User talk:Marychemo

Welcome!

Hello, Marychemo, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Roosh V 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, click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below 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:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! EvergreenFir (talk) 14:20, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Roosh V, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Cahk (talk) 08:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Roosh V.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. 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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. clpo13_(talk) 16:10, 7 September 2016 (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/Mercadix, 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.

Dr. K. 08:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive Edits

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Roosh V, you may be blocked from editing. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:32, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am absolutely never editing Roosh page again. It is clear that rooshv employees from rooshvforum won, and all roosh past selfadmitted crimes are being hidden from the public view, while rooshv employees are breaking the Wikipedia Rules :(

Warning

Please stop attacking other editors, as you have done twice on User Talk:Drmies. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Softlavender (talk) 08:34, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How did I attack? I did not attack him at all, I only asked for his help, as there is a gang of users who are directly coming all from rooshvforum only to edit everything pro Roosh, and I underlined that Wikipedia rules are being broken by them, as they add direct commercial links to Roosh sex guides selling pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marychemo (talk • contribs) 09:52, 9 September 2016

Do you really not regard calling editors "pro-rape fanatics" as attacking them? Also, to suggest that Kendall-K1, who has made 12,785 to 3,799 pages over a period of more than 5 years, never editing the article Roosh V before this year, and EvergreenFir, who has made 64,242 edits to 27,924 pages over about three and a half years, are "directly coming ... only to edit everything pro Roosh" is, frankly, absurd. You clearly feel very strongly about the Roosh issues, and in my opinion you are right to do so, but you need to try to stand back from your feelings, and see other editors' contributions in perspective. The fact that someone does not agree with you on how that Wikipedia article should be edited does not necessarily indicate that he or she is "pro-rape" or that he or she is being paid by Roosh. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016

This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 09:28, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I only politely ask that you review the edits I made, and see that were correct and honest.

And also, I warned people that RooshV employees are adding commercial links to the sales of Roosh self published guides in the wikipedia page, which breaks the rules of Wikipedia.

I also said that I will not edit Roosh V page again.

Can you help?

Thank you Junior5a

Cont 09:58, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]