User talk:Johnnydowns

Hello, Johnnydowns, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia. Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who use multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please remember to disclose these connections. Thank you. Neelix (talk) 17:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation
Neelix (talk) 23:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015
Hello, I'm DAJF. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Tatara Station (Gunma) without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! DAJF (talk) 05:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.&mdash; Cirt (talk) 17:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

January 2015
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater Restaurant. ''Please stop the mass removal of content from the lede/intro sect at Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater Restaurant, this violates WP:LEAD. Per WP:LEAD, the lede/intro sect at Sci-Fi Dine-In Theater Restaurant should adequately summarize the entire article's contents and function as a standalone summary. Thank you.'' &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Cirt. Just for the record, though large deletions of content can sometimes appear to be vandalism, Johnny was blocked in good faith by User:HJ Mitchell for good faith edits associated with the descent of a large number of newish editors on articles written by one prolific editor - seemingly the result of good faith off-site criticism of that prolific editor's work here. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Unblock
Hi Johnny. I am sorry for the confusion but it looks like, as I explained already, some bad users tagged along on your editing disagreement with Neelix and used it as an opportunity for trolling. I assume this was done without your knowledge or encouragement. To help keep the peace, please be kind to Neelix and avoid further editing disagreements with him until after you have a chance to exchange a few friendly words and smooth things over. There's nothing wrong with having a disagreement with another editor over article content, but it's a good idea to not have too many conflicts with the same editor in close proximity. Please let me know if you have any questions. Jehochman Talk 03:23, 19 January 2015 (UTC)


 * thanks so much! truly appreciate it and excited to continue contributing.John Bailey Owen (talk) 04:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
 * me too! EChastain (talk) 15:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

AfDs
It is absolutely allowed to work on articles while discussing in AfDs. Ideally those that should not be deleted will benefit from this fact (and survive). It is a sad fact that a lot of effort is wasted on articles that end up deleted, but sometimes that work is what saves the article (although in theory it shouldn't affect the outcome). All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC).

Uma Thurman
Thanks for your edit. An editor the day before moved the TV performance part from the lead to the commercial section, then you deleted it because it didn't belong. I simply wanted to restore the deleted part back into the lead section but accidentally edited an older version of the page and that deleted your edits. It's all good now with your edit, cheers. Noreplyhaha (talk) 10:21, 5 September 2015 (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) 01:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)