User talk:Equivocasmannus

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Equivocasmannus! Thank you for your contributions. I am Cahk and I have been editing Wikipedia for 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 {{help me}} 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! Cahk (talk) 08:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adding references can be easy

Hello! Here's how to add references from reliable sources for the content you add to Wikipedia. This helps maintain the Wikipedia policy of verifiability.

Adding well formatted references is actually quite easy:

While editing any article or a wikipage, on the top of the edit window you will see a toolbar which says "Cite". Click on it.
Then click on "Templates".
Choose the most appropriate template and fill in as many details as you can. This will add a well formatted reference that is helpful in case the web URL (or "website link") becomes inactive in the future.
Click on Preview when you're done filling out the 'Cite (web/news/book/journal)' to make sure that the reference is correct.
Click on Insert to insert the reference into your editing window content.
Click on Show preview to Preview all your editing changes.

Before clicking on Save page, check that a References header ==References== is near the end of the article.
And check that {{Reflist}} is directly underneath that header.

7. Click on Save page. ...and you've just added a complete reference to a Wikipedia article.

You can read more about this on Help:Edit toolbar or see this video File:RefTools.ogv.
Hope this helps, --Shearonink (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To use this message, place {{subst:User:Shearonink/ref}} on User:talk pages when needed.

Talkback

Hello, Equivocasmannus. You have new messages at Talk: Bath School disaster.
Message added 18:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shearonink (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited to the Teahouse.

Hello Equivocasmannus, thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! I want to invite you to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. I hope you see you there! I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message. @ 20:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback Comment

Hello, Equivocasmannus. You have new messages at Talk:Evolution.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Inspector General ‖ 16:31, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Evolution are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. SummerPhD (talk) 17:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Illuminati, you may be blocked from editing. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:47, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Bryant article

If you have a reliable third party source for the claim that Bryant was ever employed by ASIO then you must provide it and it must be properly referenced. Otherwise the claim is a clear violation of WP:BLP policies and cannot be included in the article. Afterwriting (talk) 03:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC) Afterwriting (talk) 03:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015

Your recent editing history at White culture shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Keri (talk) 00:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Atheism. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 09:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll use whatever tone I want, thanks very much.--Equivocasmannus (talk) 10:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Atheism shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Keri (talk) 11:28, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is your final warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Atheism with this edit, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. DVdm (talk) 14:02, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't disruptive at all, merely chaging the article for readability, as stated. No objective person would say different.Equivocasmannus (talk) 15:06, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This edit does not merely change the article for readability. It is a classic wp:POINTY edit with a downright misleading edit summary. And don't accuse other editors of nazism, as you did here. Continue this attitude and you'll end up blocked. - DVdm (talk) 15:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, keep the pet project article. I only wanted to improve it, but okay. I should have sensed the dog piss miles away.Equivocasmannus (talk) 16:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feminism

Please stop tagging individuals as (Jewish) and making broad and incorrect generalizations concerning Jews. This kind of editing is generally viewed as disruptive and pointy. Acroterion (talk) 11:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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 below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 17:30, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Equivocasmannus, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Keri (talk) 16:22, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Equivocasmannus, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Keri (talk) 10:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Equivocasmannus, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Keri (talk) 12:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]