User talk:ATannedBurger

May 2019[edit]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Do not WP:POINT. Mys_721tx (talk) 22:30, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edit to the disambiguation page WP. However, please note that disambiguation pages are not articles; rather, they are meant to help readers find a specific article quickly and easily. From the disambiguation dos and don'ts, you should:

Only list articles that readers might reasonably be looking for
Use short sentence fragment descriptions, with no punctuation at the end
Use exactly one navigable link ("blue link") in each entry
- Only add a "red link" if used in existing articles, and include a "blue link" to an appropriate article
Do not pipe links (unless style requires it) – keep the full title of the article visible
Do not insert external links or references

Hi, sorry this may be the same issue as above, just with links for why your edit was reverted, in particular WP:DABACRO, regards Widefox; talk 20:44, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- - @Widefox:Please see above notice of original research because of no insertion of links. The link inserted was to provide info to prove the abbr. is not a original research.--Timmyboger (talk) 15:25, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Water polo, you may be blocked from editing. Mys_721tx (talk) 03:03, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]