User talk:MelanieB2

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, MelanieB2! Thank you for your contributions. I am Marek69 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!

Marek.69 ^talk 19:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war warning

Your recent editing history at The Beatles shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. 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. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. DocKino (talk) 20:45, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:The Beatles

Hi, Melanie. I just wanted to chime in and see if I could make a friendly attempt to resolve some confusion here. It looks to me that the original revert was not claiming that the statement was OR, but that the way it was phrased was a little OR-y in tone. "It was perhaps for this reason" wouldn't be considered a neutral or encyclopedic tone for writing on this site. I think it's for this reason, combined with the lack of a formal citation (you can learn more about those at WP:CITE) that made Mr Pyles suspect OR.

In other words, I don't think it was OR, but I can understand why some suspected OR.

As to why editors are so quick to revert edits, I think it probably has something to do with the number of edits music-related articles see in regard to stuff like this. "Top" whatever lists are probably second only to Genre categorisation in the amount of edit wars that have been caused over stuff like this. Your contributions are more than welcome here, though, and I think if you were to maybe suggest placing the mention of the Top 1000 list in a spot more conducive to expanded content (the end of a paragraph, for example), you might get a more open response from other editors.

Before you add it back, though, you should wait for further input on the talk page, as any further attempts to restore the content could be seen as edit-warring. If other editors come to the consensus that the article is better off without your addition, you shouldn't be disappointed, and you certainly shouldn't take it personal. Things like this get added and reverted to articles everywhere all the time, and people who watch out for edits help to make Wikipedia a lot more stable and presentable than it could be otherwise.

Thanks for editing! :) Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 03:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Promoting Colin Larkin and his website in every edit you make

Hello MelanieB2. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about following the reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.--McGeddon (talk) 12:30, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pamela Gardiner for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. McGeddon (talk) 16:15, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article restructuring at the Beatles

There is a straw poll taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 02:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Current/Past Members of the Beatles

There is a straw poll taking place here, and your input would be appreciated. — GabeMc (talk) 00:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]