User talk:ANTONI20
Welcome ANTONI20!
| Some pages of helpful information to get you started: | Some common sense Do's and Don'ts:
|
| If you need further help, you can: | or even: |
Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page, and someone will try to help.
There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:
|
|
Remember to always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the 
button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to this (your talk) page, and a timestamp.
To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can create your own private sandbox for use any time. Perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put
{{My sandbox}} on your user page. By the way, seeing as you haven't created a user page yet, simply click here to start it.Sincerely, DBigXray 11:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC) (Leave me a message)
DBigXray 11:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse![edit]
|
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
CT Districts[edit]
Hello AntonI20......a quick note about your edits, they are good, but if you can wait until the new congress gets seated Jan 3rd it would be extremely helpful. Congress still works under the old district lines until then. Also, if you can keep the distict map in history,it will make it it easier to delete the map in the infobox as the new district lines take effect on the 3rd. CT has only small changes, but they are still changes. Also, can you update the change in town and precinct info in the main body of the text for each of the districts if you know it on the 3rd? I don't "own" all the congressional districts, just trying to keep them accurate. Welcome to Wikipedia by the way. Let me know if you have any questions, I or a couple of people I know in the Wikiproject can try to answer them for you.......Pvmoutside (talk) 11:50, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
- Not a problem.....I left most of your edits. I did revert CT 5 since Esty is not being sworn in until tomorrow at noon. Better to leave with Murphy until then. Also, most of the maps in the infoboxes will be deleted beginning tomorrow...Pvmoutside (talk) 12:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Puerto Ricans in the US[edit]
Hi Antoni20, How's it going? I looked at your good-faithed edits in the above mentioned article. Just wanted to give you a friendly reminder to add the proper references to your edits. Take care. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Adding reference on wiki articles[edit]
Hello ANTONI20! Please do not forget to add references for the content you add to Wikipedia. Adding a well formatted references is very easy to do.
- While editing any article or a wikipage, on the top of the edit window you will see a toolbar which says "cite" click on it
- Then click on "templates",
- Choose the most appropriate template and fill as many details as you can,
This will add a well formatted reference that would be helpful in case the website link (web URL) becomes inactive (dead/link rot) after some time. You can read more about it on Help:Edit toolbar or see this video File:RefTools.ogv. thanks and regards --DBigXray 20:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
- to use this message place
{{subst:User:DBigXray/ref}}on User_talk
DBigXray 20:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 31[edit]
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.
- Connecticut's 5th congressional district (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added links pointing to Republican Party, Third Parties and 2000 Census
- Connecticut's 4th congressional district (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added links pointing to Republican Party and Third Parties
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Congressional districts[edit]
Why area you changing the Lists of Representatives on North Dakota's at-large congressional district and South Dakota's at-large congressional district?—GoldRingChip
ND[edit]
I actually broke it down to make it much easier for the average reader. I also created hyperlinks for those other districts. It's not as if I destroyed your entire project. I think the final project looked very good.
Good work adding info in congressional districts. When possible, can you leave them in chronological order. Also, in some cases you've removed information, such as here (Idaho's 2nd congressional district) in which the 2002 and 2004 election info was lost. Keep up the good work!—GoldRingChip 21:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 7[edit]
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.
- Alaska's At-large congressional district (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added links pointing to Republican Party and Third Parties
- Idaho's 1st congressional district (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added links pointing to Interstate 84 and Third Parties
- Idaho's 2nd congressional district (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added links pointing to Interstate 84 and Third Parties
- Rhode Island's 1st congressional district (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added links pointing to Patrick Kennedy and Third Parties
- Connecticut's 1st congressional district (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Third Parties
- Connecticut's 2nd congressional district (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Third Parties
- Connecticut's 3rd congressional district (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Third Parties
- Connecticut's 4th congressional district (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Third Parties
- Massachusetts's 2nd congressional district (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Jim McGovern
- South Dakota's At-large congressional district (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Third Parties
- Wyoming's At-large congressional district (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Third Parties
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
In Massachusetts's 1st congressional district and Massachusetts's 2nd congressional district, you reversed data that was in chronological order and rewrote the Lists of Representatives. I've undone those, but let's discuss them before we go further. What were your ideas there?—GoldRingChip 13:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Stop[edit]
Stop removing pertinent information. —GoldRingChip 12:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- Stop removing pertinent information, and try to comply with the Wikipedia guidelines. Wikipedia is not a nespaper; it's an encyclopedia, i.e. an archive of information. It is thus very similar to the "National Archives" which you quoted elsewhere. The reverse chronology of pollsters and electioneers used in the news media, especially during election campaigns, is unencyclopedic. Readers of Wikipedia do not want to know what happened last in their district (they can get that info from the news), they want general info on the history of the district at any time, since Independence. The section "Recent elections" is titled thus because results of earlier elections are difficult to get, but do not restrict the time span in any way. Kraxler (talk) 13:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
It's quite simple, ANTONI20. If you continue with your current conduct, you'll end up being blocked. GoodDay (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- Be careful of your changes, if you want to make some big changes....discuss them first. There are pleanty of us to ask.....We welcome your help, but some of the changes are not helping....Pvmoutside (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Your recent edits[edit]
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 06:06, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Contributions[edit]
My contributions have been rather insightful, however I have come across an arrogant egoistical wannabe Congressional historian (GoldRingChip). Why are we reverting back to Census 2000 figures, when I have placed updated 2010 Census figures? Why are we listing towns in a district from ten years earlier? Why not list the towns present in 1990, 1980, 1970, 1960, and 1950. We can make the page appear even more presentable. Why are we listing electoral results are the bottom of the page, with the latest first and the earliest last? It's quite absurb. Maybe the Baby Boehner prodigy gets enjoyment out of this, but I think its quite pathetic. Also, if we're going to list electoral results, then why stop at 1992? Why not go into 1910, 1866, 1824, and 1810? Wikipedia is not the National Archives, GoldRingChip seems to thinks it actually is. Rather than undoing my edits, like an immature prodigy son, maybe he should consider some of my recommendations. I do not think electoral results beyond a certain year are relevant and rather they belong on the individual member's page. I also do not think it is relevant listing towns in a district from 40 years ago, yet he seems to think that such is. If the purpose is to get reader's to understand that what they're viewing, then information overload is not necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ANTONI20 (talk • contribs) 06:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think GoldRingChip is trying to save as much info as possible which isn't necessarily a bad idea...Let me take your ideas 1 step at a time:
1) We should use the 2010 census figures, but I can't find a place where they relate to the new disticts......do you have a source, and can you share it?
2)The towns (within reason) should be listed comprehensively in the district history section (see MA District 3)
3) Election results, latest first so people can find it earlier than scrolling down to the end of the section. If you can find earlier results than what is posted, by all means have at it....just list a source.
Bottom line, I've found GoldRingChip to be a pretty reasonable guy when I have dealt with him in the past. Just discuss things with him before you do them, I'm sure he'll be reasonable. If not, let me know. Sometimes what we think is illogical makes sense to someone.......Pvmoutside (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 12[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rhode Island's 1st congressional district, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Republican Party (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) 10:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of At-Large Congressional District[edit]
Hello ANTONI20,
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged At-Large Congressional District for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons.
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. Thanks, Ajayupai95 (talk) 12:42, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Congressional districts[edit]
If you're going to update data in these articles, please refrain from changing formatting and from reversing the chronology. Otherwise, the page will be reverted entirely.—GoldRingChip 14:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
- Ditto. —GoldRingChip 01:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
Your recent edits[edit]
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 05:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 19[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Orange County, Florida, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Osceola County (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) 22:49, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
December 2013[edit]
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. GregJackP Boomer! 16:41, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Talkback[edit]
Message added 04:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
GregJackP Boomer! 04:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
This is your last warning. The next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at United States District Court for the District of Hawaii, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You are removing sourced material without any comment or explanation why. You need to stop this immediately. GregJackP Boomer! 02:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 29[edit]
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.
- United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added links pointing to Fourteenth Amendment and Fifteenth Amendment
- United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
- added a link pointing to Civil Rights Act
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
ANI Notice[edit]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. GregJackP Boomer! 05:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
January 2014[edit]
This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at United States District Court for the District of Hawaii, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Removal of sourced material without any reason is considered vandalism. Please stop both here and at the other U.S. District Court articles. GregJackP Boomer! 04:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Toddst1 (talk) 05:46, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
ANTONI20 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Edits were not disruptive, rather I was expanding on information currently on the page. Toddst1 took action without reviewing what the actual edits were. Edits were in compliance with Wikipedia. ANTONI20 (talk) 6:15 am, Today (UTC+0)
Decline reason:
I've a degree of sympathy here - I'd agree that your edits were not vandalism, and were in fact good-faith attempts to improve the encyclopedia - but the disruption stems more from your interactions with other editors (or lack of same) than from your actual article edits. I note that you did in fact make one attempt to defend your editing shortly before being blocked, but the tone of your statement and your apparent determination to continue pushing your edits without discussion do not suggest that you intend a collaborative approach to editing. You have been edit-warring rather than discussing your proposed changes, and that in itself is grounds for a block. My advice would be to wait out this short block, review the policy on consensus building and the guidelines on reverting and the collaborative editing process, and then come back after the weekend with a willingness to discuss your intended changes on the talkpages of the relevant articles. Yunshui 雲水 08:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
U.S. District Court articles[edit]
I don't think anyone has an issue with you making improvements to the articles. Your edits, however, are removing sourced material. You need to discuss such removals on the talk page before you make changes. Regards, GregJackP Boomer! 13:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- You might want to take a closer look at some of those edits - whilst this edit removed the (sourced) history section, it also removed a number of potentially controversial unsourced claims. This edit removed only unsourced material, and actually added a source to the page. This edit added pertinent sourced material to the article. Whilst ANTONI20 definitely needs to work on editing collaboratively, the blanket labelling of good faith edits as vandalism doesn't exactly help matters. As far as I can see, your first attempt at communicating with him was a level 3 warning for this edit, which didn't actually remove any sourced material at all. One can understand why ANTONI20's response might not have been an immediate willingness to engage in dialogue. I'd ask that, once this block ends, the two of you both attempt to have some sort of discussion that doesn't revolve around templated warnings and aggressive reverting - we might then end up with some much better articles about US District Courts. Yunshui 雲水 13:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Here are the edits that removed sourced information:
- [1], removed material sourced by Dickens and fjc.gov.
- [2], removed material sourced by Dickens and fjc.gov.
- [3], removed material sourced by Dickens and fjc.gov.
- [4], removed material sourced by Dickens and fjc.gov.
- [5], removed material sourced by Dickens, Conkling, and fjc.gov.
- [6], removed material sourced by Miller Center.
- [7], removed material sourced by Deseret News and USCourts.gov.
- [8], removed material sourced by Conkling and fjc.gov.
- [9], removed material sourced by Dickens, Conkling, and fjc.gov.
- [10], removed material sourced by U.S. statutes.
- [11], removed material sourced by Honolulu Star, Shuck, hawaii.gov, Guttery, and fjc.gov.
- [12], removed material sourced by U.S. statutes.
- [13], removed material sourced by fjc.gov.
- [14], removed material sourced by Dickens, Conkling, and fjc.gov.
- [15], removed material sourced by Dickens and fjc.gov.
- [16], removed material sourced by Dickens and fjc.gov.
- [17], removed material sourced by Kalt.
- [18], removed material sourced by Whitehouse.gov.
- [19], removed material sourced by uscourts.gov and The United States District Court for the District of Alaska - Our First Fifty Years.
- [20], removed material sourced by Whitehouse.gov.
- Yunshui, I'm sorry, but ANTONI20 has been going through article after article, removing material without checking in at the talkpage, etc. The reason I placed a level 3 warning is because he had done the same thing with congressional articles and had been warned a number of times. If you look again at the diff, you'll find that it was sourced material (inline reference to U.S. statutes), it was just not footnoted sources. If he cannot learn to edit with others, to discuss major changes first, WP:NOTHERE problems, etc., then we need to put a stop to it now. GregJackP Boomer! 18:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
- Here are the edits that removed sourced information:
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) 16:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)