User talk:SpiroAgnew1980

Welcome!

Hello, SpiroAgnew1980, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Controversies about the word niggardly did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Introduction tutorial
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need personal help ask me on my talk page, or . Again, welcome.  Schazjmd (talk) 20:12, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Your recent edit on this page

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. While all are welcome to edit any page they choose, all edits must be supported by reliable sourcing to be retained in those articles. Your recent edit to the Wikipedia article about the Hymns of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints appear to be vandalism, since there are 341 and only 341 hymns in the current hymnbook. Additionally, your edits mention Joe Walz, and all edits mentioning that individual (who may not actually exist) have been immediately reverted as vandalism. You are more than welcome to stay on Wikipedia and can feel free to make genuine contributions. But if your goal is simply to disrupt page content here, especially relating to articles about the Church, Wikipedia is not the place for that behavior, so please take that attitude somehwere where it might actually be appreciated and acceptable. Because all edits referencing Joe Walz have been regarded as vandalism in the past, any future attempt on your part to make similar edits about Joe Walz on any Wikipedia page may be immediately referred to Wikipedia administrators for potential disciplinary actions (which may include permanent bans from editing Wikipedia). My advice would be to not let it come to that. Thank you. --Jgstokes (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Walz, Joe definitely exists. He's a friend of mine from high school. SpiroAgnew1980 (talk) 20:42, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Immaterial. The fact of the matter is that you incorrectly cite legitimate sources as verification of the "facts" you're inserting in these articles. Claiming that any source says something that it does not actually say is a HUGE violation of Wikipedia policies. And I see that you made another Joe Walz edit after my above warning to you. So I want to reiterate: The next Joe Walz edit I see from you here, I will be personally reporting that vandalism to Wikipedia admins for disciplinary action. Your conduct and attitude leave me no other choice. Final warning. Please take it seriously this time. --Jgstokes (talk) 20:49, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

You're not taking the time to read the sources cited. They actually all refer to Walz, Joe. If Wikipedia is to be taken seriously, legitimate citations must not be dismissed. SpiroAgnew1980 (talk) 20:51, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

According to worldcat.org, there is no such book as A Practitioner's Guide: Addiction to Masturbation and Pornography. Your edit to Controversies about the word niggardly cited a source that nothing to do with the content that you added. You are adding hoax content to articles. Schazjmd (talk) 20:53, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Again, you're not taking the time to read the cited articles. I can't force you to read them, but please don't delete legitimate sources. SpiroAgnew1980 (talk) 20:56, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

November 2021

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Praise to the Man, you may be blocked from editing. A look at your contributions makes it clear that you're simply making things up. Stop. Schazjmd (talk) 20:51, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  --Blablubbs (talk) 21:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)