User talk:Ohnohedinnit

Welcome!

Some cookies to welcome you!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Ohnohedinnit! Thank you for your contributions. I am Grayfell 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 {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article

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! Grayfell (talk) 07:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Hello, I'm Hell in a Bucket. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living person, but that you didn’t support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. Wikipedia has a strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. [[1]] is not sourced and literally almost everything has to be sourced especially speculation about sexuality. If there is a source and it was mistakenly left out please readd Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

It is sourced. "Tyler — who dated women before prison including his sister's best friend — also started having sex with other men in prison because he craved affection. This romance provides a mental escape from the four walls around him." I am restoring this text. Ohnohedinnit (talk) 19:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sourcing for biomedical information

Hi Ohnohedinnit, regarding your recent edits at Herpes genitalis, you have been adding or restoring information based on unacceptable sourcing. For our guidelines on sourcing for biomedical content, please see WP:MEDRS. I will be trying to address the sourcing problems your edits introduced. Thanks... Zad68 15:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I'll add a reference to the CDC, which was the source for the NY Times article. Thanks. Ohnohedinnit (talk) 16:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Your latest edit uses many unacceptable sources for medical information, you need to adhere to WP:MEDRS. I will be addressing this at the article. Zad68 16:34, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I undid your edit for the reasons detailed in the new section "Edits 15 January 2014" on the article Talk page. You should not revert, and address the issues raised on the Talk page. I think largely you are making a good faith effort to improve the article but the sourcing you are adding is really unacceptable. The popular press is not acceptable to source biomedical information, as is the use of anonymous websites. Please do see WP:MEDRS... Thanks. Zad68 17:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I replied on my talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Herpes genitalis. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Zad68 03:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Ohno, you're repeatedly restoring poorly-sourced information after you were given a pretty clear explanation of the problem. If you restore the same poor sources again I'm afraid I'll have to raise this at an appropriate noticeboard. Zad68 03:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but as you see in the talk page the explanation of the problem is far from clear. The material is well sourced, using references from popular press and medical journals. Yesterday's edits broached a consensus that had been standing for some time. Ohnohedinnit (talk) 06:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Ohnohedinnit, you've broken WP:3RR whatever the rights and wrongs of the sourcing may be. If you respond at WP:AN3#User:Ohnohedinnit reported by Zad68 (Result: ) and offer to take a break from the article and its talk page for seven days there may still be time for you to avoid a block. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring at Herpes genitalis

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Herpes genitalis. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

Here is a permanent link to the edit warring report. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 05:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Ohnohedinnit for your first edit after being blocked by EdJohnston for edit-warring in unsourced and poorly-sourced content at Herpes genitalis, you have just reverted back in unsourced and poorly-sourced content at Herpes genitalis. Please self-revert and address the sourcing issues raised; your response of "I think sources like CNN and Village Voice to source biomedical content is just fine" is insufficient. Zad68 20:38, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Ohnohedinnit. WP:MEDRS frowns upon use of the popular press for information about diseases or remedies. It seems that you are trying to use CNN and a New York Times blog. If this is the issue where you differ with the others I suggest you step back. Regardless of sourcing, you must not edit war against consensus. Use the talk page to try to get agreement. If it is clear you are continuing the original edit war, any administrator may block you without further notice. EdJohnston (talk) 20:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Karl Racine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Logan Circle. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Belle Knox AFD #2

The second AFD for Belle Knox has been overturned and relisted. As you commented on the original AFD, you may wish to comment on this one as well. As there have been developments and sources created since the time of the original AFD, please review to see if your comments/!vote are the same or may have changed. Gaijin42 (talk)

Ways to improve Brandon Todd (D.C. politician)

Hi, I'm Helenabella. Ohnohedinnit, thanks for creating Brandon Todd (D.C. politician)!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. I'm struggling to see how this page meets the notability criteria for WP:POLITICIAN. Is it possible to develop it further to demonstrate the subject's noteworthiness?

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.  Helenabella (Talk)  06:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)