User talk:WikiHogan654

Hello, I'm Amyh416. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Oregon Ducks football because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Amyh416 (talk) 17:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oregon Ducks Football

Dude you got the wrong person, i never edited Oregon Ducks Football.....how did you even get my user talk page anyway? Pro66 (talk) 04:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, after looking through the history of the article i believe you meant to write to Amyh416 not me, if not i recommend looking back at the article and find the person you meant to write to. Pro66 (talk) 14:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To WikiHogan654, please see my response on my talk page. Pro66 copied your post on their talk page. Thanks! Amyh416 (talk) 17:09, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

February 2013

Your recent editing history at Frank Thomas (designated hitter) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jungle Love (Family Guy)

If you are undoing an edit that is not vandalism, please explain the reason in the edit summary rather than leaving a default revert message. Thank you. Davejohnsan (talk) 23:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hoosier

Hello, I'm Mjroots. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Hoosier without thoroughly 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! Mjroots (talk) 08:46, 13 December 2013 (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) 16:48, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Anus of america

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as Anus of america, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.

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 "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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:01, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, WikiHogan654. 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]

April 2017

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Lagos, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Kindly also note that citing examples from other articles is not necessarily a valid argument, actions should be policy based. Thank you. Jamie Tubers (talk) 23:38, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, as you did at Lagos, you may be blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Jamie Tubers (talk) 12:59, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jamie, with all due respect, this is not disruptive editing. This is convenience so that people can simply click on relevant articles to learn more information. The overlink policy is clearly intended for irrelevant articles. The article for Paris has links to France and Europe. The article for Sao Paulo has links to Brazil and the Southern Hemisphere. There are dozens more examples that I can find for you, if you'd like.

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:51, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, WikiHogan654. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Antonio Brown, 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. General Ization ^Talk 15:05, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions warning

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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.

Points to note:

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 and 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.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018

Please stop your disruptive editing.

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, 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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Elizabeth Warren, you may be blocked from editing. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:04, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RFA

This probably isn't a good idea - please have a read of this advice before you go any further - TNT ^💖 20:13, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, WikiHogan654. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio brown

Just because some girl rants on insta about her relationship with Antonio brown doesn’t make it credible. This hasn’t been confirmed by brown or the women involved, so I think it’s best to leave that edit out of his page. Let me know what you think! Innocent until proven guilty, right? Apoorv Chauhan (talk) 23:44, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018

Hello, I'm Julietdeltalima. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on McKayla Maroney, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Julietdeltalima (talk) 19:33, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to McKayla Maroney. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Bennv3771 (talk) 19:48, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The source you cited says nothing about what she did with the money. Bennv3771 (talk) 19:51, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. I thought it was obvious since Maroney has never donated the money to charity. But you're right, the new version is more technically accurate. Thank you.WikiHogan654 (talk) 22:44, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know that she hasn't donated the money to charity? That's not obvious at all. All you know is that no one has ever publicly stated what she did with the money. Not every public figure feels the need to publicize everything they do; charities regularly receive multi-million-dollar anonymous donations. This is precisely why reliable secondary sources are necessary for assertions like this. Julietdeltalima (talk) 22:50, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ford

Hi WikiHogan654. I see that you have previously been advised about edit warring, so I will spare you the lecture. The content that you have now tried to insert into Christine Blasey Ford four times today does not have consensus for inclusion. This, and some of your previous edits misrepresent the sources. She does not have well-documented fear of flying; She has a stated fear of flying. Nor does the source say that she "frequently flies to places like Hawaii, Costa Rica, and French Polynesia." It says "she has traveled by airplane to Hawaii, Costa Rica, South Pacific Islands and French Polynesia.". If you continue to edit war, or misrepresent sources in this way, you will probably end up being topic banned or blocked. - Mr X 🖋 00:59, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MrX. So sorry if I incorrectly represented the source. I will try better. Also, can you please explain consensus to me? It looks like you just opened it up on the talk page and are already concluding that it doesn't have consensus. Is that how quickly things can be determined? Thank you so much for your invaluable help.WikiHogan654 (talk) 01:04, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is how we resolve content disputes on Wikipedia. It means that nearly everyone involved in a dispute supports the disputed material. It's not unanimity. It's closer to a supermajority, but really it's based on the strength of policy-based arguments, not simply voting. The policy is here: WP:CONSENSUS, with helpful links near the bottom.

Concerning this specific dispute, there is no consensus yet so the material should stay out of the article until a consensus emerges. That will largely depend on the strength of your arguments, and your response to counterarguments.- Mr X 🖋 01:16, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, your fifth insertion of this material with slightly different wording is still edit warring. Your edit summary suggests that you are not editing in good faith. You are perilously close to being sanctioned, although I wouldn't be surprised if will be anyway once an uninvolved admin takes notice.- Mr X 🖋 01:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not in good faith? Sanctioned? I didn't realize this was vandalism. I thought that while some people seem to disagree on the notability of the information, my edits were still in good faith, were they not? I certainly wasn't trying to vandalize the article.WikiHogan654 (talk) 01:37, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, MrX, I wasn't trying to start an edit war or get anyone riled up. Looks like I was wrong on this one. I apologize.WikiHogan654 (talk) 02:18, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 19:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]