User talk:Johnny123466

Sourced content removal
Please do not remove the sourced content without providing reliable sources that dispute what they say. Your "the FLN did not win this war on the battlefield" is meaningless since neither the content nor the sources are saying that. All they are saying is that the FLN won this war and that's a fact that is backed by a raft of RS. If you believe otherwise, you have to bring RS that say the opposite, i.e. "the FLN did not win this war". M.Bitton (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Ok I will bring it up in the discussion page sometime in the near future and provide sources. Johnny123466 (talk) 18:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Carpatho-Ukraine into Draft:Hungarian invasion of Carpatho-Ukraine. 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. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. 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 copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 22:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Citations on English Americans
Hi, Johnny123466! I noticed you placed a few citations on English Americans. I augmented those references with citation templates & added additional information. You can see these.

Here is the process that I did: I hope that this is helpful. It is nice to get the year, location, publisher, ISBN, OCLC, & any links in for a book, plus the cite book template standardizes the formatting. Peaceray (talk) 06:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) I copied the title you had put it, opened https://worldcat.org, then searched for it there.
 * 2) Often more than one format is returned. I typically choose the eBook format. I the case of The English diaspora in North America, I chose the one that had doi.org & a JSTOR link. More on that in a moment.
 * 3) For Nature and the English diaspora : environment and history in the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, I used a more typical approach. I copied one of the 13-digit ISBN numbers, opened https://citer.toolforge.org/, then put the ISBN number in. I copied the Named reference into the article, replacing the previous reference with, although I tweaked it a bit first, as I like my ISBNs without hyphens & no spaces after my | symbols.
 * 4) For The English diaspora in North America, I copied the DOI number & used that in https://citer.toolforge.org/. I also inserted  after I visited the JSTOR link & got that number.
 * 5) For the YouTube video, I used the YouTube template & placed it within the ref tags
 * 6) Upon first use, I made sure each of the opening ref tags had names:,  , &  . This way, I could reuse those named citations by adding a backslash just before the closing angle bracket, like so:  ,  , &.

Thanks I will make sure to add those things to any other edits I make. Johnny123466 (talk) 09:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

War of 1812 edits
You have recently made changes to several articles related to the War of 1812. In most of these you have amended the casualty figures to be far more favourable to the British, in many cases ignoring the cites provided for these figures. In one recent case, you stated the American casualties to be almost ten times the cited figure, with no indication of where you obtained the changed figure. This violates one principal Wikipedia principle, verifiability, and possibly another, neutral point of view.

If you wish to contest figures quoted in reliable (and respected]] sources, please provide sources with equal validity before changing them in the articles. HLGallon (talk) 16:52, 21 February 2021 (UTC)