User talk:WikipediaSara2

Sator Square[edit]

There are only very very limited possibilities for legitimately linking to Wikipedia stuff outside the main (article) namespace from Wikipedia articles, and your link on Sator Square does not appear to comply with such restrictions. AnonMoos (talk) 17:55, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you shouldn't link to draft articles from mainspace articles. You're welcome to write about smaller details of word squares if you use secondary sources for the statements added, but shouldn't link to a draft version of an article. --McGeddon (talk) 17:19, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: 2D Palindrome (February 2)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SweetCanadianMullet was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage about the subject in reliable sources that are independent of the subject—see the general guideline on notability and the golden rule. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:2D Palindrome and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Sweet Canadian Mullet 02:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! WikipediaSara2, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Sweet Canadian Mullet 02:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT add out-of-policy links to Wikipedia articles, as you've already been told[edit]

It accomplishes nothing useful, and annoys other people... AnonMoos (talk) 01:10, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017[edit]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Palindrome, without citing a reliable source using an inline citation that clearly supports the material. The burden is on the person wishing to keep in the material to meet these requirements, as a necessary (but not always sufficient) condition. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. If you are quoting your own paper here, please also see WP:COI before editing further. McGeddon (talk) 17:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please 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, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Justeditingtoday (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please 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, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. 68.233.214.74 (talk) 17:28, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Palindrome. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. McGeddon (talk) 17:30, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This material has been removed by multiple editors, and you have been asked to discuss it on the article's talk page. Please read WP:BRD. After the first undo a contested edit should be discussed on teh talk page rather than restored. Meters (talk) 17:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018[edit]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Palindrome. Waiting 18 months and then trying to sneak this material back in as a minor edit is not a good idea. Discuss it on the article's talk page or leave it alone. Meters (talk) 20:42, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The original problem is that I was told that there are not enough other sources to prove that the information is substantiated, and also that the sources need to be reliable. I quoted 2 academic articles, and those are reliable. I waited 18 months because by now there are enough sources. The edit was minor, because it wasn't like a whole new section on its own; rather it was a small subsection that's talking about a different palindrome variation.

I apologize. I am not trying to start a war. I just think that a small bit of information about 2d palindromes is interesting to the general user. How can we work together to put up a small tidbit on the topic? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikipediaSara2 (talk • contribs) 19:44, August 22, 2018 (UTC)

Read WP:MINOR. That was in no way a minor edit.

Last year you were pointed to Wikipedia:Citing sources , WP:COI, WP:BRD, and to WP:EW. by various editors (user:McGeddon, user:Justeditingtoday, me, and an IP) after after making this edit. If you had read and followed those you would not have made this edit the way you did.

As pointed out by McGeddon, it appears that you are attempting to source this material to an article that you wrote. Is this the case?

As for what to do, read what I wrote. Discuss it on the article's talk page. Meters (talk) 20:11, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]