User talk:Nickbatz

September 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Yamaha Zuma, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you.

Please also read Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal--Dbratland (talk) 03:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also. You should read Self-published sources (online and paper) to help understand that Wikipedia does not consider discussion forums to be reliable, verifiable sources.
Wikibooks is a good place to submit how-to instructions, but you still need better sources than talk forums.--Dbratland (talk) 06:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to Yamaha Zuma. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you.--Dbratland (talk) 06:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Yamaha Zuma, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.

Have you looked at Wikibooks? Or WikiHow? There are appropriate Wikis that accept how-to advice. --Dbratland (talk) 17:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did to Yamaha Zuma, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Ale_Jrb ^talk 18:46, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Cirt (talk) 19:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Nickbatz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I really want to add the information about modifying the Yamaha Zuma, because it is important (since it's what users typically do). This is NOT original research, and I am looking for links other than forums of Zuma riders; but you banned me from editing after I gave up trying to add the information and instead took a different tack, just adding onto a pre-existing sentence about modifications. I am not a "tagger" - in fact I'm a professional magazine editor! - and absolutely don't deserve to be banned from editing on Wkipedia!

Decline reason:

Find the reliable sources and THEN enter the material. Are you willing to do that? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

unblock|Yes, no problem.

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Nickbatz is going to get another chance to get it right.

Request handled by: Pastor Theo (talk) 03:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

An indefinite block was clearly too harsh for a first time editor who, it appears, was making an honest mistake. I would strongly suggest reading WP:RS and the aforementioned pages cited above, especially WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:No original research. Please take some time to read up on the Wikipedia editing process, which is very different from how magazine editing operates. And please feel free to contact me on my Talk Page if you have any questions. Good luck! Pastor Theo (talk) 03:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: See also 98.151.49.46 (talk · contribs), 206.207.155.62 (talk · contribs), and 24.250.148.78 (talk · contribs). Compare with Nickbatz (talk · contribs). Then see blatantly disruptive edits, including [1] and [2]. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 03:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]