User talk:J4V4

January 2010

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to International System of Units. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 22:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at nipponium, you will be blocked from editing. --Stone (talk) 18:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as those you made to rhenium. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. --Stone (talk) 18:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you went to a bunch of work to push the issue that rhenium should be called "nipponium". While I sympathize with the idea that it might be just were the element so named, there's an overwhelming amount of evidence that the proper, mainstream, accepted name for the element is "rhenium" and not "nipponium". Please don't attempt to use Wikipedia to push a point of view. Thanks, {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 20:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Oceania (school project)

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Oceania (school project). First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Nations of Nineteen Eighty-Four. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Nations of Nineteen Eighty-Four - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Grim²³★ 22:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

February 2010

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you create a malicious redirect again, as you did with 3.14159265358979323846264338327950, you will be blocked from editing. Grim²³★ 22:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Hidenori Kusaka, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. --DAJF (talk) 01:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Zoroark

That issue of CoroCoro Comic is not out yet and the official website has not been changed. Do not use "Zoroark" anywhere on Wikipedia until then.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:06, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

We were waiting for a consensus to be formed for the page. You just don't list it as an "uncontroversial move" to get your way given the official site has updated.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

When you can, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Page_move_mix_up.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:07, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Moemon

The article Moemon has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability of any kind? Has this been discussed in some kind of media, beyond their own site? Wikipedia articles should report on reasonably well-known subjects, not used to promote the unknowns.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. King Öomie 16:36, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

DCMA

you may have gone a bridge too far on copyright. i would argue that what once was a boon to authors selling their books, Statute of Anne, has now been co-opted by the corporate lawyers who are used to intimidation. i wouldn't imagine any change given the corporate money: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. i should introduce you to User:Moonriddengirl:

You need to be careful with this in the future, as this is beginning to look like a pattern of copyright problems. The Wikimedia Foundation takes its copyright policy very seriously. Persistent copyright violators must be blocked to prevent continued issues, and the last thing we need is to lose a prolific and dedicated contributor over a misunderstanding or misapplication of copyright policy.

such reading of the riot act is counterproductive wouldn't you agree. btw, here's a horror show from down under, Kookaburra (song) i hear the aussies are going to lynch the lawyers, maybe it would have a deterrent effect? Pohick2 (talk) 00:25, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

May 2010

This is the only warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to Aluminium borohydride, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Once again your opinions about the spelling of the name of this article manifests itself in a disruptive fashion. This time you have unilaterally renamed the article and, even worse, done so using copy/paste, which ruins the edit history. You have been warned for numerous transgressions. Please stop or risk being blocked again. Favonian (talk) 16:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Tsutarja

WP:N states it must have "significant coverage". If 2 sources was enough, then 100-200 species would have articles. Just look at Poliwhirl, Ninetales, Entei, Latias, ect. A GenV Pokemon list will be made when there are more species revealed, enough for a list. Get consensus with WikiProject Pokemon before making any articles. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 18:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

July 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to McDonald v. Chicago, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Grim²³★ 23:32, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

It seems clear that you are the same editor as User:138.110.206.99. That being the case, please review our policy at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. While it is understandable you may sometimes not wish to or forget to log in please note in particularly that it is not acceptable to take part in a discussion in such a way that you may mislead people into thinking you are two different editors. That being the case, if you have already commented on or started a discussion like at Talk:Quebec#Requested move, you should make it clear you are the same editor when offering further comments. Do note as well that you can't use not logging in to avoid scrutiny. Nil Einne (talk) 15:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

September 2010

Thank you for your contribution to Chuck Norris, but we are trying to write an encyclopedia here, so please keep your edits factual and neutral. Our readers are looking for serious articles and will not find joke edits amusing. Remember that Wikipedia is a widely-used reference tool, so we have to take what we do here seriously. If you'd like to experiment with editing, use the sandbox to get started. Thank you. Grim²³★ 22:23, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Last warning

If you vandalize Wikipedia again I will block you. This is not a joke site, and it is quite evident you are here to troll. Knock it off. Antandrus (talk) 16:15, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

December 2010

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. --John (talk) 18:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Political prisoner. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. 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 edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You're getting this warning since it is likely that you're using the IP 70.134.49.69 to readd content which fails V and RS. You are adding content based on POV and OR. Bidgee (talk) 05:54, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

leader in the running

I see you have added this repeatedly, there has been some discussion about it and the consensus seems to be that it is not noteworthy until he wins it or not, please use the talkpage for discussion, actually imo it is just a public vote and has little actual value even if he wins it.thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 21:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The last time you put it in was the third time without any attempt to discuss about it at all, regarding your edit summary of.. "There are news articles specifically about his being nominated and in first place. That makes it notable". - this is a totally mistaken position. Having a citation does not make it actually noteworthy and also even with citations that doesn't mean you have some kind of right to add it, we are able to and actually required to use editorial judgment and consensus on the talkpage. Off2riorob (talk) 22:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Assange case allaged victim's names

I have deleted your post regarding the names of these two women. As you may be aware, the consensus on the talk page has been that to include these names would probably be a breach of WP:BLP policy at this time. If you wish to discuss this, the correct way to do it will be to raise the point properly on the talk page (without at that point giving the names, as WP:BLP applies to talk pages too). AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

January 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Foreign policy of the United States, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. 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. NickCT (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Indef Block

I initially came here to warn you about this edit. However, judging from all the warnings you've received and your several blocks in the past, I decided an indef block is probably appropriate. You are demonstrating a pattern of disruptive editing that's simply annoying and unwanted. Please read the blocking policy if you'd like to request an unblock. Killiondude (talk) 17:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Tim Werenko for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tim Werenko is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Werenko until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Game Freak magazine.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Game Freak magazine.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

File:Flag of Oceania.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Flag of Oceania.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:16, 24 August 2023 (UTC)