted. 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 ~~~~}}.  Diannaa (talk) 14:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

This IP has now ebbn unblocked, as an OTRS ticket has been received for the material in question. Sorry for the inconvenience. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Bill Evans

Hi. In regards to this edit — it doesn't really matter whether there are articles on them, what matters is whether there is a reliable source backing that statement up. Do you happen to know where you heard/read that? Eman235/talk 21:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Conflict of interest at Sam Distefano and related articles

Hello, 72.193.181.8. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Sam Distefano, you may have a conflict of interest. People with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, see the conflict of interest guideline and frequently asked questions for organizations. In particular, please:

• avoid editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, its competitors, or projects and products you or they are involved with;
• instead, propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
• avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing, and autobiographies. Thank you. 32.218.47.82 (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

George Carlin

You are edit-warring and violating WP:BRD and WP:VERIFY at George Carlin. We cannot make uncited claims, and when reverted, we take our concerns to the talk page. If you continue to edit-war rather than discuss, an admin will be asked to intervene and may block or ]ban this IP address from editing Wikipedia. Given that it has been blocked before, it likely would be an extended block. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:17, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

And an admin would take note that another editor is reverting you on numerous pages including here for what he rightly calls "unsourced, undue, and off-topic" edits. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:47, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring at Lake Geneva, Wisconsin

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Lake Geneva, Wisconsin. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. 32.218.46.251 (talk) 20:45, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Vandal Editing???

With all due respect, I honestly thought that Wikipedia welcomed information instead of its users attempting to reject it. Moreover, if anyone is "vandal-editing" here, with all due respect, it could also be construed to be you. You seem to think you know more about the article page's subject. Why can't you leave the "Sam Distefano" page alone once and for all and stop slicing/dicing it? I promise you in my heart of hearts, it has already been approved by the Wikipedia Articles Submissions staff and re-edited by them numerous times before you went in and started butchering it significantly and repeatedly. While I appreciate your passion and concern for factual accuracy, some of your comments in the "edit-history" section seemed to be getting a little personal.

I've already contacted the same Wiki staff members who originally posted the article. Again, I'm sure we all appreciate efforts to ensure factual accuracy. But by the same token, I'm sure you'll also agree that those efforts should be tempered by striking a balance with also not overstepping boundaries that ultimately result in utter annihilation of an article. I assure you, there is nothing at all to be concerned about regarding this particular article and its factual accuracy. So, if you would please, at least hold off on re-deleting entire sections until the staff members at Wikipedia have a chance to review it again? Does that sound fair enough for the time being, please? Again, I mean no offense toward you. I'm sure your intentions are in earnest. And again, I do appreciate that. Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. I'd be happy to discuss any future concerns at any time. Are you allowed to contact me? If so, let me know, and we'll figure out a way to correspond more easily than this posting. Happy Holidays.

---