User talk:Jmills16

August 2016
Hello, I'm Patient Zero. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Heavy Object, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Zero talk 16:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Some of your recent genre changes, such as the one you made to Black Bullet, have conflicted with our neutral point of view and verifiability policies. While we invite all users to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, we urge all editors to provide reliable sources for edits made. When others disagree, we recommend you seek consensus for certain edits by discussing the matter on the article's talk page. Thank you. —Farix (t &#124; c) 01:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Please refrain from changing genres, as you did to Black Bullet, without providing a source or establishing a consensus on the article's talk page first. Genre changes to suit your own point of view are considered disruptive. Thank you. —Farix (t &#124; c) 02:51, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

October 2016
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at No-Rin. —Farix (t &#124; c) 20:17, 11 October 2016 (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 appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Materialscientist (talk) 01:08, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

December 2016
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Campione!. Given your previous warnings and block for repeated addition of original research, I believe that an immediate Level 4 warning is appropriate in this matter. —Farix (t &#124; c) 15:47, 7 December 2016 (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:. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:21, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * When I see this edit, I see someone who doesn't care about citing sources. When you are no longer blocked, I recommend you play through the whole Wikipedia Adventure to learn how to cite sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:21, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Just to be absolutely clear...

 * "Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
 * Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
 * We do not publish original thought nor original research.
 * Primary sources are usually avoided to prevent original research. Secondary or tertiary sources are preferred for this reason as well.
 * Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards.  User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided.  Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
 * Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources.  Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for.

Links to that information were presented in previous messages, but now that it's here, you have absolutely no excuse (not that you did before). Again: if you are going to add any new information, you must cite a source. If you see a note reminding you to not use your own interpretation, do not just delete it and stick in your own personal interpretation.

As I said before, The Wikipedia Adventure will give you practice in citing sources. When your block expires, play The Wikipedia Adventure. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:25, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

December 2017
Hello. Some of your recent genre changes, such as the one you made to Date A Live, have conflicted with our neutral point of view and verifiability policies. While we invite all users to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, we urge all editors to provide reliable sources for edits made. When others disagree, we recommend you seek consensus for certain edits by discussing the matter on the article's talk page. Thank you. —Farix (t &#124; c) 14:21, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

June 2018
Hello, I'm Shellwood. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to I My Me! Strawberry Eggs— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. Shellwood (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

July 2018
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Anti-Magic Academy: The 35th Test Platoon, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. —Farix (t &#124; c) 10:43, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Date A Live, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. —Farix (t &#124; c) 10:29, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on Date A Live. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. —Farix (t &#124; c) 21:45, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Date A Live. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. —Farix (t &#124; c) 21:46, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Jmills16. —Farix (t &#124; c) 22:38, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 7 days for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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) 00:12, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Leave me alone Farix, you're a huge bully. I love Date a Live and it's one of my favorite harem animes, but you want to mark it as a Freaking Comedy that is utterly ridiculous. It has more depth than that, that's why I think the harem genre sums it up well for harems have drama, comedy, serious thought. Also it isn't science fiction it's science fantasy, you douche bag.