User talk:Joshtaco

August 2013
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Ironman Triathlon. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. '' Many of the ref improve templates that you have removed are still needed. While some refs may exist to support some of the statements there are other statements, such as in the History section of the Ironman article, that need more references to support them.  Barkeep  Chat/' 16:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Joshtaco, your efforts to clean up unattributed content are appreciated, but usually try to verify a claim before deleting it. For example, the passage you removed from USS Miami (SSN-755) was easy enough to confirm — it just needed a better citation. Ibadibam (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not remove citations or information sourced through citations simply because a link to a source is not working, as you did to Activia. Dead links should not be deleted. Instead, please repair or replace the link, if possible, and ensure properly sourced information is retained. Often, a live substitute link can be found. Links not used as references, notes or citations are not as important, such as those listed in the "External links" or "Further reading" sections, but bad links in those sections should also be fixed if possible. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Ibadibam (talk) 21:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You've done it again, at Twin. Really, please don't remove a ref just because the link is broken. Try to fix it, or bring it up on the article's talk page so someone else can. Ibadibam (talk) 22:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Please respond to these warnings. It appears you're continuing to eviscerate references without need. Some of your edits, like, have broken syntax and been generally disruptive. You're a dedicated editor and I can tell your heart's in the right place; I just want to help you improve your work. I'd hate for this to end in arbitration or a block request. Ibadibam (talk) 23:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Redlinks
Please have a look at WP:REDDEAL. Your efforts to clean up dead wikilinks are commendable, but not always necessary. Thanks. Ibadibam (talk) 21:10, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Nor are they always dead *.  petrarchan47  t  c   03:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Removing maintenance templates
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Lee Mirecki incident, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. ''
 * You removed a 'more footnotes' template from the above page, which has only one source and one footnote/cite. This just silly to do. I have reverted your edit.
 * Secondly your edit summary said "Inline citations have since been added", which is simply incorrect. It sounds as if multiple cites exist, not only one. Be wary of repeating this error. 220  of '' Borg 07:20, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Removing reliably sourced content
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Retinoblastoma, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. '' On 1 November, you removed text cited to the"Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology" asserting that "This cannot be verified by a credible source". Are you serious??? 220  of '' Borg 17:47, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Also this edit. Your disruptive editing needs to stop. Boghog (talk) 05:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors&#32; according to your reverts at It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. 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. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. 220  of  Borg 11:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Just wanted to point out that you are edit warring against an editor who has nearly 80 thousand edits, you have less than 500. The reason I am bothering to say this is I am trying to prevent what seems inevitable, that you will be blocked, then perhaps banned from Wikipedia because you seem committed to being non-cooperative. A good place to start would be to reply to posts on your talk-page. 220  of  Borg 11:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

No personal attacks
Please do not attack other editors, as you did on It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. '' The edit summary, calling another editor an "asshole" is unacceptable.  220  of '' Borg 11:35, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 hours 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 adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. gadfium 19:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Rabbit (Saturn game)
Hello Joshtaco,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Rabbit (Saturn game) for deletion, because it's too short to identify the subject of the article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&action=edit&section=new&preload=Template:Hangon_preload&preloadtitle=This+page+should+not+be+speedy+deleted+because...+ contest this deletion], but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

 Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)