User talk:Xmike920

April 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to United States presidential election in Ohio, 2008, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Tim meh ! 03:45, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April 09

After studying your edits, we have determined your edits are biased against Islam, as well as pro-American. There is nothing wrong with such a combination; however we feel we must remind you of keeping a neutral point of view when editing Wikipedia. Please keep this in mind when editing, and share in the enjoyable Wikipedia experience! Thank you!

May 2009

It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from an article. Please be careful not to remove content from Wikipedia without a valid reason, which you should specify in the edit summary or on the article's talk page. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to 1918 flu pandemic. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May 2009 (vandalism of 2008 presidential election articles)

I have reverted all of your changes related to the percentage of the vote received by various candidates. Your edits to the various 2008 presidential results (states) pages constitute vandalism. Continued vandalism may result in your editing privileges being blocked. Highground79 (talk) 06:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pokémon (494–545)

Hi, those names have not been officially revealed yet. Wikipedia runs on verifiability, and everything must be atributed to a reliable source. The names you see on sites such as PokeBeach are from a leak. Leaks are not official confirmation. Thanks, _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 02:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

English Pokémon names

Hello. I have undone the recent edits that you've made at the List of Pokémon (494–545), List of Pokémon (546–598), and List of Pokémon (599–649) pages because I could not locate an official and/or reliable source for the names that you had inserted. As a gentle reminder, leaks do not count as reliable sources. Thank you. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 17:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced changes to 9/11 topics

If you have sources for the changes to various numbers associated with 9/11 related topics, please provide them. Please explain why you're changing numbers and where you've obtained the sources on which you rely. Acroterion (talk) 21:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:RS and WP:OR; sources should be cited to printed references, not your interpretation of a video, and you should discuss this on the talkpage first. Acroterion (talk) 02:29, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please provide a citeable source for your assertion: you are edit-warring, which is not appropriate. I have not reverted, but I do expect you to back up your assertion that the number in the article is incorrect with a citation: it comes under the heading of improving references, and if the article was wrong before, adding a reference will be a great help. Changing numbers without explanation or backup tends to get reverted, since it's hard for anybody else to tell who's right, and the burden of proof is on the editor making the change. Acroterion (talk) 13:44, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the times used are discussed on the talkpage: please discuss there if you disagree rather than edit-warring and making undiscussed changes and removing the references (which have also been discussed on the talkpage, with reasons for preferring those sources over the 9/11 report, for instance). You may consider this a warning for edit-warring. Acroterion (talk) 15:23, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May 2011

This is your last warning; the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at American Airlines Flight 11, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Veggy (talk) 19:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WTC 1

The time in the articles is that given in the source. Is there something more authoritative for the time you gave? If so, then the cited source also needs to be changed; source text should not be changed to something inconsistent with the footnote. 24.177.99.126 (talk) 02:07, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline for the day of the September 11 attacks, American Airlines Flight 11

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've reverted again with no attempt to discuss the issue on the article talkpage or any acknowledgement of other editors' concerns, I've referred this matter to WP:AN3. Acroterion (talk) 01:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a short time for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. 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 would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Kuru (talk) 03:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So: is there a reason for your removal of sourced material that's been discussed on the talkpage, a place where you've never ventured? You appear to be trying to make a point, but it's hard to tell what that point is. YYou've not responded here either. Simply put, why do you prefer the 9/11 report over the later, more detailed report on the planes' flight path? Acroterion (talk) 02:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April 2012

This is your last warning. The next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Evanh2008 (talk) (contribs) 04:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring complaint about Timeline for the day of the September 11 attacks

A complaint has been filed at the edit warring noticeboard about your reverts on this article. See WP:AN3#User:Xmike920 reported by User:Acroterion (Result: ). You may respond there if you wish. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but 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.

The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:Xmike920 reported by User:Acroterion (Result: 1 week).

You began editing the Timeline article on April 16. You were blocked on April 23 for 24 hours. You then resumed. You were adequately warned on 27 April, but continued the same pattern of reverts on April 28 and April 30, removing references to the new NCSTAR document and putting back the old incident times with no explanation. You have been paying absolutely no attention to what people are saying to you, even after being blocked once. You have never commented on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 14:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to the September 11, 2001 attacks. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/September 11 conspiracy theories#Final decision section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page.

- EdJohnston (talk) 15:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Burlingame (9/11 victim)

Hi. Please do not add unsourced material or original research to articles, as you did with this edit to Charles Burlingame, as this violates Wikipedia's policies of No Original Research and Verifiability. Thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk) 21:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Xmike920, please agree to not add any more unsourced information to 9/11 articles. If you make any more improper edits, you may be permanently banned from the topic of 9/11. EdJohnston (talk) 21:52, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not resume your disruptive edits on 9/11 topics: if this continues I will seek editing restrictions. Acroterion (talk) 12:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since you continue to ignore warnings and never participate on talk pages, you've been indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia. See WP:GAB how to request unblock. You can get the attention of an administrator by adding {{unblock|Your reason here}} here on your talk page. Any admin may lift this block if they are convinced that you have had a change of heart and are willing to follow policy in the future. Reviewing admins should check out the block notices above and the editor's complete lack of response to any comments from others. EdJohnston (talk) 08:30, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]