User talk:Jjgoatin

John Kasich

The fact of John Kasich's religion is irrelevant to an article concerning his campaign. There is a biography article for that exact purpose. Plus, he's Anglican, not Catholic. Spartan7W § 02:04, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning Ohio's 6th Congressional District, my comments were FACTS. The district was seen as an opportunity for Republicans to win more Congressional seats, even without winning the majority of the votes. Please refrain from airing your personal political views and protecting those in your own party.

Do you live in the congressional district?

July 2015

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Spartan7W § 02:10, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jjgoatin, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Jjgoatin! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Osarius (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 2015

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Ohio's 6th congressional district, you may be blocked from editing. NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:48, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 2015

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please 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, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at John Kasich presidential campaign, 2016. 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 lose editing privileges. 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. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:55, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at John Kasich presidential campaign, 2016. NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note if you add Roman Catholic again without getting consensus I will report you for edit warring. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cool it. This isn't your page. How about you actually read John Kasich's own Wikipedia page? Ignorant

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:Jjgoatin reported by User:NeilN (Result: ). Thank you. NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring at the article and subsequently at the edit warring noticeboard, as you did at John Kasich presidential campaign, 2016. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. —SpacemanSpiff 03:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

Jjgoatin (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Jjgoatin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Jjgoatin". The reason given for Jjgoatin's block is: "Edit warring ".

Blocking administrator: SpacemanSpiff (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: You're blocked directly. Max Semenik (talk) 05:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your account has been blocked for edit warring. This is not an autoblock, so you'll have to sue the standard {{unblock}} template and follow the directions mentioned in your block notice. —SpacemanSpiff 03:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jjgoatin (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please review my information (sources, etc). All of my information is included in my sources. Spartan7W must be blocked for vandalism- removing my correct information. Jjgoatin (talk) 03:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The policy is very simple: no edit warring, even if you're right. You should be thankful that you weren't blocked indefinitely for deleting the edit waring report against you. Max Semenik (talk) 05:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Care to explain these edits? [1], [2] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you're talking about. Look at my cites.

Religious affiliation

One's religious affiliation ought to be referenced by the demonym/gentilic which would be applied to them. I am a Catholic, or a Roman Catholic (either is appropriate), however, I am not a Catholicism or Roman Catholicism, and nobody would refer to me as such. Please refrain from disturbing pages with your preference. Spartan7W § 23:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As follow-up to Spartan7W's comments, the article at John Kasich is a biographical article, not an article about a religion. Hence it should refer in the infobox to the subject's religious affiliation by the name applied to those affiliated with the religion (i.e., "he is a/an _____"), not by the name of the religion ("he belongs to the religion that is called _____"). "Anglican", not "Anglicanism", is correct. General Ization ^Talk 01:29, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop disturbing pages with YOUR preference. There is not a religion called "Anglican."

July 2015

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing.

I know that you are continuing to make disruptive edits, constituting vandalism, on the articles relating to John Kasich. Spartan7W § 01:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are being reported

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. Thank you. General Ization ^Talk 02:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Kasich

There is strong reason to believe that you have been editing this article from accounts other than this one. What do you have to say about that? Rjd0060 (talk) 02:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Give me consensus. Didn't know I was talking to you

Hello, puss

Blocked

I've blocked your account since you clearly have failed to get the point and continue your disruption. Rjd0060 (talk) 12:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]