User talk:Psyswordrizvi

Welcome!

Hello, Psyswordrizvi, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! buff bills 7701 12:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Psyswordrizvi, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Psyswordrizvi! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Rosiestep (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vlad the Impaler

If you add material to an article which is subsequently removed, please discuss the matter at the article's Talk page rather than simply readding the material. You may wish to review WP:BRD as well as WP:IPC. Thank you for your understanding. DonIago (talk) 13:16, 27 June 2013 (UTC) is it ok to discuss here? thanks am a complete newbiePsyswordrizvi (talk) 14:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We can, but article Talk pages are often best so that other editors can chime in as well. They basically work the same way as your Talk page. When adding a pop culture reference you should include a reliable source that establishes that the reference is significant in some manner. If I write a play about Vlad the Impaler it's not significant in and of itself, but if the New York Times writes an article about my play, that would be considered evidence of significance. Hope this helps! DonIago (talk) 14:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC): Well i cant find the "Vlad the Impaler" talk button! only says edits and history. thanks.Psyswordrizvi (talk) 14:38, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It should be over on the left side, right next to the tab for the article (at least it is in my layout), but you can always get to an article's talk page by prefacing the article's name with "Talk:". I.e. Talk:Vlad the Impaler. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 14:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 2013

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Synchronicity, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not use wikipedia as a promotional venue. All of your edits have been reerences to books by an author names Saif Rizvi. From your username I take it that you are a big fan but this is not an appropriate way to support the author. I also removed your spammy edits to

Megalopsy
Abdul Alhazred
Akbar
Tahmasp I
John Dee

DouglasCalvert (talk) 05:54, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Special Activities Division, you may be blocked from editing. DouglasCalvert (talk) 05:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Humayun, you may be blocked from editing. DouglasCalvert (talk) 06:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Lysergic acid diethylamide, you may be blocked from editing. DouglasCalvert (talk) 06:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Last chance

If you add material relevant to "Chronicles of Sepp" or its author again you will be blocked. Dougweller (talk) 09:52, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Followup

I am not sure if you are following the discussion on my talk page so I wanted to post the most important bits here as well. I thought your edits were spammy vandalism because they seemed like textbook examples of WP:BOOKSPAM and WP:CITESPAM. I every author added a paragraph on every article that is related to their new book wikipedia would suffer. Are you the author of the trilogy?DouglasCalvert (talk) 21:19, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the Publishing section of "The Chronicles of Sepp" 2011, 2012, 2013, and I feel if this Trilogy or other similar books lead to an increase in the sum total of Encyclopedic knowledge of a particular cited topic, then that makes for a better Encyclopedia. After all, the function of an Encyclopedia is to grow relevantly. Not everything is meant for the New York Times, especially Esoteric Knowledge, which is hard to come by these days through "pop" venues. If esoteric readers are out there researching a particular topic, then it might just be beneficial for them to be aware of some progress in a hidden albeit more progressive direction than previously accepted. I wish there were some more authors out there putting out "occult knowledge" of persons/topics rather than the boring "accepted" reads that we, as "Awakened People", have to put up with, even in a conservative Encyclopedic setting. It is very easy to spot a Wikipedia user who is trying to put out "Bourgeois" Knowledge versus "Artistic" Knowledge. The Contemporary Literature section related to most topics on Wikipedia are depressingly bourgeois and cater mostly to "New York Times" approved or material on similar lines. Mass acceptance of a topic doesn't necessarily make it more relevant than a slightly esoteric one. Enlightenment is our ultimate goal even though you might have considered my edits rather exuberant. My only task was to be able for the Trilogy to encompass the entire character set and to do Justice to them and for them to live again with life. The only reason I mentioned the Trilogy, and the Author, year, is for more authenticity of the Wikipedia edit.Psyswordrizvi (talk) 23:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your books are works of fiction correct? I do not understand how a fictional story about a nazi time traveling nazi general will contribute to encyclopedic knowledge? (NB: I made a tiny change to the formatting o your message. I added an indent level and made it a new paragraph.) DouglasCalvert (talk) 01:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Dougweller (talk) 09:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]