User talk:Anonymous64bit

Hello, Anonymous64bit, and

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The plain and simple conflict of interest guide
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard
  if you wish)
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

Anonymous64bit (talk) 19:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Will erased. I was just being full of myself. Anonymous64bit (talk) 20:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:22, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Currently I am editing in a fashion that is very hard, and takes me several edits to do. (I am fixing links to other pages used as citations to confirm the truthfulness of the info presented) I am not in a editing war. Thank you for taking notice Anonymous64bit (talk) 00:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are not going to be able to find further Reliable sources (ones that are not Self-Published such as Reddit, Youtube, the band's own pages or pages created by members of the group) because no others exist - a sure sign that the notability guidelines have not been met. Continually adding links to unreliable sources will only result in your edits being reverted. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 00:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources will become available as time progresses. The band is still quite young, and is working on new albums. When new projects are released, there will certainly be reliable citatable web places that will be included. Please, let this page stay. For I have plenty confidence that this page will be very helpful to people wanting to learn about Red Vox, and how they began. It would also serve an an archive for newly developed info on the band, as time progresses. And in my opinion, a better more reliable one than all the rest that could exist.

Wikipedia requires that notability guidelines are met before a page is created.Exemplo347 (talk) 00:52, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Again. (if it will help at all) Would you like me to get Vinny of Red Vox or the Red Vox twitter to tweet about how the information presented is true? I can certainly do this if it will help at all

Sources for Wikipedia articles must be independent from the subject. It is not accuracy that is in dispute here - it is independence from the subject of the article. Twitter is another Self-published source. I suggest you examine

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources - it should help you to see that the sources you are providing do not meet the standard required. As I have already said (and having spent time myself doing so) you will not be able to find sources that meet the standard as the subject of this article is not yet Notable. I trust this finally clears up the issue for you and I'd like to direct you (once again) to the deletion discussion page here. Exemplo347 (talk) 01:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, thanks anyway. I recommend the page stay, but if it has to be deleted, I would enjoy for it to be archived, so the delete may be reverted for when the band is interviewed by an independent source (such as CNN or so). But if you, or any other person such as an administrator has the heart to keep it up, Thank you. Anonymous64bit (talk) 01:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]