User talk:TBBC

Welcome!

Hello, TBBC, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Conor Butler, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Funnyfarmofdoom _{(talk to me)} 15:46, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Conor Butler

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Conor Butler requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Funnyfarmofdoom _{(talk to me)} 15:46, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

April 2013

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Unseen character has been reverted.
Your edit here to Unseen character was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC4BYt8Ismm3nyLuuN8dJbpw?feature=mhee) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 02:58, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TBBC, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi TBBC! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Rosiestep (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 00:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

The article Remy Hii has been speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This was done because the article, which appeared to be about a real person, individual animal, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, did not indicate how or why the subject is notable, that is, why an article about that subject should be included in Wikipedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the notability of the subject may be deleted at any time. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources.

Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and for specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for musicians, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Remy Hii

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Remy Hii requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Stephenb (Talk) 08:24, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You know after the page was deleted, restored then proposed for deletion again with the nominator not even checking its history. as soon as QCTV puts up My Autistic Brother on its TV guide, I'm gonna recreate the Conor Butler page, --TBBC (talk) 08:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to List of fictional characters on the autism spectrum, 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. Thank you. Stephenb (Talk) 11:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits to List of fictional characters on the autism spectrum

Hi there! I noticed your reverts at List of fictional characters on the autism spectrum, and I have reverted your most recent edit. The edit you undid was actually completely unrelated to the edit you made - It was changing the format of the link. I am not going to warn you for Edit warring, as I am willing to assume a genuine misunderstanding. However, please stop reverting these legitimate edits! Mdann52 (talk) 12:30, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of longest-running TV shows by category

Yes, the website page you link to only includes the original run of Doctor Who. There have been more episodes since, and the article should reflect this. Note how none of the other entries in the table include a reference, but if you want one, this: [1] lists all 798 episodes. Please stop reverting the article, it is disruptive. Thank you. Stephenb (Talk) 06:28, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 2013

Hello, I'm Stephenb. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to List of longest-running TV shows by category because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, you can use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! I have you a link which combines episode guides but you chose to ignore it. Stephenb (Talk) 06:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies

I have an idea regarding the lists of LT/MM releases: what if the number of releases is included as prose in the section itself ("In 1950, 31 titles were released") instead of in the section heading? I agree the information should be included, but the heading doesn't seem like the best place for it. Trivialist (talk) 13:52, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine by me, why didn't you do that in the first place?--TBBC (talk) 13:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You added them back to the section headers. If you're going to add this information, do so in prose as agreed above. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

April 2014

Hello, I'm Melbourne3163. I noticed that you made a change to the Bryan Brown article on 16 April 2014, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. Thank you. Melbourne3163 (talk) 22:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of longest-running Australian television series may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

|align="center" |[[Nine Network]], [[Channel Eleven]]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Frankie J. Holden, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Channel 7 (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) 08:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

June 2014

Before adding a category to an article, as you did to Pirates of the Caribbean (film series), please make sure that the subject of the article really belongs in the category that you specified according to Wikipedia's categorization guidelines. Categories must also be supported by the article's verifiable content. Categories may be removed if they are deemed incorrect for the subject matter. Thank you. -- DonIago (talk) 14:27, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as explained by my colleague Doniago above, the guidelines for category additions at WP:CAT states that there should be some obvious reason why a category is added to an article. There is no sourced prose in the article to explain why you are adding Pirates of the Caribbean (film series) to Category:2000s fads and trends. Please don't resubmit this, it will be considered disruptive. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:12, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you see how big the Pirates of the Caribbean film series was.--TBBC (talk) 03:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you can provide sourced information for the article stating that PotC was in fact a fad/trend, then you're welcome to add the category. Categories added to articles must be supported by the content of the article. It doesn't matter what you, I, or anyone else has seen if no reliable sources have discussed it and it is not mentioned in the article. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 12:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Don Lane, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MASH. 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) 09:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of actors considered the best for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of actors considered the best is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of actors considered the best until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

January 2015

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Survivor Series (1992). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:03, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Survivor Series, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Razor Ramon and Mr. Perfect. 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) 09:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bugs Bunny, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Taz. 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) 09:21, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited No Way Out (2002), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Big Bossman. 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) 11:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 17:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Remy Hii

Thank you for providing a source. Could you possibly provide some more details from the magazine though, such as full date, issue number, page number, author? - JuneGloom07 Talk 01:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, TBBC. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Survivor Series 1992 main event

We now have two official WWE sources (a WWE.com cite along with a WWE Books one), a source from pre-eminent mainstream sports news outlet Sports Illustrated, and multiple WP:PW/RS preferred sources (The Baltimore Sun, Slam!, PWTorch and PWInsider) all stating that Hart/Michaels was the Survivor Series 1992 main event. The Coliseum Video scan you provided, apart from being stored on an unreliable site, clearly states: "Package Design and Summary © 1993 Evart Enterprises". So the "main event" listed on the cover reflects the position of Coliseum's parent company - not WWE's.

Hopefully we can move past this amicably. All the best. 159.148.89.129 (talk) 19:43, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017

Your recent editing history at Survivor Series (1991) 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 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. 331dot (talk) 12:28, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:TBBC reported by User:Nickag989 (Result: ). Thank you. Nickag989^talk 15:24, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3RR block

Hi. You've been blocked from editing for 2 weeks for (greatly) violating the 3 revert rule. Please be more careful in the future. El_C 16:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to revert vandalism (from an anon by the way, who no doubt remained anon so he couldn't be blocked). Also I have reason to believe he is a sock puppet of User:Nickag989. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TBBC (talk • contribs)

(Please sign your name.) And what reason would that be? Both sides are claiming vandalism, but I think it's neither—it's a content dispute that turned into an edit war. When your block expires, you may want to pursue Dispute Resolution and/or list a Request for Comment. El_C 07:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was only an edit war in the sense that they were reverting each other over and over. The IP was clearly right as the discussion on the article talk page has shown. The IP is not a vandal but trying to preserve the truth. Whatever view TBBC is trying to perpetuate it is clearly unfactual, even if he belives it. This bias against IP editors harms the project and TBBC's credibility.★Trekker (talk) 08:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about not signing, the reason I believe the anon has a sock puppet for a registered user is because they both wanted to remove all my entries in the pages, the straw that broke the camel's back for me was when this registered user removed the reception segment I put in the Survivor Series 1991.--TBBC (talk) 08:47, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe there is any sock. You're just factually wrong and violating several agreed upon guidelines for the wrestling project.★Trekker (talk) 08:53, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pages, so there's more than one? Certainly, you can list a Sock investigation once your block expires. I do, however, suggest you read the Sock policy first. El_C 09:01, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the sock of this IP user, because 1) he is from UK and 2) I'm from Romania. Nickag989^talk 09:36, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I wasn't going to look into it when someone else doubted it. I did have my thoughts because you got rid of the reception section I added for Survivor Series 1991.--TBBC (talk) 12:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said I wasn't going to look into you being a sock puppet but I will personally report you once my block is over (in case you're not blocked, I'll see to it you will), you just couldn't let go and accept how you didn't add interesting things first. And like how you kept reverting my edits for no good reason apart from the fact you didn't add it first, unless you are blocked, I'm going to nag and nag and nag--TBBC (talk) 17:28, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring again

Since you just got back from a block from edit warring, you know the rules and should probably think twice before hitting the revert button again. It will go to WP:AN3.LM2000 (talk) 14:18, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But there's one user who keeps reverting my edits, even though they're notable.--TBBC (talk) 14:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 2017

Your recent editing history at WWE Hall Of Fame 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 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. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 16:29, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's this one dipstick who won't stop reverting, I'm certain it's because he didn't add it first.--TBBC (talk) 17:00, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm RainFall. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:TBBC with this edit that didn't seem very civil, so I removed it. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it’s one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. — RainFall 17:03, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well I put it there to show you I didn't start the edit war, this one user who keeps reverting my edits did. So he's to blame, not me--TBBC (talk) 17:05, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are edit warring with 3 different users. If you continue to revert or add that content without a consensus you will be reported. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 17:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3RR block

Hi. You've been blocked from editing for 45 days for (greatly) violating the 3 revert rule. Please be more careful in the future. El_C 16:30, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GARGH!!! I hope you've blocked that other user, who started the edit war, not being able to handle the fact he didn't add the information I added first.--TBBC (talk) 17:23, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~LOL. No chance in hell. The winners are not the ones who say "I added it first" like an idiot. The real winners are the ones who WP:JUSTDROPIT. Nickag989^talk 17:37, 12 March 2017 (UTC)~~[reply]

Well you didn't drop it, you kept reverting my edits, you should be blocked and I am going to point that out, I only said "I added it first" because that's the only reason I can think of why you wouldn't drop it.--TBBC (talk) 17:44, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm gonna add you that last message as something like "Nyah-nyah, I got you in trouble, nyah-nyah" in my report about you--TBBC (talk) 17:46, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about who added what when, it's about contravening 3RR. If you can point someone else breaching it, I'll certainly look into it. El_C 17:53, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Check WWE Hall of Fame's history, User:Nickag989 is in violation of the 3RR.--TBBC (talk) 18:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With slightly more than a month to go before my block expires (and Nickag's begin), I was wondering if I post the evidence will the inevitable ban happen sooner. If it doesn't I would consider it "rushing the inevitable" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WWE_Hall_of_Fame&action=history As you can see he reverted the page not three times, not four times, but five times. Just above he brags about how he got me in trouble and how he broke the rules but didn't get in trouble. I would also recommend banning WarMachineWildThing on account we had consensus but he still reverted it.--TBBC (talk) 12:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such consensus for adding the recognized accolades by WWE in the lead. Their accomplishments speak from themselves. Nickag989^talk 10:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017

Your recent editing history at Royal Rumble 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 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. LM2000 (talk) 11:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, you've been blocked a few times for this already. You need to brush up on the links that got posted to you in the welcome message at the top of this page. I know you're trying to lend a good hand but you're not following basic policy and it's making more work for everyone else.LM2000 (talk) 11:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. LM2000 (talk) 02:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Bugs Bunny. Binksternet (talk) 06:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC) Tell me what can be considered a reliable source for the Bugs Bunny cartoons, and I'll cite them.--TBBC (talk) 07:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, TBBC. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 2018

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Nickag989^talk 12:58, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history 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 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. - Galatz ^Talk 14:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Dick Van Dyke Show

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Dick Van Dyke Show. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:BRD. When your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor, the next step, if you continue to think the edit is necessary, is to Discuss it on the article talk page, not to re-revert it, which is the first step to edit warring. During the discussion, the article remains in the status quo ante.

Also, you are confused about what "vandalism" means on Wikipedia. Please read WP:VANDALISM. Calling another editor's contributions "vandalism" without evidence of actual vandalism, as defined here, can be construed as a personal attack. Please do not do this again. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:55, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion has been started here. You are welcome to comment. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:06, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Wish moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, The Big Wish, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please follow the confirms on the Articles for Creation template atop the page. KingAndGod 19:13, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hulk Hogan's Rock 'n' Wrestling

Your edit here [2] on Hulk Hogan's Rock 'n' Wrestling is in no way shape or form sourced. I suggest you read WP:SYNTH as that is what you are attempting to do. - Galatz ^Talk 13:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked before for edit warring, apparently you still don't understand WP policies. Please explain how you are not violating WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:3RR with your edits. If you do not self revert I will escalate the issue. - Galatz ^Talk 13:34, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - Galatz ^Talk 13:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Big Wish (April 10)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the general guideline on notability, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:The Big Wish and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:The Big Wish, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 13:33, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tori Morgan!

You need to add proper development and reception other than nominations and prose to establish notinility! Leave it to the professionals! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.227.98 (talk) 12:10, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to elaborate on that, simply adding more storylines to the cut and pasted list entry isn't enough. It doesn't establish notability and you failed to provide attribution. You may think the character is notable, but you have to prove it with independent coverage backed up by reliable sources. Please read WP:GNG, WP:FICT and WP:SOAPS, and consider starting a draft in your userspace. It usually takes me several days to create articles, as I'm trying to gather as many sources covering casting, storyline development and reception as possible. I hope you consider this advice and stop edit warring. - JuneGloom07 Talk 15:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you either didn't read or ignored the message above, but I urge you to to take on board the advice. Just throwing a few sources around the large plot section still doesn't establish notability. Perhaps you could start a draft at User:TBBC/Tori Morgan instead? - JuneGloom07 Talk 21:26, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Select Survey Invite

I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they affect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take no more than 1-2 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.

Your survey Link: https://uchicago.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9S3JByWf57fXEkR?Q_DL=56np5HpEZWkMlr7_9S3JByWf57fXEkR_MLRP_eD4qcTWmZuhuPxX&Q_CHL=gl

I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Wikipedia that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.

Sincere thanks for your help! Porteclefs (talk) 17:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Home and Away characters (2016), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robbo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:35, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

June 2018

Your recent editing history at Tori Morgan 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 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. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:49, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. JuneGloom07 Talk 15:53, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think it's outrageous that my judgment was passed out before you all heard my side of the story. But you better enjoy all your home and away character pages, because they've only got 6 months left...when I get back, I'm going to revert every single last one

June 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 6 months for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Courcelles (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for this threat, [3].

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Courcelles (talk) 04:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]