January 2016

edit

  Hello, I'm Wiae. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Wolfgang Puck— because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. /wiae /tlk 03:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

It is very constructive. It is about his wife and business partner.Qrx24 (talk) 03:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

  Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons, as you did to Wolfgang Puck with this edit. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 03:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

  Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did with this edit to Wolfgang Puck. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Donner60 (talk) 03:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

  This is your final warning. You may be blocked from editing without further notice the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Wolfgang Puck. Donner60 (talk) 03:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

I added references. Do not be a bully and bully others. Qrx24 (talk) 03:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

I am removing the last warning which I think will give you another chance at setting this right. Note that you have already been referred to some relevant Wikipedia guideline, policy or style pages, which you do not seem to have read. I think your efforts show you are in good faith, however, and should not be blamed for not being aware of some of these guidelines.
A big problem is that you added no reference for this questionable statement and left a bold ref tag error on the page with the edit you did make: "At that time, he changed his professional name to Puck because he thought his surname was hard to pronounce. He playfully picked a swear word that began with the letter F but changed the first letter to prevent it from being obscene." You may be correct but this is not the kind of edit you can repeatedly insert to a biography of a living person after you have been questioned about whether there is a reliable source. I did not look any further than this but your other edits seem to be good efforts.
Here are some links to pages with useful information that can help you in editing and writing for Wikipedia:
If you indent a line (without using some markup like a colon), you will get a strange looking box and some of your text may even run off the screen.
There are quite a few links above and some of them provide further links. However, some of the pages are short, some you may not need to look at, at least right of way and I think you can get the gist of the others reasonably quickly. It is good to know that there is some online help at Wikipedia if you know where it is.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages (but not article edits) by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. You may also ask me a question on my user talk page and I will answer it, if I can, or try to refer you to a page or person that might help, the next time I am online at Wikipedia.
Please take this information as a guide and do not be discouraged. Again, I now conclude that you mean well. Donner60 (talk) 03:32, 11 January 2016 (UTC)Reply
I put a "null edit" on the page simply to leave an edit summary indicating I thought additional chances to provide the needed edits should be given. That is not something that is encouraged but it should protect your recent edits from reversion, at least by the bot. Donner60 (talk) 03:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)Reply