User talk:NBAkid

NBAkid, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure![edit]

The

Adventure

Hi NBAkid!! You're invited to play The Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive game to become a great contributor to Wikipedia. It's a fun interstellar journey--learn how to edit Wikipedia in about an hour. We hope to see you there!

Play The Wikipedia Adventure

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:29, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

When adding sources, it is necessary to be as specific as possible. Readers should be able to verify any content without specialised knowledge. They should be able to directly verify claims by directly referring to the source and shouldn't have to search edit histories. This edit does not meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Verifiability. As the article stands, is still fails verification. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Mexicans of European descent, you may be blocked from editing. 02:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

May 2014[edit]

File:Nuvola apps important.svg|25px|alt=Warning icon]] Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at India, you may be blocked from editing. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NBAkid is not disruptive; the statement is neutral, and the sources are acceptable. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

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. Thank you. --Rahul (talk) 12:00, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What a nonsense! But NBAkid, stop editing at the India-page for the moment, and discuss the issue at the talk page there. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Policies[edit]

It's funny that you know about policies and terms like "vandalism", "blocking" and "Idon'tlikeit" while you've just started at Wikipedia... Especially this edit summary contains a lot of Wiki-jargon. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I take it as a compliment. But in all honesty I don't. I don't even know how to report people (yet). All I know is I have to be neutral, WP:JDL, WP:NPOV. The rest I'm picking up along the way. Have to pay attention if I want to hold my ground against vets. NBAkid (talk) 05:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You sure have to

. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring, as you did at India. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Drmies (talk) 04:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Same edit war, same result, though this time longer, of course. NBAkid, you cannot expect to come off a block, continue with the exact same behavior, and get a different result. It's simply--whether you're right or wrong, you'll need consensus on the talk page for this change (mind you, India is an FA), and now that RegentsPark has also weighed in, contrary to what you think is right, you simply have no choice but to abide by consensus while you try to change it. And I may add that you're doing a lousy job of changing it: "check your POV" and the similar remarks you made on the talk page just don't cut it. Drmies (talk) 04:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weird[edit]

You DID make unexplained changes at European Australian. I'm assuming now that felt you were trying to correct somebody else's unexplained changes, but the absence of an Edit summary with your edit meant that your changes were also unexplained, and the reason for them wasn't in the least bit apparent. Please use Edit summaries in future. HiLo48 (talk) 05:10, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Stereotypes of Hispanic and Latino Americans in the United States., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Colombian (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) 08:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

September 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm Camyoung54. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Afro-Brazilian with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. - Camyoung54 ^talk 01:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, NBAkid. You have new messages at Camyoung54's talk page.
Message added 01:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

- Camyoung54 ^talk 01:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to Mato Grosso do Sul. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. NickCT (talk) 02:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

December 2014[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Demographics of Australia, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at White Brazilian. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Warning[edit]

I have opened a request against you here [1] Xuxo (talk) 04:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notification[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Marawe (talk) 17:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2015[edit]

Your recent editing history at Pardo 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 get 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. Drmies (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. CT Cooper · talk 18:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have carefully reviewed the edits of this account and have concluded that both this account and BEARtruth89 (talk · contribs) were being operated by the same person, and the nature of the edits to both accounts strongly points to them being sock-puppets of Beloki (talk · contribs). I have therefore blocked both accounts for block evasion under WP:DUCK. CT Cooper · talk 18:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]