User talk:Megawinner2
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
January 2026
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Order of Nine Angles have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
- ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
- If you need help, please see the Introduction to Wikipedia, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, place
{{Help me}}on your talk page and someone will drop by to help. - The following is the log entry regarding this message: Order of Nine Angles was changed by Megawinner2 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.92163 on 2026-01-03T02:26:41+00:00
Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 02:26, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
Please do not add commentary to articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you would like to discuss the article, please use the article's talk page. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
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, you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
- Stop putting informal unsourced comments into articles. Acroterion (talk) 02:38, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
- Can I put the edit in if I remove the quote Megawinner2 (talk) 02:39, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
- No. The quote is not the issue, it's the awkward unsourced commentary you keep putting in. Acroterion (talk) 02:41, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
- How is it awkward? Megawinner2 (talk) 02:42, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
- I'm not Acro but what I'd suggest is you may wish to compare your writing to that of the article itself. Your writing is very different in tone, such that it isn't encyclopedic. For example, you use the term "you" when referring to people involved in the organisation. An article generally should not use "you", and should refer to the members of an organisation by relevant titles (i.e. "members").
- You may also wish to consider whether the information is sufficiently relevant that it belongs in an article. If you give too much information, it becomes difficult to breach into the subject matter. You also need to have credible sources to back up any claims you want to make. You may know something to be true, only to discover you're wrong. I write quizzes, it happens to me a shocking (and slightly embarrassing) amount of the time.
- Summary: unsourced claims, improper language, failure to consider importance. Hope that helps, and Acro do feel free to reply if you disagree with any of this. This isn't comprehensive, but it's what I saw briefly looking in. Crapat2hu (talk) 02:51, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
- Spot on. Put another way, the second person should never appear in an encyclopedia article. Acroterion (talk) 03:01, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
- Honestly that makes complete sense I will doing the edit try one more time with that in mind Megawinner2 (talk) 03:22, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
- How is it awkward? Megawinner2 (talk) 02:42, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
- No. The quote is not the issue, it's the awkward unsourced commentary you keep putting in. Acroterion (talk) 02:41, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
- Can I put the edit in if I remove the quote Megawinner2 (talk) 02:39, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Order of Nine Angles. Plasticwonder (Cat got your tongue?) 04:07, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
Just a quick heads up, since you got warned again. Your wording's done a better job, but you still need a reliable source. Additionally, remember to consider whether the information is relevant to the section it's in, and actually notable enough to be included. If there's information you think should be included, you may wish to discuss it on the talk page of the article itself. You may benefit from visiting the Teahouse and asking about these things as well. Crapat2hu (talk) 04:27, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
- the source I got it from was from a member of that cult I talked too a few months ago is that considered a reliable source? Megawinner2 (talk) 04:45, 3 January 2026 (UTC)
- No, that is not a reliable source. Refer to this for a more comprehensive guide, but that is a first-hand account and not published. If you wish to make the claim, you need to bring a reliable source and cite it.
- Additionally, given how many times your edits have been rolled back on that specific page, I would consider discussing the edit on the page's talk page or approaching the Teahouse before making another edit. They may be able to help you more specifically. Crapat2hu (talk) 05:18, 3 January 2026 (UTC)