User talk:Truther1515

Hello, I'm SNUGGUMS. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:16, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Michael Jackson, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 01:09, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to change genres without discussion or sources, as you did at This Time Around (Michael Jackson song), you may be blocked from editing. Binksternet (talk) 02:18, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Truther1515, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and has been or will be removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or in other media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. Additionally, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style

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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome.  Magnolia677 (talk) 02:26, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are certain words and phrases which Wikipedia editors have, by consensus, agreed to avoid adding to articles. One of those words is "iconic", when used to describe, for example, Michael Jackson's jacket. You have been cautioned about using words like this in the edit summaries here, here and here. As well, User:Flyer22 Reborn left a note for you about this here on my talk page. I urge you to read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:08, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Michael Jackson: 30th Anniversary Celebration. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We generally assume that the death of the subject covers the end of their marriage - we would only add that field to the surviving spouse, not to the decedent. Please stop adding that to biographies. Acroterion (talk) 18:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Amber Rose. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. General Ization ^Talk 13:45, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Luke Stark 96. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to See You Again have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks.--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 22:41, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Alex Jones 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. Doug Weller talk 16:39, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Doug Weller talk 18:17, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:Bennv3771. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Acroterion (talk) 22:47, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Amy Schumer: The Leather Special‎, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Innisfree987 (talk) 17:43, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Meghan Markle. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Please read the article before you jump to conclusions Drmies (talk) 01:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, as you did with this edit to Candace Owens, you may be blocked from editing. Jim1138 (talk) 05:28, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}.  Ian.thomson (talk) 21:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since it appears that you believe that:

• saying that a black person looks like a monkey somehow is not racist
• The Guardian, New York (magazine), and Columbia Journalism Review are not reliable sources
• journalistic documentation of noteworthy reactions "do not matter" when those reactions disagrees with your apparent views, and that readers shouldn't know about the activities of alt-right trolls
• someone who praises the KKK and Jim-Crow segregation is somehow not racist
• Infowars is somehow not fake news
• sexual assault counts as activism but working with/for One Young World, United Service Organizations, and World Vision Canada somehow doesn't
• OJ isn't remembered for the the 1994 trial that occupied every news station for a year and every pop culture reference to him since
• readers shouldn't need to know about slavery in the United States

...WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIR apply. Normally, for these kinds of blocks for these kinds of edits, I can often think of an appropriate topic ban to which the block user's agreement can get them unblocked. Some of your edits demonstrate such a distorted understanding of what qualifies as mainstream journalism and what information is appropriate that I cannot think of any topic ban that would not also cover what few areas you may have been productive. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]