User talk:T D K1 2
Welcome!
Hello, T D K1 2, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions, such as your edit to the page Chris Dunn (footballer), have removed content without an explanation. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox rather than in articles.
If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- How to edit a page and how to develop articles
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- Article wizard for creating new articles
- Simplified Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Valenciano (talk) 08:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
January 2017
Hello, I'm Serols. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Chris Dunn (footballer)— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Serols (talk) 08:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Chris Dunn (footballer). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Serols (talk) 08:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Chris Dunn (footballer), you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. WNYY98 (talk) 08:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Chris Dunn (footballer). WNYY98 (talk) 08:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Materialscientist (talk) 09:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
T D K1 2 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
UTRS appeal #17325 was submitted on Jan 15, 2017 10:30:56. This review is now closed.
--UTRSBot (talk) 10:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- OK, I'm going to ping in Serols, WNYY98, Materialscientist and Timmy96 as they may have more knowledge on the edits than I do.
- Firstly, and it's very important that you answer this, are you being paid to edit Wikipedia?
- Secondly, I do not see anything wrong with the edit made by Timmy96. The edits seem to be correctly referenced etc. The edit made by Timmy96 would have shown on the watchlist of every editor that watches the page. The reason it is likely not to have been changed is because suitable references were supplied. As you are a new user and you removed references and sourced content, this is why your edits were flagged up.
- Thirdly, if you are the subject of the article, or are related to the subject of the article, please read our conflict of interest guidelines. Conflict of interest editing is strongly discouraged on Wikipedia because it undermines public confidence etc. You may also wish to read our verifiability guideslines too.--5 albert square (talk) 16:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Whilst certain references may be correct, the way it has been written is subjective and misleading. For example, there has been focus made on every injury during an 11-year career, which when read in a summary over a few paragraphs could then be misinterpreted that injuries are constant, which is not the case. When read by the public, that could be damaging and misleading. Therefore large sections of this 'edit' are irrelevant, out of date and unnecessary. Another point is whilst some references may be correct the follow on wording that the user has then used, their interpretation, is not always accurate, and again subjective and not balanced. Grammar and sentencing is also poor. Lastly, whilst referencing has been used, details within the references have either not been followed (as mentioned above by the users own interpretation) or the so called facts are incorrect. For example, 'Personal Life' section is inaccurate and also out of date. For those reasons I wish to edit it back to what is was before the 9th Jan edit, which was adequate, sufficient and balanced. I'm not sure why outdated content has been used so long after certain events, and why other events have been focused on to such a degree, other than to 'vandalise' the content. I'm not paid to update this page. I wish to make the page accurate which is why such revisions are necessary. T D K1 2 (talk) 20:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- Hi, that's certainly not the way I read it. If you wish you can request to be unblocked by following the instructions above. You will need to demonstrate to the reviewing administrator that you understand what you did wrong. I would strongly recommend that you read our conflict of interest guidelines linked above as this type of editing is strongly discouraged, apart from anything else if you are the subject of the article you may not be editing it from a neutral point of view.--5 albert square (talk) 20:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)