User talk:Bojackh

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Bojackh! Thank you for your contributions. I am BrillLyle and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! BrillLyle (talk) 22:39, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016

Hello, I'm Flyer22 Reborn. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Death panel have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm CorbieVreccan. I noticed that you made a change to an article, ReZpect our Water, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 23:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Stop Trump movement have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Materialscientist (talk) 07:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

American politics editing

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.

Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017

Your recent editing history at Ted Cruz 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.
Your are past the 1 revert per 24 hours allowed on this page. Please stop EvergreenFir (talk) 06:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017

Your recent editing history at Sutherland Springs church shooting 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. Acroterion (talk) 03:14, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was in contact with all the editors willing to talk.

The rest just ganged up on me. Bojackh (talk) 03:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed your discussion with our administrator while stalking that administrators talk page. If you are having trouble with other editors in future, there's some methods for dealing with the situation.

The quickest way is to send them a message on the talk page, but this doesn't always work if people are already heated up and are not being receptive to suggestions
I'd avoid telling them anything about themselves or what they are doing wrong. This approach is always going to bounce back on you because Wikipedia very strongly cautions against personal attacks for any reason.
The information at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution is vital to understand. It aims to take all the emotion and arguments out of dealing with content dispute and replace it with a process where uninvolved editors can come along and assess the situation. In order of preference and ease of initialization the options available for disputing content are:

- Negotiate the issue based heavily on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines - If someone is quoting them to you, read them. They aren't being pedantic (usually) the policies are there for guidance and should be understood.
- Dispute resolution - If you can't work out an agreement, get someone else to have a look at the issue. If the person mediating upholds the position of your opponents in a debate, think seriously about discontinuing the argument or search for policy based reasons why your argument or approach might not be working.
- Requests for comment will attract other editors to the debate and allow them to take part in a survey
- Requests for mediation will go to an experienced editor who is willing to look at and mediate the issue.
- You probably won't need to address the Arbitration committee but this is a last resort in having content looked at by a team of editors assigned to this purpose.
If you are in conflict and have an issue with the behavior of another editor, don't get into debates about it on the talk page
- The Administrators incidents notice board or ANI deals with incidents related to user behavior among other things. If you go there and the situation boomerangs on you, you were probably involved in edit warring yourself. If you find your name mentioned there, don't panic. Remain civil and open to the possibility that it could be you who needs to step back a bit.
- If someone has violated the three revert rule don't go to ANI directly, use this notice board. Don't keep reverting your opponent in a debate or you will get blocked. It's not a maybe. You will definitely get blocked if you do this. Usually editors who get blocked are given incrementally increasing blocks depending on the situation until they are indefinitely blocked making it more difficult to appeal and resume editing. Edaham (talk) 04:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
remember
- Wikipedia doesn't have a deadline Take it slowly and calmly. Come back to the issue months or even years later, and you'll still be able to edit it.
- The article can be a bit wrong. You don't have to enforce your version of perfection.

Hope the above helps, if you read it all carefully, you'll literally never have to get annoyed with someone here again and can simply work through each stage of the dispute process according to policy and remain happy about the whole process. Many thanks and happy editing! Edaham (talk) 04:41, 6 November 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:Bojackh reported by User:MrX (Result: ). Thank you. - Mr X 03:56, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Sutherland Springs church shooting. 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 ~~~~}}. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:52, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was blocked? huh....look at that I didn't even notice it. --Bojackh (talk) 22:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018

Hello, I'm Ixocactus. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Category:Intelligent design have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Ixocactus (talk) 05:37, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 2018

Please refrain from making test edits to Wikipedia pages, such as the one you made with this edit to Cosmic web, even if you intend to fix them later. Such edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Donner60 (talk) 01:26, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Puffery. Donner60 (talk) 01:26, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2018

Hello, I'm David J Johnson. I noticed that you recently removed content from Fine-tuned Universe without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please 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. Do not remove category when it is referred to in the article content. Thank you. David J Johnson (talk) 10:40, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fine-tuned Universe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Contact (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) 09:40, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Fine-tuned Universe, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Do not add your own opinion, such as "World renowned" or add links when not necessary. Please see WP:POV and WP:OVERLINK Thank you. David J Johnson (talk) 07:32, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

United States Space Force

Please stop working on this article for a few minutes. I'm working on moving the original United States Space Corps, but your edits caused the move swap to malfunction. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 20:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You'll just have to work on the restored article within the first 24 hours. - BilCat (talk) 20:24, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I got it restored now. I'm working on it for a few minutes, the you can have at it. By the way, please reply here, as I'm watching your talk page. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 20:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the one I'm getting directed to was started last year and had a different title. --Bojackh (talk) 20:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I merged the content together into one article. Will be done soon. - BilCat (talk) 20:49, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your content is at Draft:United States Space Force,if you need to access it. - BilCat (talk) 20:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I specified I was fine with whatever so long as my creation of the original article was not deleted from the edit history.

Bojackh (talk) 20:51, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It might be possible to do a histmerge, but only admins can do that, and I'm not an admin. I'll check on that for you. - BilCat (talk) 20:54, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We could just change back your article to it's original name and incorporate all relevant data into my new article.

It's not like there can't be two pages with info overlap and theres an extremely high chance the data in both articles with grow exponentially and in different directions by the week. Bojackh (talk) 20:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There can be, but I judged it was better to keep the old content together. I'm done now, so anyone is free to edit the merged article. - BilCat (talk) 20:59, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

????? You're ok with me reverting your article to the previous title and incorporating much of it's data into my new article? Bojackh (talk) 21:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, there's really nothing in your original version that isn't in the new one now. You only has a couple of sentences. - BilCat (talk) 21:04, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a yes? I was writing when you came along and the confusion began. Bojackh (talk) 21:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a No. Just add the new content you wrote into the current article. Btw, is this about credit for a school course? - BilCat (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No just ego....and the more I think about the stink this proposed department is going to create the less I think I want to be associated with it.

Honestly though next time you're in a spot like this redirect the old article to the new article and post all the relevant info in the new one.

That way work (great and small) doesn't vanish.

fides sine operibus mortua est Bojackh (talk) 21:18, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Logos

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload files. However, it appears that one or more of the files you have uploaded or added to a page, specifically Trump administration family separation policy, may fail our non-free policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted file of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Please don't add logos to this article again.- Mr X 🖋 17:20, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

That made sense.

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Stephen Paddock, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trump (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ʻOumuamua

Hello. The study exploring the [fringe] idea of ʻOumuamua as a solar sail is already included in the article. However, per WP:FRINGE, the Wikipedia community decided in its corresponding Talk page to not expand it further, as that is undue emphasis. Certainly creating a section of the thought experiment is undue. Just to clarify, the papers is a thought experiment, that ponders "what if", which is not the same as truly suspecting it to be a ET spacecraft. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 19:40, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Paddock and Trump

There is an ongoing consensus discussion on the talk page. -- GreenC 03:18, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Bojackh. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Scientists in Congress

A tag has been placed on Category:Scientists in Congress requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

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 "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 deleted 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. —swpb^{T go beyond} 18:57, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Bojackh,

This category will be deleted in 7 days (Dec. 4th) if it remains empty. Did you have any specific congressmen or congresswomen you wanted to place in this category? If so, please follow through. It seems like an interesting category to create and populate and would be a nice addition to Wikipedia if it is used. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:44, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021

Your recent editing history at Killing of Ahmaud Arbery shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You'll need to discuss your proposed changes and gain consensus for them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:21, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

lol one guy does not constitute a group.

Discretionary sanctions notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:39, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hi Bojackh! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Herostratus (talk) 01:03, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No

Uh uh. Putting a link to some porno thing on your userpage is a no go. Not explaining what it is really not a good look. I removed it, I'll be watching you, and play nice in future. See Wikipedia:User pages. Herostratus (talk) 01:07, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]