User talk:Wikinatic08

Welcome!

Hello, Wikinatic08, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may be removed if they have not yet been. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. Additionally, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name 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! Yngvadottir (talk) 13:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 2014

Hello, I'm Flyer22. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to List of Big Brother 9 housemates (UK) 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. Flyer22 (talk) 06:15, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to America's Greatest Hero 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:

*The liner notes give special thanks to Joey Averback, Kenny Buttice, Ernie Phillips, and [[Stephen J. Cannell].{{citation needed|date=April 2014}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinatic08, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Wikinatic08! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join experienced editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from experienced editors. These editors have been around for a long time and have extensive knowledge about how Wikipedia works. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from experts. I hope to see you there! Rosiestep (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit to Iddo Netanyahu

Hello, and thank you for your recent contribution. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edit because I believe the article was better before you made that change. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! Asdklf; (talk) 03:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that you made a change to an article, 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. Materialscientist (talk) 22:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014

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 Anders Holm, 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. The boy? JesseRafe (talk) 06:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Jael de Pardo 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:

'''Jael de Pardo'''(Born March 7 1981, is an [[United States|American]] television actress born in [[Colombia]]. At the

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:07, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014

Hello, I'm ChamithN. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Marcus Mumford, 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. Chamith (talk) 21:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Son of a..."

Watcha doing? Seems a tad obsessive and not actually encyclopedic to begin altering our BLPs to change all mention of "sons" to "boys". Such editing can be considered disruptive, but I am first checking to see what's up?--Mark Miller (talk) 06:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"our", yes. You registered an account and have begun editing so you are now a part of a community of volunteer editors who regularly patrol articles for vandalism, non sense, or other types of unconstructive editing. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that everyone can edit...but that does not mean everyone can edit anything. We have guidelines (they can be ignored for the right reasons), policies (they too can be ignored for the right reasons) and a few bright line rules, a number of procedures and many criteria for inclusion of content. Your recent edits have come to my attention, simply because you edited an article I patrol to watch for content that may not meet Wikipedia standards. BLPs (Biographies of Living People) are "our" (the community, of which you are a part of) most important and highly contentious articles and we have some bright line rules about content however, your changes are simply unconstructive in that they are not needed. Such changes done once on an article I patrol may not be worth reverting but when looking at your contributions (please note that the contributions tab exists for the very reason that we edit out in the open for all to see with nothing hidden. All work can be double checked and will eventually be seen by someone) it was clear that your edits constitute a small agenda of altering the mention in BLP articles of "sons" and changing that to "boys". There are many reasons that is something that is unnecessary and few reasons why it would be. As I said, once could be opinion, this many times is an agenda akin to those that obsess over measurements, distance or American or British spelling variations.

Yes, there is indeed a great deal of bureaucracy at Wikipedia. Its always been here. Try to be as civil as possible when interacting with others and remember to place your replies to the bottom of the talk page. You can hit the "New section" tab at the top of the page to start a new posting. Using the : symbol when you reply, placed before the post will indent the posting to read chronologically. Also by typing ~~~~ or clicking the pencil icon in the editing box at the end of the post will sign and timestamp your posting. If you have further questions or need assistance please feel free to ask on my talk page.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:30, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mark is right: when you edit here you kinda have to play by the rules--and when it comes to the BLP those rules are pretty strict, and one of the rules is that content must be verifiable. So, you add this detail, but there is no reference given to prove the material is accurate. And in Ray Stevenson (actor), what's the point of changing "sons" to "boys"? Drmies (talk) 02:11, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to ask what your source is for these edits about brothers. It is particularly important to cite a source when the article is about a living person, because no matter how benign something may seem, if it's not accurate there is real potential to hurt the subject of the article. Accordingly, I reverted you on Austin Stowell. On Martin Compston, I found a source for his elder brother and added the information in a less intrusive place. This is what you should always be doing. If your source is fan forums or IMDb, please don't add the information. (We don't use sources that just anyone can edit; see our guidelines on reliable sources.) If you have a better source, you should add it at the same time as you add the information. I'm not sure why you feel brothers/boys are so important, but if there's a good source for it, sure we can include it. Source with the info from now on, please. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 2015

Please provide reliable sources for article text. Thank you. 115.164.88.181 (talk) 06:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant edits

Hi Wikinatic08 - I recently fixed a few of your edits that included redundant sibling information in them. For example, at Adam Chanler-Berat, it isn't necessary to specify both that he is the youngest of three boys and that he has two older brothers. Those two phrases mean the same thing. I took out the problematic portion at Adam Chanler-Berat, but I noticed that you reinserted it without explaining why. What's going on? You can just type your reply right here and I'll see it on my Watchlist. Thanks! EricEnfermero (Talk) 03:28, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just an addendum here, that literally the same thing was done to the article on Travis Fimmel. JesseRafe (talk) 16:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

March 2015

Please stop your disruptive editing. 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.

Hi,

I happened to notice that I had already written on your Talk Page a few months ago about your nonstandard usage of "boy". I came across your doings on Anders Holm in October and Mark Miller and Drmies also found non-standard usage in other articles in February.

When referring to sons and brothers, it is not necessary to redundantly call them boys. Even if a later reference calls them children or siblings, the reader knows they are boys because they were already introduced. You've repeated this behavior in a lot of articles, as I happened to notice you did so to another article I watch, and I saw EricEnfermero made a Talk Page section about your redundant language along the lines of "so-and-so is the youngest of three boys, his older brothers are X and Y, and he is the youngest child". This is horrible prose and detracts from wikipedia, bringing the level of the encyclopedia down. Please acquaint yourself with the Manual of Style, and don't undo any further edits from editors reverting your unnecessary and redundant changes or superfluous use of "boy".

But, if you have sources for things like the names of the subjects' brothers, or anything else, please do add them to the article! EricEnfermero was correct in that BLP (biographies of living persons) articles are subject to increased scrutiny and those don't get ^{[citation needed]} tags as much as simply deleted.

Adding a reference is easy, if you're unsure just ask, or just try, if you mess it up, but it's clear what you were trying to do, someone else will come along and fix it. JesseRafe (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Adam Chanler-Berat. EricEnfermero (Talk) 02:40, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Imogen Hassall, 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. Dwpaul ^Talk 02:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at David Shillington, you may be blocked from editing. This sibling/child redundancy issue is a simple one that has been explained to you in some detail here, but such detailed explanations appear to have had no effect. EricEnfermero (Talk) 10:52, 5 May 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 Michael Dawson (footballer). Mattythewhite (talk) 21:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Ryan Kwanten, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:29, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Hello. I have blocked you from editing Wikipedia for a period of 1 week because you have, despite the many warnings above, continued to unhelpfully edit pages to rephrase sentences in a way that makes them generally less encyclopedic and less grammatically correct. Wikipedia is designed to be edited by everyone, but as you seem to refuse to discuss this issue productively with the many users who have raised it as a concern, I have no option but to prevent you editing. When the block expires, feel free to carry on editing if you keep this feedback in mind - if people have issues with your edits, please take them on board and discuss. ~ mazca ^talk 11:27, 17 May 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 ~~~~}}.