User talk:Octupus25

Welcome!

Hello, Octupus25, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

When contributing to biographies of living people, as you did at Earl Pomeroy, please take care to cite all your material to reliable sources and to accurately and neutrally represent the views of those sources. If in doubt, discuss your edits first on the article talk page. If you're not sure about the reliability of a source, consider posting a query on the reliable sources noticeboard. Thank you. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to Earl Pomeroy. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

October 2008[edit]

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Earl Pomeroy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. II MusLiM HyBRiD II ^{ZOMG BBQ} 18:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are two content issues at Earl Pomeroy that I'm currently aware of.

The cited source says he is likely to retain his seat. You keep changing this to say he's unlikely to do so. That is mis-representation of the source. Toss a coin: heads, you're lying; tails, you don't know that you can't just write whatever you believe to be true in a wikipedia article. I don't really care which is the case. You've been told about this before. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia like this, intentionally or not, you'll be blocked from editing for a while.
You want to document this controversy between Pomeroy and Sands about who supports privatising Social Security. The reason you got reverted might be that the weblink "in-forum.com" looks like a forum, which according to our guidelines are not reliable sources. Now, I read the article you linked to, and while it certainly is a reliable source, your summary is far from being a fair and accurate summary of the source's viewpoint, so I still don't think the edit you want to make is within Wikipedia policy. If you want me to re-write this, to demonstrate how to neutrally sum up an article, I'll do so. But please think about this - what you wrote here is another mis-representation of a source.

There's one other problem you need to know about. When you disagree with another editor about what should go into an article, do not just revert them. Instead, discuss the matter on the article's talk page, starting a new section if necessary. The "edit comments" you can leave when making an edit, while being very useful most of the time, are not enough in this case. You should know that the three revert rule prohibits multiple reversions (also known as edit-warring) and this, too, can get you blocked. So, thanks for asking me about this, and I hope this answers your questions. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:KEVIN CRAMER.jpg[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:KEVIN CRAMER.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Eeekster (talk) 03:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]