User talk:Spreadofknowledge

Welcome!

Hello, Spreadofknowledge, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I notice that one of the first articles you edited was Puerto Ricans in the United States, which appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or any other editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One firm rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The plain and simple conflict of interest guide
The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

January 2014

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Black Hispanic and Latino Americans. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 Dominican American, you may be blocked from editing. Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 20 January

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 Puerto Ricans in the United States 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) 00:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 7 September

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 Puerto Ricans in the United States 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) 00:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 14 September

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 Puerto Ricans in Chicago 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) 00:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Afro-Dominican (Dominican Republic), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page La Romana. 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) 09:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My hat off to you

October 2014

Hello, I'm SummerPhD. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Puerto Ricans in the United States, 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. SummerPhD (talk) 02:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Glenwood, Philadelphia may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

to improve the area. Glenwood is often defined as the area bounded by York Street to the south (bordering [[Stanton, Philadelphia|Stanton]] and [[Templetown, Philadelphia|Templetown]], Germantown

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing of History of the Puerto Ricans in Philadelphia

Hi! Thanks for working on History of the Puerto Ricans in Philadelphia.

To make the article better, it's good to make sure every detail that is not "common sense" (the capital of France is Paris) is sourced. That means also making sure the content before the "ref" mark is actually sourced to that ref. Example:

AAAA<ref>A.</ref> or
AAA<ref name=A> B<ref name=B> AAA<ref name=A/>

That way readers will know where the content comes from so they can make sure it is true and so they may use it in their school or business reports.

This article needs more sourcing, especially in regards to new details you added. Since there are many people not from Philadelphia, many of the details demand more accurate sourcing. I like using Google Books (make sure the book is not self-published!). Also please fill in citations (name of page, publisher, date, access date, etc.) and use http://webcitation.org (a website archival service) in case the page is taken down. You can also get old pages at http://wayback.archive.org.

If there is a journal article you want to use, you may use WP:RX to obtain a copy of it for your Wikipedia use. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At the revision here the 2010 data was never erased. Please see this revision. If you look carefully, nothing has been removed. Even though 2000 data is out of date, it is still of interest so I think it should stay in the article. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

January 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Hispanic and Latino Americans. 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.

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 and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Hispanic and Latino Americans. 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.

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 and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. 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. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 18:48, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Badlandsblight.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Badlandsblight.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 04:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Northphillybadlands.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Northphillybadlands.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. (ESkog)^(Talk) 22:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Urbanmotocross.png

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Urbanmotocross.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. (ESkog)^(Talk) 22:29, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:5th&lehigh.jpg

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on File:5th&lehigh.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article or image appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

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. (ESkog)^(Talk) 22:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Julio Voltio.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Julio Voltio.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. (ESkog)^(Talk) 22:32, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Puertoricanpower.png

Thanks for uploading File:Puertoricanpower.png. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 00:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

December 2015

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Albany, New York, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you were warned here by User:WhisperToMe to stop adding unsourced demographic information regarding Puerto Ricans in Philadelphia. You were also warned here to stop adding deliberate demographic errors to articles. Yet here you are continuing to do this. Please explain yourself. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Using blogs as sources

Please avoid using blogs as references, as they constitute Original research. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:18, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

I am referring specifically to these edit summaries:[1], where you accuse a good-faith editor of vandalism, and [2], where you accuse another good-faith editor of being delusional. I also note your comments at User_talk:Castncoot#NYC_is_NOT_the_.22center.22_of_the_Puerto_Rican_American_community_.21.21.21, which are highly uncivil and confrontational. You clearly have a lot of knowledge to contribute to Wikipedia; please do so while keeping this a hospitable place for others to contribute.--Aervanath (talk) 14:43, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to White Puerto Ricans. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert added unsourced content, but you have a point. My apology. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hold up first of all, you got it ALL mixed up. He's the one replacing sourced facts with his racist bias opinions and beliefs to this article. Im simply reverting it back to it's original content. You should block him for vandalism.

White Puerto Ricans

I don't see any vandalism or "replacement of facts with racist opinion" in the article history, either. Exactly which part of the multiple edits by User:JesseRaf and User:2604:2000:c5ca:1600:2962:1aed:8d32:1be (probably two different people) do you object to? - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2016

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at White Puerto Ricans. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. I have added nothing but improvements to the article, look at the edit history. You are argumentative and have come in like you WP:OWN the article reverting everything that is not your version. You have been uncivil and combative and directed personal attacks at other editors as you assume bad faith in the community. JesseRafe (talk) 02:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Motherfucka the whole "Blanqueamento in Puerto Rico" (Whitening of Puerto Rico) section was allll me, or as you renamed it "Present Day Puerto Rico". They all are facts and they all got sources to back them up. So you saying you removed all unsourced content is bullsh*t. Its a fact, that most "white Puerto Ricans" have significant amounts of African and Native ancestry. But your racist ass delete my facts n statistics, as if you dont wan it to be known that alot of "white""Puerto Ricans have African and Native ancestry. Instead of reverting back to your vandalistic bullsh*t, look at ALL the statistics and their sources, all of which i supplied, in the "blanquemento in Puerto Rico" section.

Final warning: stop accusing others of ulterior motives. Having different opinion on how the subject should be covered doesn't constitute racism, or vandalism. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Almost more offensive than the outright personal attacks and harassment is the blatant and patent untruth to this confounding claim, and I have no idea how removing a trite and unsourced statement like "Corsica is an island and people from Corsica saw that Puerto Rico was an island and liked it there" constitutes racism. Find a citation for this garbage sentence and re-add it.As to who is African and Native, how is that relevant to the phrasing "Jews" vs "The Jews"? As that is the only section I changed the name of. Or, perhaps this editor has no idea how Wikipedia works and who made what edits, but would love to "contribute" to the encyclopedia with baseless claims, harassment, and being most WP:UNCIVIL? Class act! JesseRafe (talk) 06:35, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistent unconstructive editing of various kinds, including edit-warring, personal attacks on other editors, absurd accusations of "vandalism" whenever you happen to disagree with perfectly good-faith editors, attempts to exert ownership of content, and a general battleground approach to everyone you disagree with, rather than a collaborative approach. 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 to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:08, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at White Puerto Ricans 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 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. Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:46, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bad faith abuse of other editors

Please note that this section you opened on the Afro-Puerto Ricans talk page is really unacceptable. I have had no dealings with the other editor you mention, and accusing me of racism and the use of expletives on an article talk page is beyond the pale.

In fact, I've only been cleaning up the dead links (which it was tagged for in June of 2015), verifying citations, and trying to find substitute articles for dead links with no title and no archived captures. So far, I've only been getting acquainted with the subject matter by reading the references as I cite check, and have done no serious copyediting other than a few grammatical errors and clarifications.

After your post, I took a look at the edit history and saw that the other editor you alluded to had made a series of edits where both sourced content and sources were removed. You have never engaged on the talk page prior this outburst. All that was required was an assumption of good faith comment about the removal of sources to have drawn my attention to the content changes.

I would appreciate it if you were to strike through your accusation and leave some form of apology for your mud-slinging. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:51, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 2016

Hello, I'm Iryna Harpy. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Afro-Puerto Ricans, 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. Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Kleuske (talk) 10:35, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistent incivility to other editors, including accusations of racism. Further issues of this type may be met with increasing or indefinite blocks.. 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 to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Black Kite (talk) 12:50, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Spreadofknowledge. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016

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 History of the Puerto Ricans in Philadelphia, you may be blocked from editing. JesseRafe (talk) 22:09, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Puerto Rican migration to New York City. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. JesseRafe (talk) 22:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on History of the Puerto Ricans in Philadelphia. 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. Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:29, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at Puerto Rican migration to New York City, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for making personal attacks towards other editors. 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 request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:40, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to History of the Puerto Ricans in Philadelphia, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources

Thanks for contributing to the article History of the Puerto Ricans in Philadelphia ‎. However, one of Wikipedia's core policies is that material must be verifiable and attributed to reliable sources. You have recently used citations which copied, or mirrored, material from Wikipedia. This leads to a circular reference and is not acceptable. Most mirrors are clearly labeled as such, but some are in violation of our license and do not provide the correct attribution. Please help by adding alternate sources to the article you edited! If you need any help or clarification, you can look at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia or ask at Wikipedia:New contributors' help page, or just ask me. Thank you. Kuru (talk) 04:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. --Bongwarrior (talk) 06:52, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]