User talk:WilkesJacob

Your edits

Hi Jacob, thanks for your edits. However, I've reverted them because short conjunctions and prepositions are generally not capitalised in titles (see the relevant part of the Manual of Style, which generally applies to all English texts). I've also reverted your edit to Ni Hao, Kai-Lan because you didn't explain it. Graham87 14:35, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

WilkesJacob, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi WilkesJacob! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Jtmorgan (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Please stop capitalizing words such as 'of', 'the', 'for', etc

Please stop capitalizing words such as 'of', 'the', 'for', etc. in titles. Proper capitalization rules exclude these words. You were already warned (above) about this 2 days ago. Please see MOS:CT for more information. In part:

For title case, the words that are not capitalized (unless they are the first or last word of the title) are:

• Articles (a, an, the)
• Short coordinating conjunctions (and, but, or, nor ; also for, yet, so when used as conjunctions)
• Prepositions containing four letters or fewer (as, in, of, on, to, for, from, like, over, with, etc.) but see below for instances where these words are not used as prepositions
• The word to in infinitives.

Thanks. Logical Fuzz (talk) 06:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

November 2016

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Frank Dukes, 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) 22:24, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Your addition to List of Nicky, Ricky, Dicky & Dawn episodes has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Amaury (talk | contribs) 06:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

December 2016

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Metro Boomin production discography. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This was an unsourced edit. Please find sources before adding this back. Lemongirl942 (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Vinylz. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:35, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours 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 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 ~~~~}}.  5 albert square (talk) 23:34, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Mike Will Made It production discography. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:57, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours 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 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 ~~~~}}.  5 albert square (talk) 23:29, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I have lengthened your block because you appear to have ignored the previous one as you have returned to the same form of editing. Upon your return, please provide sources. If you don't, your next block will be longer, perhaps even permanent. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask.--5 albert square (talk) 23:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Nard & B. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Magnolia677 (talk) 14:49, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Stop!

You really must stop this. None of you edits have sources. None. This makes a huge mess, and diminishes the reliability of Wikipedia. You really must stop. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:04, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

December 2016

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 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 ~~~~}}.  5 albert square (talk) 02:06, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

OK, as you have continued to add unsourced content despite my previous block, I have blocked you again. I suggest that you use this time out to read our policies, especially about providing reliable sources and also on why it is important that information is verified. You have failed to engage with other users as to why you are not providing any reliable sources, therefore we do not know why you are not doing this. Please start to engage in a conversation with @Magnolia677:, even though I have blocked you I have not revoked access to your talk page.--5 albert square (talk) 02:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of Debmar-Mercury syndicated programs

Hello, WilkesJacob. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, List of Debmar-Mercury syndicated programs, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

1. edit the page
2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
3. save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Xx236 (talk) 12:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of 20th Television distributed programs

The article List of 20th Television distributed programs has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No list.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

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

WNYY98 (talk) 05:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)