User talk:Jmichelson27

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Jmichelson27, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your addition to Henry Danger has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and a cited source. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Geraldo Perez (talk) 05:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Henry Danger, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. All info about unaired episodes must be well-referenced. Existing ref for title says nothing about what was added. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Henry Danger. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. All info about unaired episodes must be well-referenced - tell us where you are getting your info Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to Henry Danger has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Actually the stuff you added appears to be mostly extracted verbatim from http://www.thewrap.com/nickelodeon-icarly-star-nathan-kress-henry-danger-to-make-directorial-debut/ with minor additions Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Dcbanners. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Henry Danger 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! Dcbanners (talk) 23:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Henry Danger, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. We can't use IMDb as a reference for future info about TV series - see WP:RS/IMDB for why. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Henry Danger. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. As before - find a reliable source for the info you are adding - IMDb isn't one as previously explained Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:39, 22 February 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 Henry Danger. IMDb is not a reliable source. Dcbanners (talk) 00:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm MPFitz1968. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Henry Danger because it did not appear constructive. 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! MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Haunted Hathaways episodes

Hi Jmichelson27,

I saw your edits at List of The Haunted Hathaways episodes just now. I, among a few other editors, have been reverting any addition of the season 2 (and series) last aired date because it is not reliably sourced. The references presented in the article do show there are no additional episodes following "Haunted Family" (airing on March 5). However, none of them explicitly identify that episode as the season finale, series finale, final episode of the season/series, or words to that effect. Also see the article's talk page topic regarding this and give us your input if you wish. MPFitz1968 (talk) 15:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the part in the final episode's summary where you indicate it is the "series finale". That detail does not need to be emphasized if there are no additional episodes to follow in the article. After a few months (or years), readers will know it to be the last episode when they notice this. MPFitz1968 (talk) 16:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 2015

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to List of The Haunted Hathaways episodes, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. MPFitz1968 (talk) 02:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Henry Danger. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When you state something is a parody that is your own personal opinion. You must support that with a reliable source. Geraldo Perez (talk) 18:53, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Henry Danger, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Geraldo Perez (talk) 02:24, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Henry Danger, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Henry Danger#References for character names

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Henry Danger#References for character names. Thanks. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is your final warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at List of The Thundermans episodes with this edit, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Amaury (talk) 03:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cast list vs Character list

Re: these recent edits of yours, if you want to break down the list into Main and Recurring characters, you have to reorganize the entire list to be ordered by Characters, ex: Bella Dawson (portrayed by Brec Bassinger) - Brief description. It is currently a cast list, as indicated by the "Cast" in the header. If you're going to be editing television articles, you might strongly consider reading the Manual of Style for Television so that you're not editing against consensus and existing norms. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bella and the Bulldogs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jonathan Howard. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:56, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove plot content?

Hi, why did you remove so much plot content from Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn in these edits? What remains is little more than a 2-3 sentence logline and there is no longer a beginning, middle and end. The purpose of a summary is to summarize the story, and per WP:TVPLOT we're aiming for 150-200 words for this content. Please look at the Manual of Style when you make edits, and I really think you should put the previous summaries back unless you can provide a clear explanation for why the content isn't warranted. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Bella and the Bulldogs. Diffs: [1] You have been told three times prior that IMDb cannot be used as a reference. Please stop submitting content you find at IMDb. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at List of Jessie episodes, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. AussieLegend (✉) 17:00, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The changes that you have been making to the article are not supported by the sources in the article. The source that you deleted support "Basket Case" while the source that you left supports "Basket Cases", not "Basket Case". Since both titles are reported by sources, both must be listed. please do not remove the content again. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:02, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Will also indicate your taking out column references for Original air date and Production codes in episode list for Henry Danger. Please do not indiscriminately remove references as these are needed to back any information shown in the articles, per Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and no original research. As you have been receiving final warnings multiple times in the last six weeks, with no blocks on your record, you will likely be reported to administration next time, per WP:AIV or WP:ANI. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Henry Danger, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:24, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Henry Danger. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Bella and the Bulldogs. Diffs: [2] Unexplained removal of reference formatting. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:15, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 4 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the The Little Couple page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at 100 Things to Do Before High School. 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 are removing cite details for no possible reason. Also archive info in the cite is generally extremely useful. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:11, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Nicky, Ricky, Dicky, and Dawn.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Nicky, Ricky, Dicky, and Dawn.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image licensed as "for non-commercial use only," "non-derivative use" or "used with permission," it has not been shown to comply with the limited standards for the use of non-free content. [3], and it was either uploaded on or after 2005-05-19, or is not used in any articles. If you agree with the deletion, there is no need to do anything. If, however, you believe that this image may be retained on Wikipedia under one of the permitted conditions then:

state clearly the source of the image. If it has been copied from elsewhere on the web you should provide links to: the image itself, the page which uses it and the page which contains the license conditions.
add the relevant copyright tag.

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:52, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Use of edit summaries

Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 24 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the The Little Couple page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to List of Victorious episodes, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at List of Victorious episodes, you may be blocked from editing. Still not explaining any reason to remove an episode from the table. You need a very strong justification to do that Geraldo Perez (talk) 00:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at List of Victorious episodes. You are deleting a complete episode from the table without even attempting to give a justification for its removal. Communicate, say why you are doing stuff, don't expect the rest of us to read your mind. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at List of Victorious episodes 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. MPFitz1968 (talk) 05:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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 ~~~~}}.

Nakon 05:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. 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 ~~~~}}.

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. Krakatoa Katie 21:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to 100 Things to Do Before High School, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Henry Danger. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can 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 you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Amaury (talk) 19:34, 26 August 2015 (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:Jmichelson27 reported by User:Amaury (Result: ). Thank you. Amaury (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is your fourth revert to the article today, would you care to undo the edit yourself and then discuss the matter on the talk page, rather than edit war? —C.Fred (talk) 19:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Bella and the Bulldogs#Newbie QB is a single episode

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Bella and the Bulldogs#Newbie QB is a single episode. Thanks. Geraldo Perez (talk) 21:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Henry Danger

Your edits are still going against WP:MOS in several areas, such as WP:OVERLINKING and WP:MOSBOLD. You're also changing citations and removing information from citations without any explanation. Please consider self-reverting your recent edits and bring your concerns to the talk page to show good faith. Thanks. Amaury (talk) 05:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I already reverted the edits in meantime, because I misread Amaury's comment above and thought that was an older incident. nyuszika7h (talk) 15:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Henry Danger. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can 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 you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
You continue to insist on your edits, like this one, which go against Wikipedia's Manual of Style, including MOS:BOLD (which has specific uses in articles ... highlighting "notes" or "guest stars" in the episode list is not one of them) and replace quite valid references for viewership numbers without explanation. You have been given plenty of opportunity to explain these edits, either on your talk page or the talk pages of the articles you have affected, and have even been given opportunity from an administrator in a previous edit warring issue to undo one of your edits so they could see you're editing in good faith. You have been given additional opportunities since to undo your edits, but it is clear you are not and therefore, your edits have been repeatedly disruptive. You will be given one last opportunity to cooperate with other editors, and discuss your changes on the appropriate talk pages, or this will be referred to the administrators again, who will be informed that you have not been acting in good faith. And please do not keep resubmitting rejected edits; discuss it with the editor(s) who have reverted you. MPFitz1968 (talk) 06:54, 1 September 2015 (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:Jmichelson27 reported by User:Amaury (Result: ). Thank you. Amaury (talk) 21:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jmichelson27, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Amaury (talk) 21:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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 ~~~~}}.

Materialscientist (talk) 01:21, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]