User talk:JoshDonaldson20

Speedy deletion nomination of User:JoshDonaldson20

Hello JoshDonaldson20,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged User:JoshDonaldson20 for deletion, because it seems to be promotional, rather than an encyclopedia article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Musamies (talk) 16:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... (This is just a user page, not an article) --JoshDonaldson20 (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JoshDonaldson20, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi JoshDonaldson20! 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! Worm That Turned (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hello, JoshDonaldson20, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! – Muboshgu (talk) 04:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Department directory Help directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

An invitation for you!

Hello, JoshDonaldson20. Please accept this invitation to join WikiProject Baseball. We are dedicated to improving all articles relating to the great game of baseball. If you're interested in participating, please consider adding your name to our participant list and join our active discussions on how to improve coverage of baseball on Wikipedia.

Happy editing! – Muboshgu (talk) 04:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop

Hello,

I just wanted to let you know I only made this account because what you edit and how you edit it, it bothers me. What you do is delete words and phrases to make articles simpler. You change Wikipedia to the way a person would talk, while it should be written as an encyclopedia. You also don't seem to understand what is and isn't proper grammar/punctuation. Please consider checking that your changes are necessary and needed.

Thank you Jordandlee (talk) 23:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 19 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Sports in Boston page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "JoshDonaldson20", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because Your name might match the name of a Blue Jay player. If you're not Mr. Donaldson we strongly suggest you rename your account to JDFan20 (talk · contribs). If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username by completing this form, or you may simply create a new account for editing. Thank you.

Disambiguation link notification for January 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sporting Life (retailer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Black Friday. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Peyton Manning, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jim Caldwell. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Quarterback may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

their family), whethey they are the [[Super Bowl MVP]] or not; examples include [[Joe Montana]] ([[Super Bowl XXIII|XXIII]], [[Trent Dilfer]] ([[Super Bowl XXXV|XXXV]]), and [[Peyton Manning]] ([[

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 21 March

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the IPhone 5S page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

IPhone 5

added a link pointing to Wired

IPhone SE

added a link pointing to Wired

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:06, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Focke-Wulf Fw 190 operational history into North American P-51 Mustang. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 20:27, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Malayan Campaign

Hi Josh - in your recent edit you talk about the Spitfire vs the Zero. How does this relate to the campaign as a large number of the Allied aircraft were destroyed on the ground in the opening hours and those that engaged the Japanese were generally Brewster Buffalos and some Hawker Hurricanes? NealeFamily (talk) 22:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments NealeFamily (talk) 23:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have searched all the reocrds I can find and there is no mention of Spitfires in Singapore or Malaya during the Malayan campaign NealeFamily (talk) 08:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 27 April

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the USS Kentucky (BB-66) page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help) and a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:38, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 3 May

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Consolidated PBY Catalina page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Misha, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vorobyovy Gory. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:31, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cruiser article

I've noticed that you're working on various edits to the Cruiser article, and so am I. I'm currently planning to add significant information on the development of US and Soviet cruisers 1950-1980, and a section on cruiser warfare in WWII. So far almost all I have on WWII cruisers is the Solomon Islands campaign, which covers US, Japanese, and Australian cruisers but leaves out the Brits. Come to think of it, Japanese cruiser development is essentially absent from the article currently. All I know about Brit cruisers in WWII is the Battle of the River Plate and HMS Dorsetshire finishing off the Bismarck. I will first put my additions in my sandbox, and give you a heads-up here before entering them. RobDuch (talk) 22:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it! I appreciate your earlier addition and look forward to your WWII work, so you can skip the sandbox and go straight to the article itself. My work on cruisers is mostly the late-Cold War vessels so there should be no conflict. JoshDonaldson20 (talk) 23:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For my own peace of mind I'm working on it in the sandbox. I am almost entirely adding material rather than replacing it. I have Friedman's books and the Conway's series, among other references. Probably my best cruiser article is Pennsylvania-class cruiser, which I did almost all of. RobDuch (talk) 00:38, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

San Jose Sharks

Hello, I just wanted to let you know directly why I was reverting the edit you made to the Sharks. You added a nearly word-for-word line from an article referencing the Sharks 1994 upset over the Red Wings. While the upset itself is notable, coach Bowman's getting lost in the arena has nothing to do with the Sharks themselves and their overall history. It is possibly relevant however to that season's page as well possibly the 1994 Stanley Cup playoffs, Scotty Bowman himself, and possibly SAP Center. Also, please use proper inline ref tag citation methods instead of hyperlinking the website directly in the article. Thank you, Yosemiter (talk) 01:16, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Thiago Silva, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Júlio César. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 2016

Your recent editing history at Brazil v Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup) 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. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Cruiser may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

[[Tomahawk (missile)|Tomahawk cruise missile]]s due to its modular hull design, and along with the ({{sclass-|Ticonderoga|cruiser|4}} with VLS, this gave them anti-surface strike capabilities far

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. T v x1 21:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring, as you did at Brazil v Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. —Bagumba (talk) 00:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 23 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Microsoft Surface page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brock Turner

Looking at that sentence you were right, but I thought it was a bit grammatically weird(thus my confusion) so I simplified it. Just a heads up, check the next reference to the marshall project, it looks to me like it's still got a link to jezebel in it, but I'm not good enough with wiki syntax to know how to fix it. Inicholson (talk) 18:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your revised text looks good. Will see how to fix the refs. JoshDonaldson20 (talk) 18:04, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello JoshDonaldson20, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to USS Franklin (CV-13) has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 19:38, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again...

What part of "Bold, revert, discuss" do you not understand?

Never mind, you'll just remove this message and go back to shitposting again.

'''tAD''' (talk) 19:12, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 60 hours for edit warring, as you did at Disgrace of Gijón. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. –Darkwind (talk) 04:10, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:JoshDonaldson20 reported by User:Sir Sputnik (Result: ). Thank you. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:11, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First of all let me thank you for your participation in the discussion. Your comments and actions would have been enough for me withdraw my complaint were it not already closed. That being said, I do have some concerns. Explaining yourself and seeking input from others is certainly a step in right direction, but it does not give you license to insist on your preferred version of the article. If someone objects to your edits, you are expected to stop editing the page and resolve your differences through discussion before making any further changes. With no one else commenting on the matter and The Almightey Drill still blocked, I see no evidence of the issue actually being resolved. Most worrying to me though is the timing of all this. You were blocked twice for revert-warring and one of the first things you do after the second expires is to revert the same article again. It makes me worry as that you may not have understood the reason for the block, and that further sanctions may be necessary. I hope you prove me wrong. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. No one user gets a veto on changes. tAD's reversions were just as problematic as yours, which is why you were both blocked. If you fail to reach an agreement, there are a number of dispute resolution procedures available to you. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Boeing 777 into Jet airliner. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 01:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are still not adding the required attribution, as required under the terms of the CC-by-SA license. Please have a look at this edit summary as an example of how it is done. Please leave a message on my talk page if you still don't understand what to do or why we have to do it. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are still not adding the required attribution, as required under the terms of the CC-by-SA license. Copying from one article another without providing the required attribution is a copyright violation. Please begin fulfilling this mandatory legal requirement, or you risk being blocked from editing. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 16 August

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Competitive swimwear page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Competitive swimwear, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Nike and Mizuno. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:44, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 2016

Your addition to Silver medal has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. This is your final warning. Further copyright violations will result in you being blocked from editing. — Diannaa (talk) 23:33, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing 777

Please stop adding meaningless WP:TRIVIA to this article. The current consensus is that this doesn't belong in the article. Edit warring to try to include it will just result in you being blocked from editing. - Ahunt (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

iPhone 5s

I saw that you reverted my edit on the iPhone 5s article. I didn't mean them as content removal. 2602:306:32DF:1EC0:1145:113F:FC2A:1D87 (talk) 20:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is 97.103.155.112, just editing from a different location 2602:306:32DF:1EC0:1145:113F:FC2A:1D87 (talk) 20:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Andrea Bargnani

Why do you persist on reverting at Andrea Bargnani? Four users now have disagreed with your content: myself, Sabbatino, Bagumba and now IP 188.2.133.143. I was going to let this be, but now since you are edit warring with this IP, I am going to have to report you at WP:AN/I if you revert that IP again. You are being very disruptive and are taking no notice of the reasons being given for the removal of the content in question. Your next move should not be reverting again – you should attempt to discuss the controversial content at the article talk page or at WT:NBA. I started a thread there already a while back [1]. Discuss your view and points there. Don't continue to revert – it's disruptive and gets us nowhere. Please consider heeding to my advice. DaHuzyBru (talk) 17:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DaHuzyBru: There's me, too, because of the use of Bleacher Report, the worst source (lined with The Sun and Daily Mail) for this type of content AND the lack of WP:NPOV. Vítor (talk) 19:34, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. DaHuzyBru (talk) 19:17, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Andrea Bargnani. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. _Muffled ^Pocketed 19:47, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistent edit warring on Andrea Bargnani. When you return from the block, please try to get consensus for your changes on the article talkpage. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | talk 20:21, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

FYI, I have added our disagreement about the Montreal–Mirabel airport to Wikipedia:Third opinion. Air.light (talk) 18:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, JoshDonaldson20. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 22 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Bob Dole page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:16, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 2016

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Toronto Eaton Centre, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:20, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Boxing Day, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to French Montana discography. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:06, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Boxing Day. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:07, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you are adding unsourced content, and doing so in reverts, but you do need to add sources to your edits. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:09, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added source. JoshDonaldson20 (talk) 22:35, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 23 November

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Bob Dole page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ferraro self-revert is needed

The consensus at WP:RSN#Is Murray Rothbard/LewRockwell.com an RS about New York politicians? is clear: the Murray Rothbard piece published at Lewrockwell.com is not considered a reliable source about Ferraro or Holtzman (or much of anything else). Therefore please self-revert this change of yours that added it back into the Ferraro article. Thanks. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017

Your recent editing history at Geraldine Ferraro 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 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 you 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. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

JoshDonaldson20, you do have some knowledge of American politics that sometimes helps fill out some of these articles. But you are going about things in very much the wrong way, as @Sir Sputnik: has indicated. If someone disagrees with all or part of your edits, don't dig in your heels and revert, but rather discuss. So if you see me make this edit, where I say that the two New York Times stories you have as the source for Ferraro supporting Hevesi for revenge against Holtzmann do not in fact support that statement, don't just revert with no comment. Go on the Talk page and show me that I missed it by pointing me to a specific place in one of the stories. Or if you realize they don't support it, keep looking for a source that does. In a minute or two you could find a source like this other New York Times story, which says Hevesi had Ferraro's "strong backing". So that solves one part of it. It doesn't say she was out for revenge per se, but it does put the contest in the context of "the unforgiving world of New York City politics, where old feuds and long memories are the stuff of legend", which is close. Now in fact if you look a little more, Ferraro denied that she was out for revenge when she first endorsed Hevesi - see this New York Times piece which says "She said she was supporting him not out of a desire for revenge but because of his liberal record in the State Assembly." So you should include both the mention of the feud and a mention of her denial in the article, and let readers judge for themselves. See how much more productive this is than just reverting? Wasted Time R (talk) 02:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amended as per your suggestion, Wasted Time R. Omitting the Murray Rothbard article due to WP:RSN#Is Murray Rothbard/LewRockwell.com, as it had shed some more light upon the Ferraro-Holtzman rivalry (although of course it was clearly partisan like Fox, later I realized Rothbard was accused of historical revisionism), did cause quite a "sinkhole" with regards to the attack ad and 1993 controller race. Originally I preferred saying "Rothbard asserted that Ferraro, out of revenge, backed Hevesi to challenge Holtzman". JoshDonaldson20 (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most of your wording change is fine but you have to be careful with the quoting. You have Ferraro was quoted as saying that she supported Hevesi "not out of a desire for revenge but because of his liberal record in the State Assembly", but it's not Ferraro who said those precise words, it's the New York Times reporter. You can't copy the reporter's words, so you need to paraphrase it again, to something like Ferraro denied that her endorsement was motivated by revenge against Holtzman, saying it was due to his liberal State Assembly voting record. And you need to add a cite to the New York Times story that has this, because the two cites already there do not. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Rolex 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 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 you 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. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have a history of edit warring. Please stop EvergreenFir (talk) 21:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Watson

Please read the edit summaries; there were specific reasons for the reversion. If you disagree, start a discussion at the talk page. —ATS 🖖 talk 03:19, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference—and since this seems to be a continuing issue—"An editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether their edits were justifiable". If you believe another editor has made an error—which, in this case, I did—you should either:

leave a message on that editor's talk page; or
ping that editor in a message on the article's talk page.

It is vital to the health of an encyclopedia that we all collaborate. —ATS 🖖 talk 00:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Beauty and the Beast (2017 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Walt Disney Studios. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Frank Wells, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Walt Disney Studios. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Canada 10,000 Challenge submissions

The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada will soon be reaching its first-anniversary. Please consider submitting any Canada-related articles you have created or improved since November 2016. Please try to ensure that all entries are sourced with formatted citations and no unsourced claims.

You may submit articles using this link for convenience. Thank-you, and please spread the word to those you know who might be interested in joining this effort to improve the quality of Canada-related articles. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, JoshDonaldson20. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Pixel 2 does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! —DIYeditor (talk) 21:30, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing articles

Regarding this edit, please take a moment to read Help:Referencing for beginners. If you have any questions feel free to ask. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Malcolm Smith (American football), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bruce Irvin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Goaltender mask, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Body Count (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Star Wars species (P–T), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Seal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to the concurrency article

I've reverted some of your edits to concurrency (road). When you split the North America subsection up, you left a Canadian photo at the top of the split section you assigned to the United States. Additionally, that article does not need to be so detailed, nor does it need to try to be an exhaustive listing. A few illustrative examples are all that's needed.

I restored the section as "North America" for parity with "Europe" and "The Middle East", which also fixes the issue of a Canadian photo appearing in the "wrong" section. I've also removed the Manitoba example to keep the Canadian content length manageable and somewhat proportionate with the rest of the article. Imzadi 1979 → 18:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now I understand, in that case thanks for your edits.JoshDonaldson20 (talk) 19:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Line 4 Sheppard, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Gunn (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Airbus A340. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Denniss (talk) 07:39, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Quebec Nordiques. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. In addition, stop adding editorial, poorly written and other content, which fails the neutral POV policy. – Sabbatino (talk) 06:45, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. clpo13_(talk) 18:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]