Hello, I'm Oshwah. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to 2017 Washington train derailment seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs) 04:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent editing history at 2017 Washington train derailment 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. SounderBruce 04:08, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Identity Evropa. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you have a reliable source for such a claim, please include it.331dot (talk) 19:15, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When creating a new article, please don't add Wikilinks to it before it's created, do so afterwards instead. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:47, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A page you started (Patriot Front) has been reviewed![edit]
Thanks for creating Patriot Front, MichiganWoodShop!
Wikipedia editor Abishe just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Hello MichiganWoodShop: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Abishe (talk) 20:07, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Paul Nehlen. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. One of your supposed sources does not even mention him, and a second simply calls him alt-right.Meters (talk) 23:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Paul Nehlen. Stop doing this. Two non existent refs and two that call him pro-white do not justify putting all that in the first sentence. Take it to the talk page ior leave it alone.Meters (talk) 06:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]
Your recent editing history at Identitarian movement 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. There's literally an entire discussion accompanied by reverts in the article's history. This isn't what the summary boxes are for. Please use the talk page in the way it was designed. Start an RfC if you feel it necessary. Thanks.
Edaham (talk) 23:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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 ~~~~}}. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:35, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
Disambiguation link notification for January 9[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alt-right, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Black Sun (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) 09:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You violated WP:1RR—please self revert. El_C 04:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is reverted now to my knowledge. The only thing that wasn't was the nicknames for the shutdown.MichiganWoodShop (talk) 04:55, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable group. There are a moderate number of entries in Google that support the action of that the group took against Disney, but not of substance or in-deoth about the group.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Down With Disney's Treatment of Franchises and Its Fanboys until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
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. reddogsix (talk) 22:20, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest blanking the new version you put up, and either moving or asking a admin to move the draft back to mainspace to maintain the articles edit history. This is way it should have been done as other editors had contributed to it before it moved to draft. WikiVirusC(talk) 01:43, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I restored the redirect; pls also see "How white nationalists fooled the media about Florida shooter". The article you recreated uses some of the sources that have now been proven to be incorrect, such as: "Florida school shooting suspect linked to white supremacist group". The group reportedly has 5 people; it's WP:TOOSOON for an article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:46, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware, and admit that I got fooled myself. But I believe that the claim lead to notability due to the significant media aattention that it recieved.MichiganWoodShop (talk) 22:47, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, 15 minutes of fame. Too soon. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/President Trump's Remarks on Charlottesville until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
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. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Oshwah. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to 2017 Washington train derailment seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 04:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Identity Evropa. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. If you have a reliable source for such a claim, please include it. 331dot (talk) 19:15, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Paul Nehlen. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. One of your supposed sources does not even mention him, and a second simply calls him alt-right. Meters (talk) 23:59, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
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:MichiganWoodShop reported by User:Toddst1 (Result: ). Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 23:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Draft:Republic of Florida (group), a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Republic of Florida (group) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Republic of Florida (group) during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:10, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
