User talk:Illuminati89

Your edits - maybe it's time to start adding sources & being more careful
Clearly sources are important to Wikipedia, but we hope that editors when they find unsourced material will add sources, not just add fact tags. I came across your edits when I found you adding a fact tag to sourced material with this edit, which has its source at the atart of the sentence. You are also adding fact tags to non-contentious" material, eg. "The African Union Commission has its seat in Addis Ababa and the Pan-African Parliament has its seat in Johannesburg and Midrand." at Pan-Africanism. You also broke a template by capitalising 'url' in a reference in the same article.

Please read Citation needed carefully. You might want to remove some of your tags, and as I said, I certainly hope you will pause and add some sources. For instance, you might be able to source Black Nationalism from the Malcolm X article - if you do copy any material from another article, please make sure you note in your edit summary that you've done that, linking to the original article - without that attribution it's a copyright violation. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 13:25, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Please stop
You've ignored me and are continuing to add citations, targeting Black related articles. You've been reverted by at least one other editor. I am not going to block you myself but will have to report you to WP:ANI if this continues. Doug Weller talk 17:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

December 2016
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Black Power. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Neil N  talk to me 17:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

extensive use of "Citation needed"
You can't just add "citation needed" to a large number of articles without engaging in discussion. You should probably take up your concerns on the article Talk page. That might be a good first step. Other editors cannot be sure what you are objecting to in the absence true discussion. Bus stop (talk) 17:21, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

December 2016
This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Immediate level four for vandalism on African Americans and Drake (musician). - Tom &#124; Thomas.W talk 19:34, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. 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:. Favonian (talk) 19:42, 17 December 2016 (UTC)