User talk:Andrewlegge

June 2009[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Fianna Fáil appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe our core policies. Thank you. srushe (talk) 09:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 2010[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Fianna Fáil, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Snappy (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Fianna Fáil. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Snappy (talk) 22:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Fianna Fáil, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. srushe (talk) 23:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Oscar Traynor. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Wine Guy Talk 00:17, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as those you made to Fianna Fáil. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. Wine Guy Talk 23:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 1 week[edit]

You have been blocked for a period of 1 week from editing for persistent vandalism. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below; but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Andrewlegge. You have new messages at Wine Guy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Fianna Fail edits - 19 Jan 2010[edit]

If this is you [1] then please stop it. Snappy (talk) 18:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing[edit]

Hello Andrew, you seem to have had an unfortunate start here. Someone tagged your latest article for speedy deletion and I've downgraded that to a proposed deletion which gives a week to source and more importantly establish the notability of the article - we don't normally have articles on fictional characters unless we have articles on the series or other story that they are in. As for your edits to Fianna Fail, may I suggest you bear two things in mind. firstly the more controversial something is the better the sourcing needs to be, secondly we need to consider the weight that we give information. That story about Con Ward might be relevant here but not in the article lead. However you'd need a source, and despite googling him and checking "Great Irish Lives: An Era in Obituaries" I was unable to source that. Irish history is not my subject and if you have access to better reference material that would be interesting to cover. You might also consider finding your feet here editing in a subject where you don't have strong opinions, in my experience it is much easier to edit neutrally when one feels neutral. Ϣere SpielChequers 20:59, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]