User talk:Historicfuture12

September 2014

Hello, I'm NeilN. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Cherokee without 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; I restored the removed content. 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. Thanks! NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be clearer, if you want to get other editors to discuss a potential change, please start the discussion at Talk:Cherokee instead of an individual user's talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 16:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014

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. —C.Fred (talk) 16:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Historicfuture12 (talk) 16:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm NeilN. 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 to Cherokee seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Cherokee. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. You have had two admins explain to you what is wrong with the content you keep re-inserting against consensus. This is tendentious editing and is now into the territory of vandalism. - CorbieV^☊ 19:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC) corbie this information is valid and valueable..my recent post was revert it as it was taken out of context but through my analys i sharpened what i post and no information is invalid...you must do your research and know what a theory isHistoricfuture12 (talk) 20:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Cherokee. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

neil can u please tell me what is wrong with my editing ..im simply adding an important historic study on the cherokee origin ...the first study of the cherokee origin ...all of our present origins are theories known is proven to be 100 percent factual ...so tell me whats wrong if i posting a theory..importanatly the first theory and study from a historian who studied many native american cultures and people. Historicfuture12 (talk) 20:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning for your disruptive editing, as you did at Cherokee history. What we've all told you about adding this text to Wikipedia applies to any article. Doesn't belong in any of these articles. - CorbieV^☊ 20:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@CorbieVreccan: While you and I might disagree with Historicfuture12's addition, the edits are done in good faith and are not vandalism. This warning is not merited at all. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Same level warning, changed text from "vandalism" to "disruptive editing". - CorbieV^☊ 20:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say that. While not vandalism, they are clearly disruptive editing and you need to stop. You don't have consensus. Dougweller (talk) 20:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And once again, you have gone against all the warnings, and against consensus on the talk page, and re-added the rejected Haywood theory.[1] - CorbieV^☊ 17:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One week block

Hi! I've blocked you for a period of a week for a variety of reasons: edit warring, tendentious editing, and editing after being given a final warning by an admin on the Cherokee article. It's also fairly obvious that this is a single purpose account intent upon a specific POV. If you have any questions, leave a message on your talk page or email me through the link on my talk page. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 17:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've reset and doubled the block for using a sock to evade the block.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 00:02, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Cherokee image-2-1.png

Thank you for uploading File:Cherokee image-2-1.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 03:00, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]