User talk:98.220.157.243

May 2017
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Joe Mixon. PM800 (talk) 03:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

May 2017
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Joe Mixon has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 04:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC) 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 request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Materialscientist (talk) 05:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, [ report it here], remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
 * For help, take a look at the introduction.
 * The following is the log entry regarding this message: Joe Mixon was changed by 98.220.157.243 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.893339 on 2017-05-24T04:32:29+00:00.

You have missed the point. For your block to be invalid, you must show how the edits you made were already backed up by citations. What you've said is that you did not provide these mandatory citations. This is not optional. You must provide citations when introducing material of this nature. WP:CITE and WP:RS explain why. I agree that it is important to provide context around the topics you are discussing, but Wikipedia requires citations from reliable sources. Our policy is Verifiability, not truth. If you don't already have a citation from a reliable source, you can not introduce the changes. --Yamla (talk) 00:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Nguyễn Ngọc Loan into Execution of Nguyễn Văn Lém. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:37, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

September 2017
Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Removal of Confederate monuments and memorials. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Doug Weller talk 20:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Joe Mixon. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. PM800 (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Article commentary
Regarding your recent edits to Blood stripe and Battle of Chapultepec:

Please place your comments and concerns regarding article content on the talk pages of the respective articles. Any editorializing within the article will be removed. Vsmith (talk) 01:27, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

November 2017
Hello, I'm TheFrog001. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to List of Confederate monuments and memorials seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. TheFrog001 - Talk to me! 07:49, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Slavery in the United States, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. - EronTalk 00:01, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Re your lengthy explanation of the edits to Slavery in the United States on my talk page: These are substantial edits. The only reference you seemed to add was to a page containing links to all US census data. You seem to have been doing original research in analyzing this data. This is something you should bring up on the article talk page before you change it again. EronTalk 01:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * If I can build on this, your contributions are generally longer than is common. When creating a new page or editing a stub, a long contribution can be great. But on a long existing page with many editors, the current version of the page is the result of a long and sometimes undirected process. I strongly recommend bringing up issues on a page's talk page before adding a large new section or making large edits to such a page. Even if your edits were perfect (and that is not the case with your edits), many editors would be tempted to revert them out of an abundance of caution. On a talk page, also, long edits can also be a sign of problems. In your case, you add a lot of material because you are explaining the results of your original research. Regardless of the validity of your work and conclusions, such material doesn't really belong on wikipedia. In general, if you can't explain yourself more succinctly, you should think about whether or not you are basing your suggestions on original research. Continuing to try to add original research to wikipedia is not consistent with the mission of the project to build an encyclopedia. Going against this mission is actually very bad, and you could be blocked for continuing such behavior. The reason I mention this is that I am concerned that you have not really internalized wikipedia's core content policies and pillars. You are obviously a highly motivated editor, and I hope you could be a great addition here, but I feel that you need to commit yourself to working within the constraints of an encyclopedia almost entirely based on secondary and tertiary sources. Smmurphy(Talk) 20:33, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

February 2018
Your recent editing history at Slavery in the United States 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.  Acroterion   (talk)   22:33, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

User:Acroterion, I am 98.220.157.243, I posted the original post with Bullet Points to reflect the table from the book correctly. To recreate the table would have taken up too much space so I put the data in bullet points. Malik Shabazz edited my original post to Prose three times. I did take his suggestions to add secession and his concern over state abbreviations by including the full state names at least once. He is the one that by changing it to prose is changing my original post. He said that "This is an encyclopedia article, not a table" I responded "Encyclopedias including Wikipedia have bullet points! The Wiki Article "History of Slavery" uses bullet points in two places. Prose does not work when citing specific data in a specific order" Just because I am not a registered user like Malik Shabazz does not mean I should be the one singled out for reverting to my original post, when it was Malik Shabazz who changed my original post three times? If I see Bullet points used in other wikipedia articles in the same way, what gives Malik Shabazz the right to change it to prose?98.220.157.243 (talk) 23:04, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


 * You've been reverted by three different editors. Please resolve the issue on the article talkpage, not by edi-warring. Please read WP:OTHERSTUFF as well.  Acroterion   (talk)   23:37, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Slavery in the United States. 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. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 00:04, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.