User talk:Ijs622

January 2016[edit]

Hello, I'm Winner 42. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Shane and Friends— because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Winner 42 Talk to me! 01:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My apology, I should have said "unsourced contributions". Please wp:cite your edits with wp:reliable sources. Per wp:verifiability, unsourced content may be removed. Again my apology for the errant message. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 01:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't unsourced, that was BLP

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Shane and Friend. 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. Jim1138 (talk) 01:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Shane and Friends 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 article's 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.
Since there's dispute about including the material, the way forward is to discuss the matter at the article's talk page. I see you've already initiated discussion there. Make sure it focuses on the desired changes and the reliability of the sources supporting them. —C.Fred (talk) 01:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is your final warning. You may be blocked from editing without further notice the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to User talk:Jim1138. I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message. (talk to me) (My edits) @ 02:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block 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 ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 02:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Finishing the conversation from my talk page[edit]

The answer is no, it's not because you are black. It's because you are adding libelous material without a very good source. That is spelled out very clearly on wp:verifiability and wp:biography of living persons. Wikipedia is not for people to add whatever they want to. Which seems to be what you are doing. Jim1138 (talk) 02:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]