User talk:Btw order

Your submission at Articles for creation: Airborne refueling has been accepted
 Airborne refueling, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Redirect-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Legacypac (talk) 03:52, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Airborne_refueling help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Copyright and Wikipedia
Hello Btw order, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your addition to Shelby Mustang have been removed, as they appear to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. The content was taken from https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/ford-3d-printing-shelby-gt500-advanced-manufacturing-facility/. While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues here.


 * You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
 * Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
 * Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Copyrights. You may also want to review Copy-paste.
 * If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Donating copyrighted materials.
 * In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
 * Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Translation. See also Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:49, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Edit summaries
Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

I noticed your recent edit to Seaweed fuel does not have an edit summary.&#32;Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:


 * User contributions
 * Recent changes
 * Watchlists
 * Revision differences
 * IRC channels
 * Related changes
 * New pages list
 * Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting. Thanks! Zazpot (talk) 23:21, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Other disruptive edits
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Dario Franchitti has been reverted. Your edit here to Dario Franchitti 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 (https://twitter.com/ReaderMeter) 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) 06:38, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your image was inserted successfully on the page Special Boat Service, but because it appeared to be irrelevant to the article or violated the image use policy, it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. - wolf  22:23, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Politics of Jordan
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In your recent edit to Politics of Jordan, you added links to an article which did not add content or meaning, or repeated the same link several times throughout the article. Please see Wikipedia's guideline on links to avoid overlinking. Thank you. Zazpot (talk) 22:35, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Politics of Jordan, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Zazpot (talk) 22:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC) - wolf  01:05, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Not a huge mistake, but you can't add content without a source. And don't WP:OVERLINK.

Katherine Mahar
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to make disruptive edits, as you did at Katherine Maher, you may be blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Zazpot (talk) 22:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * sorry to ping you again, but this does not look disruptive editing. (And what do you mean "wrong language"?) - wolf  00:17, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * by "wrong language", I meant, "The English word for Austria is Austria, not 'Österreich'; see Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)."
 * As for "disruptive editing": first of all, making edits that will definitely need to be reverted is disruptive (cleaning up wastes editor time that would otherwise be spent more constructively); secondly, MOS:PERTINENCE is quite clear about portraits (as is the page linked above, about language), so it was predictable that the edit in question would need reverting; thirdly, as you can see from the wikitext, the warning above came from, which uses the phrase "disruptive editing". If you think the template shouldn't use that phrase, then please take that up with the maintainers of the template rather than with me. Thanks, Zazpot (talk) 00:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, I hear ya (figuratively speaking). The cucumber thing is weird, but some of these other edits look like simple 'new editor' mistakes. (eg: Politics of Jordan) Keep in mind this user just joined 2 days ago. And, you realize you don't have to add a notice or warning for every mistake you find, right? You obviously gone through all their edits, which is fine... there is clearly some problems. But adding final warning after final warning, just seems a little WP:BITE-y. What's next, AIV? You see I just told them there is problem, and they stopped. Why give them some advice, then see how they do tomorrow? If they're a vandal, you'll know pretty soon, and if they're hopelessly CIR, not long after that, and you can block them. Up to you. - wolf  00:51, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , I haven't gone through all their edits. Someone possibly should, though, in case there are any other loose ends. AFAICT, all the warnings were relevant and proportionate. AIV would only be appropriate if its criteria were met. Hopefully, Btw will read the links from the warnings and edit more responsibly in future. As for BITE, it probably didn't help that the first of Btw's edits that I spotted was the cucumber thing, which did not look very innocent. Zazpot (talk) 01:04, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

North Carolina 9th district
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at North Carolina's 9th congressional district. Zazpot (talk) 22:47, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , I don't know what a "native cucumber artisan water 2-dan master" is (can you clarify, btw order?), but Huffington Post isn't RS? - wolf  00:07, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * thanks for your message. However, at no point did I state, in relation to North Carolina's 9th congressional district, an opinion about whether or not HuffPo is a reliable source. Cheers, Zazpot (talk) 00:14, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, so you're not saying that the source is "unencyclopaedic", you're saying that btw's summary of it was. The only thing that, well... it wasn't even a summary, there was nothing in the article about a "native cucumber artisan water 2-dan master".
 * So, Btw order, what is that? Is supposed to a joke? Was it a mistake? Some of these other other edits don't seem like they're particularly out of line, but that one line sounds... bizarre. Can you explain? - wolf  00:31, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , you're nearly there. Yes, you are correct that I did not suggest that the source was unencyclopaedic.
 * As for the rest, what I actually said was, In other words, the "native cucumber artisan water 2-dan master" part of Btw's edit seemed to be sheer vandalism; the rest of Btw's edit seemed to be an unencyclopaedic summary of the source. Hopefully that has cleared it up for you. Cheers, Zazpot (talk) 00:42, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Callasopia
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make disruptive edits to Wikipedia contrary to the Manual of Style, as you did at Callasopia. Zazpot (talk) 23:12, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Continuing pattern of overlinking and senseless edits
I see that are amassing a large number of questionable (and largely reverted) edits. A frequent element is wikilinkng common terms, such as "temptation", "nation", "institutions", "results", "travel", etc. Please note that, per MOS:OVERLINK, we do not link to common terms or subjects, such as "Everyday words understood by most readers in context."

At Bob Kiss your edit wrapping brackets around "Burlington" was unnecessary, as it is already specified as the Burlington in Vermont, and senseless, as that just links to the disambiguation page.

At Meng Wanzhou your wikilinking of foreign citizen and Chinese embassy in Canada results in red-links, as those terms have no anchors. This is disruptive.

And your several edits changing "#REDIRECT" to "#Redirect" seem so trite that I cannot help but wonder if you are simply tying to amass edit count, presumably for gaining more privilege.

These are not useful edits, and you continue at your peril. &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:17, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, J. What exactly is the issue? and what do you mean by "more privileges"? Do some people get paid to edit here, is that what you're referring to? I apologize if some of my 'few' edits seemed disruptive, but I'm a researcher conducting semi-anonomus research in Counter Vadalsim. It's basically about measuring the time taken between when a disruptive edit was made (mind you not all edits are necessarily disruptive) and the time it was reverted by a community member. So, basically, if I were you I wouldn't worry much about monitoring my edits, because I can assure you that I'm a good faith editor, so I hope that Assume good faith applies in my case :). I appreciate it again, and thank you for being here and for your work here. --Btw order (talk) 23:34, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Bullshit. You are not currently listed as a member at that project (but perhaps under a different name?), and your "semi-anonomous" – is that supposed to be "anonymous"? or perhaps "autonomous"? – suggests that you are doing this entirely on your own. I reject the general proposition that disruptive edits can be excused for "research", and I reject your specific allegation of a "research" purpose. You are being disruptive. I advise, and request, that you immediately cease all this alleged "research". &diams; J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:25, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

FYI
You might find this page useful. - wolf  22:45, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, thank you. --Btw order (talk) 22:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)


 * FYI #2 - you're about to get blocked, so you should probably stop what you're doing. Just sayin'... -  wolf  23:54, 6 December 2018 (UTC)


 * ok, I'm gonna say thank you for the note, and stop. ok? :) --Btw order (talk) 23:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, definitely take a break from editing for a day or so. How it is you already have an article accepted but you're making such simple mistakes (and posting that weird cucumber, you need to explain that). Basically. If Zazpot were to report you now, you would likely be blocked. So, take a day and do some reading. I added a better welcome template up top, read through that. And read through all the warnings you received, they link to rules you need to know, like WP:RS and WP:CITE. If you need help, contact the help desk. - wolf  01:02, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


 * oh, no. that sounds awful. I'll make sure not to make any simple mistakes no more. thanks again. yes; warning messages, I'll sit down and read them after dinner :) best. --Btw order (talk) 02:55, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, ultimately it's up to you. Wikipedia is a massive project now, with a huge mess of rules, so many in fact that no one can possibly know them all. Then there the Manaul of Style, with more guidelines, there's all the markup, also known as wiki-code... it's a lot for a newcomer. If you do some reading, and learning, then edit carefully, (make sure you leave edit summaries) and ask for help when you need it, take friendly advice when it's offred, you can learn your way around. Another way is mentorship, where an experienced user will adopt you and guide you. You may want to look into that. But all that aside, it's been asked several times now and still no answer; you need to explain the "native cucumber artisan water 2-dan master" edit. If you don't, then the next you screw up, even an honest simple mistake, and you recieve another warning, then don't be surprised if you get blocked. So the the next time you log in, explain that edit. - wolf  07:54, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Wolf. Yeah, that's weird, first time I'm seeing this. It might have been something I pasted from ROM memory, and forgot to review before I hit the save button. Was that one corrected, or should I go back and fix it? Thanks again for your kindness, and taking the time to explain how things work around here. best. --Btw order (talk) 12:36, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


 * And now you're blocked indefinitely. I tried to warn you... - wolf  02:07, 8 December 2018 (UTC)