Global.Geo.Historic.Data

Welcome to Wikipedia. If I understand correctly the statement on your user page, you are 11 individuals sharing one username. I want to bring to your attention that Wikipedia policy expressly forbids the sharing of a single account by multiple persons. Please review the applicable policy. If you have any questions about this, please don't hesitate to ask them at the New Contributors' Help Page.

I also want to note that you have added a considerable amount of unsourced information to Bismarck, North Dakota, much of it apparently original research, which is also a violation of Wikipedia policy. Much of what you've added could be valuable to the article if it cited reliable sources, but you have cited no sources at all. If you previously edited under the IP 96.3.137.168, please be advised that I left you a message here regarding similar edits to the same article, and also opened a discussion on the article's talk page. I intend to open a request for comment to bring the text in question to the attention of more editors.

There are lots of rules here at Wikipedia, and learning them can be daunting to new editors, but they're a necessary burden. Assuming you'll want to resolve these issues promptly, I'll watch this page for your reply. Thanks very much for your cooperation. Rivertorch (talk) 06:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

  Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button   located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 22:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

  Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to Bismarck, North Dakota. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. (Also please be advised that your edits violate at least two other policies, the verifiability one and the neutrality one. I have warned you very gently and have taken considerable time to try to engage you in meaningful discussion, so far to no avail. Please pay attention to what I'm saying and read and follow the policies linked above. If you have questions, ask me or ask at the help page as I suggested before.) Rivertorch (talk) 07:39, 31 January 2010 (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 Bismarck, North Dakota, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Rivertorch (talk) 05:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

  Your addition to Iqaluit has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Johnuniq (talk) 09:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

I see you are working on the Bismarck, North Dakota article, but are having a bit of trouble. You probably have quite a lot of knowledge and can help Wikipedia, so welcome! However, it can take quite a while to get used to the procedures here, so please be patient. Some thought shows that there have to be rules about what material is acceptable in an article because there are lots of people with novel ideas who would love to change articles to reflect their personal opinions. Clearly that would give chaos and nonsense. Therefore, material has to comply with various policies, and the advice being presented at Talk:Bismarck, North Dakota is correct. The main problem many new users encounter is that it is not acceptable here to add material based on what you know to be true, or what you believe (you may be correct, but many other people are not). Instead, material must be verifiable: preferably references to reliable sources would be included with any added material. That can be hard to do in practice, however, there must be some indication that it is at least possible to add such references (for example, on the talk page you might mention a book which verifies at least some of the added material).

Your contributions are wanted, however it would be best if you added only small amounts of material, then discussed issues on the article talk page. Ask questions, and ask for assistance. Other editors will help you to become familiar with the standard procedures used here. Johnuniq (talk) 09:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Re-adding material without discussion will not succeed, particularly when that material conflicts with the standard procedures that are required here (see the links in my above comment). Johnuniq (talk) 09:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

Quit edit warring. A consensus was made through a community-wide RFC not to include your additions because they are original research and copyright violations. Edit warring is not going to help your cause. If you disagree with the consensus, you need to take it to the talk page. Continuing to push your version, in spite of the current consensus, could lead to your account being blocked. --13² 19:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

block it then

Seriously? You would rather have your account blocked, so you can't edit at all, anywhere on Wikipedia, than discuss this in a calm and civil manner to come to a decision that we can all agree with? I mean...seriously? --13² 20:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)Reply

  Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to North Dakota, 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. DCmacnut<> 14:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)Reply