Jump to content

User talk:Libertarian12111971

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Libertarian12111971! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Vacation9 21:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Libertarian12111971, you are invited to the Teahouse

[edit]
Teahouse logo

Hi Libertarian12111971! 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! Nathan2055 (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse
This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Arid Uka, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Albanian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014

[edit]

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to Stockton Police Department does not have an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history.

The edit summary appears in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! SummerPhD (talk) 15:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rampage

[edit]

I refer to your edit here: [1]. Thanks for adding referenced information to the article. Just some friendly advice. Please consider formatting references using an approved method such as Template:Cite web, especially when most of the existing references in the article are formatted in this way. Please choose simpler names for your references in the future. Giving the reference the name <ref name ="[Review] Uwe Boll Strikes Back With 'Rampage: Capital Punishment'"> defeats the purpose of having a simple ref name to allow editors to refer to the reference again without cutting and pasting. A reference based on a cue in the title such as "strikesback" or "punishment", would be much more appropriate, as would the name of the website it links to "bloodydisgusting", if that website is not used elsewhere in the article already. Also you do not need comma's in-between the second-last listed item and the word "and". The sentence should end "Katharine Isabelle and Michaela Mann." not "Katharine Isabelle, and Michaela Mann. Have a nice day. Freikorp (talk) 00:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014

[edit]

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please make sure to include an edit summary with every edit. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history.

The edit summary appears in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! JohnInDC (talk) 22:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please, summarize what you're doing. It is burdensome when other editors have to read your edits to see what you did, or were trying, to do. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 15:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Platte Canyon High School hostage crisis, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Stun gun and Colt. 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) 09:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2014

[edit]

Copyright problem icon Your addition to Shooting of Michael Brown has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without 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 text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions 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. Do not include long excerpts of copyrighted material as you did here. Veggies (talk) 18:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014

[edit]

Information icon Hi there! 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 EgyptAir 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. Thanks! Jetstreamer Talk 00:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marysville Pilchuck High School shooting

[edit]

What are "Native American activities"? Anticipating some objections to that. Maybe you mean traditional Native American culture? That would be much more clear, and less likely to cause a hissy-fit. (Haven't looked at the ref you used for that yet. Which one is it?) Dwpaul Talk 00:24, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
thanks for your efforts on that Sydney article today Gnangarra 13:48, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

December 2014

[edit]

Information icon Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. LorHo ho ho 06:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2014 NYPD officer killings, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Georgia. 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) 11:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2010 Northumbria Police manhunt, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Manhunt. 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) 11:28, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained removal of reference

[edit]

Hi, in this edit you removed a reference from Jurassic World. Not sure if that was intentional or not, but if it was, you should explain your edit by using an edit summary, as unexplained edits of this sort look like vandalism to other editors. I've restored the reference. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stop

[edit]

Discuss on the talk page or i'm going to report you to ANI. SilverserenC 22:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained deletion of RS-supported fact

[edit]

Why did you delete the RS-supported mention of where the third suspect lived, here? Nor did you leave any clue in your empty edit summary. --Epeefleche (talk) 23:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I see you removed the reference. And I see that you have been warned for doing the same, above. Please take this as a warning. --Epeefleche (talk) 23:25, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty sure I didn't remove that fact. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 23:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did you check the diff? It appears from the diff that you did. Epeefleche (talk) 08:54, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated deletion of linking

[edit]

You've repeatedly deleted links, on the basis of your personal view, unsupported by consensus, that redlinks are not appropriate. Again you did it here. With a purported rationale that makes no sense. Firstly, where is the evidence that the article was deleted? Secondly, if the entity were non-notable, it would be appropriate to delete the sentence. Thirdly, just because an article is deleted (where that is the case) does not mean a properly written article may not be written. Please stop editing against consensus. Epeefleche (talk) 08:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Episode summary length

[edit]

Hello. I've noticed over the past season or so that you tend to write long episode summaries for anime lists, and in some instances even extend the length of some. While I appreciate your enthusiasm to summarize these episodes, it is generally unnecessary to write as much as you do for a single episode. For instance, with the episode I gave as an example, you effectively doubled the length of a summary of an already suitable length, but these summaries are generally not meant to be that long to begin with. As a rule of thumb, I would recommend trying to keep it to about the length of episode 13's original summary and instead of writing intricate detail about an episode, just write about the most important details.--十八 22:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 9 January

[edit]

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

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) 00:25, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MOS

[edit]

Please follow MOS -- as was indicated in the change to the proper format that you marred, and don't make this change again. Thanks. --Epeefleche (talk) 06:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2015

[edit]

Information icon Hi there! 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)

As here -- where, as mentioned, your edit was inappropriate, as it was non-MOS.

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. Thanks! Epeefleche (talk) 06:42, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Quite a number of articles have been created since Charlie Hebdo shooting was created. Two that I created myself are Coco (cartoonist) and Charlie Hebdo issue No. 1011. Others have turned many more redlinks into bluelinks. Once they are created, they cease to be redlinks. Now please revert and read WP:REDLINK. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:01, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WHERE ARE THESE ARTICLES?! BECAUSE I'M NOT SEEING THEM! Libertarian12111971 (talk) 22:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I LINKED TO THEM!!!!! Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 22:33, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seeing only one now. The rest are STILL red links. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 23:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus Christ—do you seriously believe red links are supposed to be removed? They are there to encourage people to create new articles! Just as I have just now. Now leave these things alone—you obviously don't understand how Wikipedia works, and are only going to embarrass yourself (or get blocked for vandalizing the page and edit-warring). Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, those things have been around since the creation of the article and no one has barely made an effort to make articles outside of you for only one of them. If no one's going to make articles of them, why the hell should they be there in the first place? Libertarian12111971 (talk) 23:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're going to claim that I'm the only one who has turned these redlinks into articles? Would you like to take it to the talk page and ask? I'm sure the hardworking editors and creators of articles could use a good laugh. Did you not notice how I created one of those articles just today? Give it a freaking rest—you're being contentious, and you're going to get yourself blocked. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 23:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uherský Brod shooting

[edit]

Hello,

you have added content to Uherský Brod shooting article. There is currently ongoing discussion on the talk page regarding a disputed deletion of content. I would like to invite you to share your view on the issue.

Thank you and best regards, Cimmerian praetor (talk) 21:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for 2015 Chapel Hill shooting

[edit]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015

[edit]

Information icon Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at List of My Teen Romantic Comedy SNAFU episodes (season 2). Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges.

I have to disagree with you on your choice of grammar and "errors". On a side note, too many commas interrupt the flow. The point is for a continuous flow of words in a summary, minimizing pauses where possible/necessary. KirtZJ (talk) 04:06, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Summaries need to use simple simple sentences and avoid the over use of commas since they usually affect the flow to a casual reader. On a side note, I can only caution you control your edit warring tendencies as done at the aforementioned page and over at Fate/stay night. If somebody reverts you a second time there is usually a reason and you should make a case at a talk page and work something out. Hope this helps. —KirtMessage 16:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help on the Shirou Emiya Page

[edit]

Hello, Mr. Libertarian, thank you for helping to edit the Shirou Emiya Wikipedia page. I would like to request your help in editing his powers and abilities section. Also if you can please help to gather information regarding his popularity of fame, But don't edit anything yet for that section just yet. First upload the info in the Shirou Emiya Talk Page and wait for my response. Thank you.--S. John Warrynn (talk) 16:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 29 April

[edit]

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

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) 00:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited May 3, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anti-Islam. 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) 09:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015

[edit]

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. I warned you for doing the same thing in the past. As you did just now -- the unexplained removal of appropriate, RS-supported material. Here. Please stop. Epeefleche (talk) 07:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Hi there! 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)

As here ... the latest instance of inappropriate removal of RS-supported material, referenced directly above. Not only was the deletion not appropriate. Your failure to use edit summary -- yet again -- compounds the problem. Please stop that practice. You have now been warned for this a number of times over the past few months, including by User:Cyphoidbomb and User:Jetstreamer.

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. Thanks! Epeefleche (talk) 07:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Inline links are helpful. They flag readers to the fact that they can click -- and learn more about the individual linked. Please don't delete such inlines. --Epeefleche (talk) 07:21, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, they're not. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 07:24, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? I explained above how they are. You can't just edit war on the basis of IDONTLIKEIT. You have to give a cogent reason for your edit warring. Which you have failed to do. I explained to you above how it is helpful. You simply responded, in effect, "no."
If I can't explain this to you, would you prefer that it be raised at a noticeboard? It is disruptive for you to do what you are doing.
And -- as has been requested a number of times, but which you still ignore, please leave edit summaries. This is especially important when you make controversial edits, such as this one, but is a proper general practice as well.
Please stop edit warring. --Epeefleche (talk) 07:31, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is leaving edit summaries really mandatory? Libertarian12111971 (talk) 07:36, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • To answer your question -- please click through and read the content at the templated messages that have been left for you over the past seven months in this regard. Asking you to leave edit summaries. Starting with User:JohnInDC ten months ago, and then User:Jetstreamer leaving the request, over seven months ago, and continuing with the request being made not just by more (more than once) but also, for example, by User:Cyphoidbomb.

Despite a series of requests, you've continued to not leave edit summaries on many edits. Even on controversial edits. Even when you are reverting another editor.

Read in particular the section of "Edit Summaries" entitled: "Always provide an edit summary".

It is considered good practice to provide a summary for every edit, especially when reverting the actions of other editors or deleting existing text; otherwise, people may question your motives for the edit.

Proper use of edit summaries is critical to resolving content disputes. Edit summaries should accurately and succinctly summarize the nature of the edit, especially if it could be controversial.

Your failure to use edit summaries, despite being pointed to this language a number of times by more than one editor over half a year, is compounded by the fact that you've failed to do so while engaging in controversial edits, and when reverting another editor. Epeefleche (talk) 08:13, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That sucks. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 12:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015

[edit]

Information icon Hi there! 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 Islamic Community Center of Phoenix does not have an edit summary. You have been asked to leave an edit summary many times. You continue to ignore these requests that you edit properly.

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. Thanks! Epeefleche (talk) 07:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia's Edit Warring noticeboard regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

I did not block you this time, since you stopped reverting. However, your behavior in the article and in the above topic is not really acceptable. I closed the AN/3RR topic with a warning for you, and next time you are likely to be blocked even if you stop again at three reverts. In Wikipedia, edit warring is not a valid avenue of dispute resolution.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charleston

[edit]

Thanks, for helping with the references and fixing citations. --79.223.25.2 (talk) 13:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Charleston church shooting

[edit]

It is not unnecessary, so I have undid your edit. Epic Genius (talk) 01:42, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Aurora Shooting

[edit]

I saw you were active here in trying to get a full and complete assessment of the victims of the 2012 Aurora Shooting and I agree with it. I was wondering if you caught these statements from the Pentagon: "The Pentagon said three military personnel were injured in the shooting and that another service member at the theater remained unaccounted for"?

Also Jessica Ghawi might be highlighted as she was in NPR here for having escaped a previous shootout.

Thanks Ferociouslettuce (talk) 19:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia Tech Project Invite

[edit]

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject Virginia Tech, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Virginia Tech. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!

Go Hokies (talk) 22:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

[edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 2014 Montgomery County shootings for deletion

[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2014 Montgomery County shootings, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Montgomery County shootings until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Libertarian12111971&oldid=1216794996"