User talk:Wikipedianempire

Welcome![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, Wikipedianempire! Thank you for your contributions. I am HiLo48 and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! HiLo48 (talk) 04:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020[edit]

Hello, I'm L293D. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to List of Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign endorsements—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bernesque poetry has been accepted[edit]

Bernesque poetry, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Calliopejen1 (talk) 04:29, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

National varieties of English[edit]

Hello. In a recent edit to the page Francisco Franco, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. General Ization ^Talk 04:43, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article has a {{British English}} template; please respect it. General Ization ^Talk 04:43, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020[edit]

Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Vandalism of art. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 19:22, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Nick Fuentes. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 01:33, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

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 noticeboards.
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.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Groypers, you may be blocked from editing. Grayfell (talk) 19:39, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important notice[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:14, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox images[edit]

Please get consensus before changing infobox images, especially in bios of legendary people. You cannot make such decisions unilaterally. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 16:07, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am somewhat new to wikipedia. How do I go about gaining consensus for an image change? I feel that the image I used is much better than the reverted one. Thanks.

If you're new to Wikipedia you need to take things slowly until you get a better grasp of how things work. If someone reverts you, don't simply revert back. Communication is not an option; it's required. Someone put a welcome message at the top of this page. Click the links and read policies and guidelines. For information on consensus, read WP:CON. And if you seek consensus be prepared to discuss and defend your position, and have some patience. It doesn't happen in a matter of minutes, hours, or even days. Sundayclose (talk) 16:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is fundamentally not a question of which image is better, or there being something wrong with the particular image in question. I happen to agree with Sundayclose, that the image you have chosen is inferior both in terms of its photographic quality and its representation of the subject, but that is beside the point. There is a specific protocol for disputed changes summarized at WP:BRD, which encourages editors to be bold, but when their change is reverted they should then discuss it on the relevant Talk page rather than repeatedly making the change. In the specific case of infobox images, these are frequently the subject of prior discussion and consensus - those editors with an interest in the page have already collectively decided which image they as a group thought was best. As such, any change should likewise go through that process rather than a single editor substituting their judgment for the collective judgment of everyone else. If your change is reverted, go to the Talk page and convince others your change is an improvement.

Two other general notes. First, you should sign your Talk page contributions. Put four consecutive tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end and a bot will fill it out automatically. See WP:SIG for this. Second, the concept of a 'minor edit' on Wikipedia is rather specific. Here, a minor edit is something superficial and not liable to be disputed by anyone, such as fixing a typo, correcting punctuation or adding a link. Anything that changes content in a meaningful way or in a manner that anyone might dispute, such as adding a sentence as you did on John Spencer (died 1522), or altering an image, as you did on Marilyn Monroe, Joan Collins or, last month, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, is not a minor edit as defined by Wikipedia, and should not be marked as such. See WP:MINOR. There is always a bit of a learning curve for someone new to Wikipedia, and if you find that many of your edits are being reverted, as seems to be the case with pretty much all of your edits thusfar, then that may indicate that there is something (or several things) that you are not aware of, and finding out why this keeps happening will likely make your future editing more productive. Agricolae (talk) 17:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An added note: I looked over your past edits and there is one behavior that you need to discontinue - you have made several edits that you characterized as correcting 'spelling errors' when what you actually did was substitute North American English for the British English spellings originally used. Wikipedia has a style policy on this - if a subject is identified with a specific country or region, the English style of that region is preferred (e.g. Alfred the Great is described using British English, Theodore Roosevelt using American English, Lleyton Hewitt using Australian English, etc.). If no such Anglophone geographical identity is linked to the subject, then you should leave it the way it was, whichever way that was, and not change it to the preferred form for your region, which only invites a never ending cycle of nationalistic spelling edit wars. Agricolae (talk) 07:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 2020[edit]

Your recent editing history at Marilyn Monroe shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sundayclose (talk) 16:11, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at John Spencer (died 1522), you may be blocked from editing. Sundayclose (talk) 16:11, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know you reverted your edit in which you added your proposed image a few minutes ago, and that's fine. I don't know what your intention was. But I'd like to offer a friendly suggestion: Don't consider taking action in violation of consensus. That can get you blocked very quickly, and I'd hate to see that. Sundayclose (talk) 23:44, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I actually thought I was using the sandbox but accidentally made an edit to the main page. Still trying to gain consensus. Thankfully I caught it quickly.

No problem. Sundayclose (talk) 00:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American Statesmen has been nominated for merging[edit]

Category:American Statesmen has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Le Deluge (talk) 16:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright[edit]

Hello Wikipedianempire! Your additions to Martin Adolf Bormann have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

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. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. All other images must be made available under a free and open license that allows commercial and derivative reuse to be used on Wikipedia.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
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 must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also 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. Acroterion (talk) 00:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

June 2021[edit]

Your edit to America First Political Action Conference has been removed in whole or in part, 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 very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Veggies (talk) 03:38, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, as you did at Richard C. Macke, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Connormah (talk) 16:42, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]