Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please do not over-link articles, such you did at WWYZ. The Wikipedia Manual of Style has a guide on linking which counsels against adding excessive links. In particular, links should be avoided for everyday words understood by most readers in context, and only the first instance of a term should be linked. Also, please avoid adding red links to articles that don't exist and are unlikely to be created. Thanks again.—Laoris (talk) 00:11, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, please check out this linking style guide for some best practices on linking. One important point is that having a lot of links are distracting, and they should be added only where helpful in the context. Also, the text within links does not need to be title cased, and in many cases should be all lowercase (e.g., within sentences). Thanks.—Laoris (talk) 06:26, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
I am here to second this opinion, you are using repeated links numerous times throughout an article when the first will suffice against WP:REPEATLINK. You also are linking common terms that do not need to be linked against WP:OVERLINK. You also need to start using Wikipedia:Edit summaries so other editors know why you made your edits. Your continued reversion of other people's edits to continually add these repeated links and overlinks will lead you to being blocked. Aspects (talk) 03:49, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in WWYZ. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you. WCQuidditch☎✎ 22:00, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Your recent editing history at WTIC-FM 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 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. Aspects (talk) 13:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is a discussion at Talk:WTIC-FM#Logo about the logo being used in the infobox. Please join the discussion there so a consensus can be reached, if you continue to delete without any discussion, you could be blocked for Wikipedia:Edit warring. Aspects (talk) 03:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for disruptive editing--Ymblanter (talk) 12:58, 17 December 2016 (UTC). 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 request an unblock 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 ~~~~}}.[reply]
It looks like your one week block for disruptive editing was not enough to get you to be a productive editor, since you went right back to the same editing of removing images without explanation, adding repeated links and adding overlinks. I have notified the sysop who blocked you in the first place of your continuing disruptive editing. If you want to continue editing here, you need to heed other editors' advice and learn to change your editing ways. Aspects (talk) 23:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for disruptive editing. 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 request an unblock 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 ~~~~}}.
You have been blocked twice now for disruptive editing and you come back making the same edits over and over again. Please read through WP:REPEATLINK, if something is already linked once in the article, in your cases cities, they do not need to be linked for each subsequent use of the term. If you continue to edit in this way, it will get you blocked for longer than one month and possibly banned from editing because you are not leaving from your past edits, what other editors do, what other editors tell you and from your blocks. Aspects (talk) 19:07, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Part of what your past two blocks were for disruptive editing in continually deleting an image without edit summaries or talk page discussion. I have pointed out numerous times there is a discussion at Talk:WTIC-FM#Logo and if you continue to delete the image without a consensus formed that the image should not be in the infobox, you will be blocked again. Aspects (talk) 00:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 year for disruptive editing--Ymblanter (talk) 21:00, 17 February 2017 (UTC). 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 request an unblock 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 ~~~~}}.[reply]
I Would like to be unblocked thats because I would like to edit my pages very much thats because I want to be blocked out for a year thats because its takes to long.
From: JessTreczker
Post an unblock request and see what other administrators have to say. I am not going to unblock you.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm NottNott. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to WDBY— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. -NottNott|talk 15:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Wcquidditch. I noticed that you recently removed content from WAXB without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. WCQuidditch☎✎ 19:30, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in WDBY. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Duplicate links are considered to be violations of the Manual of Style. This has been an issue with edits from this IP address in the past.WCQuidditch☎✎ 03:58, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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 notice boards.
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.
Your recent editing history at WICC (AM) 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 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.BlueboyLI (talk) 14:54, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at WTIC-TV. WCQuidditch☎✎ 22:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike on signs, we don't have space limitations requiring us to abbreviate it as "N.Y. City"; "New York City" works just as well and is more intuitive to readers, especially non-American readers. We've also settled on the USPS abbreviations in most cases, in line with the guidance from The Chicago Manual of Style" and other style guides, so we shouldn't insert the periods to make it "N.Y." after a city name either. Imzadi 1979→ 15:49, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at WLAD. WCQuidditch☎✎ 22:26, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 years for persistently making disruptive edits.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 22:07, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.
Here is the Error that still needs to get fixed right away On The WICC 600 Page Where it says Weekend hosts Bob Brinker needs to get change right away to
Jim Bohannon needs to get put on right away & Would you please keep that in mind & don,t forget to get this Error fixed right away & don,t forget to take care of this Error right away & don,t forget to let me know when its all set & done with & don,t forget to get this problem fixed big time right away & don,t forget. Please Write Back to my E-mail address is jesst1982@sbcglobal.net
This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.
Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in WWYZ. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:00, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, as you did at WEZN-FM, you may be blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. As previously mentioned, duplicate links and overlinking in general go against the Manual of Style. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I'm NottNott. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to WDBY— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. -NottNott|talk 15:42, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing.
