Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to 3-1-1, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 06:12, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I apologize. Bzik2324 (talk) 06:16, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:20th anniversary. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. ChaotıċEnby(t · c) 15:22, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is your intent behind copying the Android operating system article into your Sandbox and then experimenting with small edits? David notMD (talk) 11:29, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @David notMD is there a problem with that? Bzik2324 (talk) 13:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- In the past there have been instances in which new-to-Wikipedia copied entire articles to their Sandbox with the intent of dosing a 'major improvement' and then used their edited content to replace the existing article. This approach has always ended with the mass replacement being reverted, and in some instances, the editor being indefinitely blocked. Be aware that popular articles such as the Android operating system have scores of Watchers who are notified when they log in any edits to the article. A better approach is to copy a section, or even a portion of a section, modifying that, then copy/pasting into the existing article (with an Edit summary explaining why the change). Modest changes, even if cumulatively changing a lot, have a better chance of success. As an example of my own appoach, Starting in 2018 I made nearly 100 edits to Brown-tail moth in an effort to raise it to Good Article status (that included preparation for the GA nomination and responses to the reviewer's requests).
- If your intent is only to work on your editing skills, edit away! David notMD (talk) 15:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @David notMD so as long as I keep the edits with obviously wrong information only in my sandbox, I'm fine? Bzik2324 (talk) 22:11, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- "Wrong" within limits is fine. However, if, for example, you copy a chunk of copyright protected text or images from somewhere, with the intent of paraphrasing it before pasting it into an article, someone might happen upon that and delete it. Similarly, a work of fiction, website-like content, written attacks on other editors, a draft aboout a person or company in promotional tone, etc. See WP:SD for reasons for Speedy deletion. On Speedy deletion: Any editor can nominate content for Speedy deletion but only an Administrator can do it. Also, reverts (reversals) of content can be seen via View history, but Speedy deletions are accessable only by Admins. David notMD (talk) 03:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to List of Family Guy episodes—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 11:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Valley of the Shadow of Death (Roger Fenton), it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. AntientNestor (talk) 11:42, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dustfreeworld why did you send me this? I've been on here for over 2 months and have like 200+ edits already Bzik2324 (talk) 18:22, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I’m greeting users who post at Teahouse recently but haven’t received a welcome message yet. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 19:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Pepsi, you may be blocked from editing. Your talk page is filled with warnings about unsourced content and original research. Please stop your disruptive editing. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bzik2324. Thank you for your work on Lapdonline.org. Another editor, Voorts, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:
Please remember to tag redirects that you create per WP:REDCAT.
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Voorts}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
voorts (talk/contributions) 22:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Arizona, you may be blocked from editing. David J Johnson (talk) 10:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
