User talk:Exzachary

June 2018
Hello, I'm Marquardtika. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, Amy Coney Barrett, 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. Marquardtika (talk) 20:43, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

August 2018
Your recent editing history at Jeremy Corbyn 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. Seraphim System ( talk ) 03:34, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Corbyn
hi - I have reported you here Administrators'_noticeboard thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 03:37, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Jeremy Corbyn. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:40, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Important Notice
TonyBallioni (talk) 03:43, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Christian Porter
Rather than continuing an edit war over your interpretation of the succession box header guidelines, I've opened a thread at Australian Wikipedians' notice board. Bahudhara (talk) 14:55, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Self-revert on GOP
This edit summary is bizarre. The text was not sourced to the WSJ. Please be more careful. You should self-revert. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:08, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Edit-warring on Jay Ashcroft
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 you 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.. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:25, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

September 2019
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Whoa! (Black Rob song). Binksternet (talk) 04:18, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Important Notice
Doug Weller talk 10:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Preston Sturges
Hi. I have reverted an edit of yours on this article, and would like to remind you about WP:BRD. When your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor, the recommended next step, if you continue to think the edit is necessary, is to Discuss the dispute on the article talk page with other editors, but not to re-revert it, which is the first step to edit warring, a disruptive activity which is not allowed. Discussion on the talk page is the only way we have of reaching consensus, which is central to resolving editing disputes in an amicable and collegial manner, which is why communicating your concerns to your fellow editors is essential. While the discussion is going on, the article generally should remain in the status quo ante until the consensus as to what to do is reached (see WP:STATUSQUO).

To help move things along, I have started a discussion on the article talk page about the disputed edit, which you will find Talk:Preston Sturges. Please take the opportunity to make your views known there. It is best not to restore the material you added until there is a consensus among the editors there to do so. Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:18, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Billboard 200, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DMX. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 05:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Notice
– Muboshgu (talk) 17:03, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

July 2021
Your recent editing history at Eric Swalwell shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:31, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I understand it's your job to delete anything on Wikipedia that makes Democrats look bad, but it's just getting pathetic at this point. Have you no shame? Exzachary (talk) 17:46, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:54, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

July 2021
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Eric Swalwell) for edit-warring and BLP issues. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Black Kite (talk) 18:08, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , quick question, does this apply to Talk:Eric Swalwell as well? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:13, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Not at the moment. If the editor continues to push the problematic behaviour as regards BLP there, then of course it may be extended. Black Kite (talk) 20:44, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

October 2021
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Stacey Abrams. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, can you explain to me how she's not promoting a conspiracy theory? Thanks Exzachary (talk) 15:32, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Where do you see a single WP:RS that says she is promoting a conspiracy theory? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:56, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

September 2022
Hello, I'm Lone-078. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Innocenzo Spinazzi, 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. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Lone-078 (talk) 11:12, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

November 2022
Hello, I'm Andrevan. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Donald C. Bolduc that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Andre🚐 20:00, 3 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Just a follow-up on that. The first sentence which expressed a view on weight was fine.  We need to be careful when expressing views that could suggest negative motives of other editors, "... more propaganda from Wikipedia's left-wing moderators". Springee (talk) 20:42, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

December 2023
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Kevin Corrigan. Thank you. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 14:48, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 12
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hoyt Sherman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Republican.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 11
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Red Mountain (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Assayer.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)