User talk:Xo-whiplock

Xo-whiplock, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Xo-whiplock! 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 peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Missvain (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Photographic film has been reverted.
Your edit here to Photographic film was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://new55project.blogspot.com/) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, fansite, or similar site (see 'Links to avoid', #11), then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 23:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Photographic film

Your edits to Photographic film don't follow the Manual of Style, or the convention used on Wikipedia, and make the article harder to use for readers. 203.109.161.2 (talk) 21:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Photographic film, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Generic. 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) 09:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Photographic film, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Maco. 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) 09:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

Your recent editing history at Photographic film 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 get 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. Binksternet (talk) 06:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 07:54, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours 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 ~~~~}}. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that you have editors that don't want things tagged with "citation needed" and or challenge information that is not cited? I simply challenged everything not cited and removed it from Photographic film page. I left the cited two sentences. They then reverted the page, adding all the uncited text. I then began adding challenge statements to each sentence that required a citation, and they called this disruptive editing. There are just a few editors that think this page belongs to them. They did not like the idea of having cited material for the article because it to hard to figure out where the information is from. I suggested that the only cited material be added and that way, the re-write of the page would have citations and fix the issue of ce and mos issues. But they didn't think that the right way to go. I won't be back to Wikipedia to edit "their" Photographic film page. I have created my own called Photographic film (Popularity) that contains my work that I tried to get onto the Photographic film page but got ran out.

You will notice a big tag at the top of the article that states "This article needs additional citations"? That is enough. Tthat tag applies to the whole article. Every unreffed sentence does not also need a tag. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, how does one "challenge" a statement without adding a "citation needed" to the sentence? Should not un-cited statements be removed, especially if they have been un-cited for many years without a citation added?

Deleting most of a long term article simply because it does not have references is not sufficient justification. One needs evidence that the content is wrong. If the content is not wrong than simply find a reference for it.

You can also bring up specific content on the talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you agree to build consensus on the talk page I am happy to unblock you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:58, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate that, but I need the cool down time.Xo-whiplock (talk) 20:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay let me know when you are ready and I am happy for anyone to unblock you. Else the block will end in two more days. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Photographic film (August 8)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Jaaron95 was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Photographic film instead.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Photographic film and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also get Wikipedia's Live Help real-time chat help from experienced editors.

JAaron95 ^Talk 10:29, 8 August 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) 17:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Photographic film concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Photographic film, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Photographic film

Hello, Xo-whiplock. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Photographic film".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]