User talk:WhiteGuy1850

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is one of Wikipedia's core policies.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page and follow Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons policy. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced with multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring or abuse of multiple accounts.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject; doing so will result in your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Do not use talk pages as discussion or forum pages as Wikipedia is not a forum.

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Doug Weller talk 15:35, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why aren't you using your old account WhiteGuy1853?

I don't see an overlap with WhiteGuy1853 (talk · contribs), so there's no impropriety other than it should be noted you were warned twice about not providing reliable sources. Doug Weller talk 15:38, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Saoirse Ronan. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. 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. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:35, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 2017

Please refrain from changing genres, as you did to Donnie Darko, without providing a source or establishing a consensus on the article's talk page first. Genre changes to suit your own point of view are considered disruptive. Thank you. The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 14:25, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017

Please do not add or change content, as you did at English people, 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. DDStretch (talk) 03:14, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Maiara Walsh. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:19, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Bill Gates. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ChamithN (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Irish people. The Banner talk 20:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Finn Wolfhard. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. General Ization ^Talk 00:26, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Jennette McCurdy. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 00:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue disrputing Finns, I will ask the administrators to block/bann you. Velivieras) (talk) 06:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Finns. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, 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 Wikipedia. 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 block. Thank you. Mz7 (talk) 09:16, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Finns. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Warning for among other things deliberately gaming the three-revert rule (see page history of Finns). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Finns 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 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.
Repeatedly gaming the system by making reverts just outside the "magical" 24 hours is as blockable an offense as having made the fourth revert inside the 24 hours... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:25, 17 January 2018 (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:WhiteGuy1850 reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: ). Thank you. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 23:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Mongolian spot. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Warning for persistent addition of unsourced and/or insuffieciently/improperly sourced content. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 00:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Mongolian spot. Shellwood (talk) 00:12, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Mongolian spot. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. clpo13_(talk) 00:53, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Finns. Final warning for disruptive editing (see page history of article), in spite of being told multiple times why their edit is wrong (see talk page of article...). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant genres

Please don't add redundant genres, such as calling a slasher film a "horror slasher film". Slasher films are a subgenre of horror films. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018

Please stop adding unsourced content. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Warning for repeated unsourced edits on multiple articles. You cannot add home-made unsourced translations to articles here, everything you add MUST be sourced to reliable sources! See Wikipedia:Verifiability. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 14:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Finnish Americans. Final warning for disruptive editing: repeatedly adding a home-made (mis)translation to the article (see page history, and see user's contributions for much, much more of the same...), in spite of being reverted (and doing the same on multiple other articles, in spite of almost every edit being reverted, by many other editors...). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 00:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Slavic-speaking Europe listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Slavic-speaking Europe. Since you had some involvement with the Slavic-speaking Europe redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. The Banner talk 22:13, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. -- ferret (talk) 22:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 2018

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. Final warning for repeated disruptive editing, returning to the same pattern of edits even after having been blocked twice for it (showing it's a clear WP:CIR problem...). - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 16:31, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. -- ferret (talk) 20:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey

Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this survey on the project page and see how your feedback helps the Wikimedia Foundation support editors like you. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement (in English). Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through the EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys to remove you from the list.

Thank you!

WMF Surveys, 18:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia survey

Every response for this survey can help the Wikimedia Foundation improve your experience on the Wikimedia projects. So far, we have heard from just 29% of Wikimedia contributors. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes to be completed. Take the survey now.

If you have already taken the survey, we are sorry you've received this reminder. We have design the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. If you wish to opt-out of the next reminder or any other survey, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement. Thanks!

WMF Surveys, 01:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey

Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 23 April, 2018 (07:00 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We will not bother you again. We have designed the survey to make it impossible to identify which users have taken the survey, so we have to send reminders to everyone. To opt-out of future surveys, send an email through EmailUser feature to WMF Surveys. You can also send any questions you have to this user email. Learn more about this survey on the project page. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this Wikimedia Foundation privacy statement.

WMF Surveys, 00:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Multiculturalism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Illyrian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:14, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

June 2018

This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:19, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 23:29, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think this has gone on long enough. I see nonsense edits, flags in infoboxes, a ton of overlinking, and wholly unverified additions--all without explanation. These are things you have been warned about frequently, and it's time this disruption stop. Drmies (talk) 23:30, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What type of disruptive edit have i made ?

Look up where it says "nonsense edits, flags in infoboxes, a ton of overlinking, and wholly unverified additions". Really, just about every single one of them. And if you don't get it, read over all the warnings on this talk page. You may recall that yesterday I blocked you also, when you were editing while logged out. That in itself is another reason for an indefinite block: socking. Drmies (talk) 23:34, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, all of my Edits has reliable sources, however, some people didn't approved them

No they don't. I mean, seriously--that is so obviously untrue that I don't want to spend any more words on them. And then you go around putting flags on top of infoboxes. And you edit while logged out. And you don't give edit summaries. And you don't respond to messages on your talk page. Should I go on? BilCat, did I miss anything? Drmies (talk) 23:44, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Example: Eminem: "Eminem is of English, German, Swiss-German, and Scottish descent." Source: https://marriedbiography.com/eminem-biography/

Really. Have you EVER read WP:RS? No, this won't do. Drmies (talk) 23:44, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tired of try to argue with someone like you

- Drmies is probably tired of arguing with you. Marriedbiography is clickbait, useless as a source and obviously so. 09:30, 23 June 2018 (UTC) Doug Weller (talk • contribs)

My Edits have good sources, if you don't believe it, there's nothing i can do about that

You blocklog says something different... The Banner talk 19:04, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you unblock me, please ? That's really ridiculous............. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhiteGuy1850 (talk • contribs) 01:40, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: Since this editor is doing nothing but wasting our time, could you revoke TPA, please? General Ization ^Talk 02:07, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meh let em rant. They're not bothering anyone, not pinging anyone. Drmies (talk) 02:21, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@General Ization I didn't do any disruptive editing, he blocked me for no reason.........
@Drmies, block me from editing during all this time is completely unreasonable since i didn't any disruptive editing as you're saying.............

Your block is indefinite. If you want to appeal it, you need to follow the instructions given you in the block notice. General Ization ^Talk 13:24, 2 July 2018 (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).

WhiteGuy1850 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I don't think i've done any Disruptive editing, however, if you think i've done, let me say i understand what i've done and Will do the possible to make useful and and good editionsWhiteGuy1850 (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This unblock request shows a staggering lack of honesty or a profound lack of competence. Yamla (talk) 18:05, 2 July 2018 (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.

Though I am not the admin who will review your block, I must say that saying (in the same breath) that you don't think you've done anything that should cause you to be blocked and also that you understand why you were blocked and won't do it again is unlikely to result in your being unblocked. You need to choose your argument. General Ization ^Talk 16:57, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Note to reviewing admin: There's a huge WP:CIR problem with this guy, as he has shown over and over again, including returning to the exact same editing pattern that got him blocked every time he has returned from a block (he was blocked three times before getting indeffed, first for 24h, then for two weeks and after that for a month, but learned nothing from it...). And this new unblock request of his shows that he still doesn't feel he has done anything wrong... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 17:05, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that there is another account WhiteGuy1853 (talk · contribs) that is not blocked but clearly belongs to WhiteGuy1850. The Banner talk 17:46, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yamla What exactly made you think that?

@Thomas W. I still can't understand why i've been blocked three times, i've ever added sources to my Edits, not to mention one of the reasons by which i have been blocked by a indefinite time from editing recently was adding flag boxes to ethnic group's templates, as i've did to Scottish-Americans, Argentine Americans and Serbian Americans, for example, honestly, what's the problem with do this type of edit in a wiki page ? Can someone tell me ? That's so unreasonable................. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhiteGuy1850 (talk • contribs)

Your comment, which is very far from the truth, shows that you lack the competence needed to edit Wikipedia, so find another hobby, this is clearly not for you... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:47, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

i've ever added sources to my Edits. Strange: even after six edits of your hand this article had exactly zero (0) sources. The Banner talk 20:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problems with the infobox flags, as Drmies pointed out in reverting your edits at all three of the articles you mentioned, is that country flags should not be used to represent ethnic groups, and also that flags in infoboxes are discouraged generally. But the fact that you have repeatedly ignored instructions and advice from other editors and admins not to do various things (as evident from your Talk page) and gone right ahead and done them again has much more to do with your current circumstance than any one Wikipedia policy. General Ization ^Talk 20:07, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Thomas W. I would be more grateful if you had a little more education when you refer to me, you are not the owner of the truth just because you are the administrator of a digital encyclopedia

Request Can this discussion be closed by revoking talk page access? The replies from WhiteGuy1850 make clear that he is plain unwilling to follow the rules of the game. Enough. The Banner talk 22:58, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --Yamla (talk) 23:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meant to say this last night. Thomas W. is not an Administrator. Yamla, Drmies and me are the only Admins who have posted in this section. Doug Weller talk 11:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]