User talk:Deaftruth

Welcome!

Hello, Deaftruth, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Rob Todd does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Todd

Several of your edits to Rob Todd have been reverted, because they aren't consistent with Wikipedia's policies. Please take the time to review the policies linked in the welcome message above.

In particular, articles about living persons must obey the Biographies of Living Persons rules. Biographical information must be properly sourced. Citations should be properly formatted. Also, it's important to maintain a neutral point of view.

You may wish to explore some other areas of Wikipedia as well. Users who appear to be single-purpose accounts may come under extra scrutiny, because a close focus on one article or a narrow range of subjects may imply an unsuitable hidden agenda. Wikipedia is not a soapbox.

If you have questions about why your edits to the Rob Todd article were reverted, please feel free to start a discussion on the talk page of the article. Changing the article back to the way you had it without discussion is not a good idea; it could lead to you being blocked for edit warring. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive edits

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Rob Todd. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive; until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges.

Your recent edits, removing a statement about Todd's affair and adding a characterization of the revocation of his access card. The affair was documented in the Houston Press; I have restored the statement and added additional reference links to clarify the sourcing of the statement. Regarding the access card, the characterization you added is not supported by the cited source. If you have a reliable source for this characterization, please cite it. I strongly recommend that you discuss potentially controversial changes such as these on the article's talk page before making further edits, especially in cases where your first attempt to make the change has been reverted. Otherwise, your edits may be viewed as disruptive, especially because you have focused your edits on one article; that could lead to you being blocked from editing. You may wish to also try your hand at making constructive edits to other articles in other topic areas. Thank you. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 02:16, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened a discussion on your recent edits of Rob Todd at the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard. I believe your editing pattern is disruptive and may warrant a block. You may wish to comment there. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 01:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Robertpercytodd for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. ⌘macwhiz (talk) 14:50, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Sockpuppetry. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]