User talk:Wnicholas70

March 2014[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to House of Salm has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: House of Salm was changed by Wnicholas70 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.933832 on 2014-03-21T16:30:51+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 16:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to House of Salm. 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. Katieh5584 (talk) 16:46, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did with this edit to House of Salm. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Katieh5584 (talk) 16:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, 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 necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Wnicholas70. You have new messages at Wikipelli's talk page.
Message added 17:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Wikipelli ^Talk 17:58, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Charles, Count of Valois, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: Charles, Count of Valois was changed by Wnicholas70 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.887938 on 2014-03-21T20:34:53+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 20:34, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: User:Wnicholas70/sandbox (March 26)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. 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, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Wnicholas70/sandbox.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page.

Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!

Please remember to link to the submission!

You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk) 20:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Draft:Leonard de Lorraine (March 26)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. 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, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Leonard de Lorraine.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page.

Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!

Please remember to link to the submission!

You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

—Mysterytrey 21:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Favonian (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Francis II, Duke of Lorraine & Louis XVII of France[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
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. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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. Favonian (talk) 18:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Wnicholas70 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please include the original unblock request.

Decline reason:

No reason given to unblock. We couldn't care less to whom you are related; you are not being harassed, but to prevent block warnings or blocks just edit according to wiki policies. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:35, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Hi, I'm related to Leonard de Lorraine, how do I get these people to stop harassing me?

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Wnicholas70 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi, obviously you do care who I am related to if your supporting this vandalism from a bunch of commies and following the rules is what got me here Anthony Bradbury-signed Jesus ChristWnicholas70 (talk) 20:48, 27 March 2014 (UTC) and here's what you told me about history Mr.Buff "No reason given to unblock" Open your eyes....(talk) 20:46, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Unblock requests containing personal attacks are not considered. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:51, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

{{unblock}} Hello, Yes I am being harassed by Favonian, WHY DON'T THE ADMINS READ THE TALK PAGE? Here's what he said;"Postulated relationships do not constitute reliable sources"...Leonard de Lorraine is on wikitrees...how is that postulated? He's also vandalized Charles de Valois, something about "dodgy edits"... I believe he's tripping as I got these edits from ancestry.com and the French Wikipedia...we need to take Danish Admins out of this equation.....and I'm Autistic (If that helps any, Mr.Gordon). P.S. the Mahdi page is being vandalized as well...he had this to say:(cur | prev) 20:24, 27 March 2014‎ DeCausa (talk | contribs)‎ . . (57,459 bytes) (-259)‎ . . (Reverted 9 edits by Wnicholas70 (talk): Per talk plus the citations you added do not support the statements inbthe text. (TW)) (undo) unquote...Wnicholas70 (talk) 14:25, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Draft:Leonard de Lorraine (March 27)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. 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, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Leonard de Lorraine.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page.

Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!

Please remember to link to the submission!

You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

—Mysterytrey 21:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning for edit warring[edit]

Your "source" [1], makes no mention of Francis II, Charles, Count of Valois or Countess Christina of Salm. Consider this your final warning for continued edit warring. You have posted no reliable source to support your opinion and as such I will have an Admin protect the page. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for persistent disruptive editing. 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. Dougweller (talk) 10:18, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your blanking of Talk:Charles, Count of Valois was the last straw. Consider yourself lucky this block is only for a week. The next one is likely to be indefinite. Dougweller (talk) 10:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Wnicholas70 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Apparently no one listens to The Beatles...Mother Superior, I am. First let me say that I am the 10th direct descendent to Nicolas Metoyer, so having GD(I am the Barnstar?) wouldn't hurt(Favonian)...also the 10th descendent of Isabella (Averilla) Minor Todd(Andrew Jackson's middle name is Ryan, as is mine, etc.); which should handle this;Please don't let this drift into a tangential discussion about COI and ancestry. This content of this user's posts are eratic and display WP:COMPETENCE issues.DeCausa (talk) 23:58, 29 March 2014 (UTC)as well as Kansas Bear...(they both)DeCausa also keeps vandalizing my page, he just brought up the fact that the Mahdi needs a numbering system (instead of bullets), Amen. Secondly, I am an anthropology expert...I have Loran Syndrome. Lastly, Edward321 and Liz have been harassing me on Nicholas Remy, I don't understand why I can't add information to the ENCYCLOPEDIA.Wnicholas70 (talk) 19:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I have no idea what point you are trying to make, but I saw nothing in this jumble of words that resembles a valid reason for unblock. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Nicholas, we don't care about your ancestry or which editors you think are against you. This is about your disruptive conduct.

Bottom line, you have only been editing for ONE WEEK and you already have managed to have been blocked twice by different administrators. Dougweller states that your next block is likely to be indefinite (i.e. basically for forever). This is what will happen if you continue to edit in this matter. It doesn't matter about me or DeCausa or Favonian or Kansas Bear. This is about you, you have multiple editors telling you to stop being disruptive and blaming other people instead of looking at your own behavior will not get you unblocked. People are telling you, "This is not how we edit on Wikipedia", you can choose to listen to them or not. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:13, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Me too.[edit]

Hello, I found Curse of Knowledge...as you can see, also related to Germain Doucet and [Louis Hebert]], this logic says some...in my favor(also that link for Francis II); I swear it's Tangible. Secondly, (I'm listening to In Rainbows-Radiohead) I can't seem to get the lyrics of Young Jeezy's- I don't know you out of my head. But blocks seem to cheat my appearance. Seems I'm stuck between truth vs. religion...idk. Two things about this ball; 1.Would me being a De Mauley effect your facts. 2. Would someone confirm this link (from Muqtada al-Sadr)to DeCausa...it came from a wikifairy!...>> Iraqi cleric Sadr announces retirement (Lihaas (talk) 13:16, 16 February 2014 (UTC)). All has been said....Wnicholas70 (talk) 20:30, 30 March 2014 (UTC) It is the 21st century...maybe I'm not a writer, but my citing?Wnicholas70 (talk) 20:32, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also live between Keeg and Rigaud...I can't stop writing. A ripple effect from Favonian.Wnicholas70 (talk) 20:36, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for being apparently either unable or unwilling to engage in any rational form of communication. 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. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:39, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge[edit]

You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:41, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red World Contest[edit]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!