User talk:LibertyChick1776

October 2016

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Ruby (programming language). Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Aoidh (talk) 15:31, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ... richi (hello) 15:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, LibertyChick1776. You have new messages at Aoidh's talk page.
Message added 15:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Aoidh (talk) 15:47, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2017

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Al Sharpton. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:57, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

James O'Keefe

As I wrote -- perhaps you should read the explanation provided BEFORE demanding an explanation be provided? -- you already tried this stunt a month ago and all of your additions were removed -- one by one -- by several editors:

So, clean sweep. You want this stuff included? Five editors in total have removed them: the burden is on YOU to prove they belong. --Calton | Talk 17:50, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"(I agree with the removal of journalism since he specializes in falsely editing videos. I don't think videography fits his work.) ]" - I'm trying to understand why something such as this statement, for example, is an accepted justification for the removal of journalism, and videography. If you look at those two Wikipedia pages, just like the current Activism one is linked to, and it's been considered acceptable, they describe professional work this person does on those pages. Why is the opinion of a user allowed to override the definition of work done by a professional in this case?

--LibertyChick1776 | Talk

Your lack of understanding and of basic research (seeTalk:James_O'Keefe/Archive_1#Is_he_really_a_journalist.3F) is irrelevant; your ability to actually make an actual argument on the talk page is. --Calton | Talk 21:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:JamesOKeefeWikiPageEdits08062017.png

Thanks for uploading File:JamesOKeefeWikiPageEdits08062017.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 18:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2017

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at James O'Keefe. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:31, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]