Antiquax

March 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to F.L.M. (Mel and Kim song), did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot.

• Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
• Cluebot produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• The following is the log entry regarding this warning: F.L.M. (Mel and Kim song) was changed by Antiquax (u) (t) making a minor change with obscenities on 2010-03-16T21:52:23+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 21:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Apprentice

Please stop adding uncited information to Season 6. One picture of someone selling a muffin on Flickr is not a citation for many different rumours. Wiki demands citations. Thanks MrMarmite (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I could cite all the photos, would that be sufficient citation? I did not cite all the photos as this would not be a premanent edit: it would be replaced by full episode listings upon transmission. I thought it was an interesting fact for Apprentice fans.

Yes, you would need to cite each one, and they would also need to be proof that they were indeed anything to do with The Apprentice. I notice you have reverted my edit. I ask you to add the citations or remove the edit, thanks. Pleas remember to sign your comments with four tildes MrMarmite (talk) 02:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Those are not citations, those are 2 pictures, which can't possible cite 3 claims, of someone selling something..the rest is speculation. Please look at wiki policies on what is a valid citation. Blogs and similar are not valid citations. This has now been pointed out to you on a few occasions and any further re-adding these will result in a wiki warning. MrMarmite (talk) 19:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to The Apprentice (UK TV series). Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.MrMarmite (talk) 00:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Kent School

The information you wish to add to the article is alright. However, we decided on the talk page that it had to formulated as such, that it would better suit the Kent School article. Could you please suggest a possible way to add the info on the talk page that stresses Kent School and not people once at the school?--Atlan (talk) 02:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the wording. It was the current headmaster of the school, decrying the show of a school alumni and that alumni's parents resigning from working at the school - it seems very school-centric to me. Please explain how you would like the school stressed more.Antiquax (talk) 08:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I haven't really thought of a way and I half expected the other guy from the talk page would do it. Yeah, I guess you can add it regardless, it can always be rewritten later.--Atlan (talk) 12:27, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Sources

Hello... sorry, but you need to stop adding that material to The X Factor (U.S.) as it is not properly cited. We do not use non-reliable sources such as the News of the World to support biographical details. The NotW article merely lists a "source", and there is no confirmation or back-up. (This is not a one-time case; papers such as the NotW and the Sun are not generally accepted as references, and the simple fact that they mention something does not in and of itself justify inclusion.) Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a newspaper; there is no rush to be the first to cover something. If the information is correct, it will be covered in detail by more reliable sources in short order. Please feel free to ask if you have further questions about this. Thanks. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Where is the News of the World listed as an unreliable source? It is the highest selling British Sunday paper. Thanks

Again, please heed the warnings regarding the use of improper sourcing. Continuing to add improperly sourced material may result in the suspension of editing privileges. --Ckatz^chat_spy 21:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Show me where the News of the World is listed as an unreliable source and I will stop adding the piece. Wikipedia is NOT your encyclopedia.

February 2011

Please do not add improperly sourced content, especially with regard to biographical information. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Ckatz^chat_spy 09:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that it is improperly sourced - you are unable to show me any reason why this is the case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antiquax (talk • contribs)

You may well disagree, but you are not free to restore improperly sourced material pertaining to biographical details. Please do not add the material without a properly sourced reference from a reliable source. Note that - with one exception - all of your edits this year involve the addition of said material. Unfortunately, further incidents may result in a suspension of editing privileges. Thank you in advance. --Ckatz^chat_spy 09:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

It is a reliable source. Wikipedia is NOT your encyclopedia. All you can do is post pompous messages. Prove your point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antiquax (talk • contribs)

Look, you've been advised of the requirements, the fact that the source does not meet requirements for BLP material - which is considerably stricter than other details - and you have been repeatedly and single-mindedly adding the material. This is your final warning. --Ckatz^chat_spy 10:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I know the requirements and this source fits them. Stop posting pompous messages - you give Wikipedia a bad name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antiquax (talk • contribs)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for contravening Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Ckatz^chat_spy 10:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)