User talk:LegalTrivia

Welcome!
Hello, LegalTrivia, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Newyorkbrad (talk) 08:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

February 2016
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Assassination of John F. Kennedy, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Dr.  K.  22:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Shearonink (talk) 23:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. 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 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. Dr.  K.  23:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories. Dr.  K.  23:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at John F. Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Dr.  K.  23:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. 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: unblock. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Acroterion   (talk)   23:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You were blocked for edit-warring to include lengthy verbatim unattributed extracts from the HSCA report. You may not copy-paste extracts from anything into Wikipedia without appropriate attribution, and you may certainly not edit-war to do it. Long quotes, attributed or not, are strongly discouraged. Please stop attacking other editors for appropriately expressing their concerns over your editing.  Acroterion   (talk)   01:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Dr.  K.  23:17, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits to Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016
Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016 article. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. Thank you! FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  17:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016
Hello, I'm FoCuSandLeArN. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to United States presidential election in Florida, 2016 has been undone because it did not appear constructive. 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. FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  17:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Talk Page
Please write your suggestions for improving an article on the talk pages, not in the article itself. Your edits are always reverted otherwise.Czolgolz (talk) 18:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016
Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, James Earl Ray. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles, nor are such pages a forum. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 03:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

April 2016
Hello, I'm Yamaguchi先生. Your recent edit to the page Lahore appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. ''Please refrain from unsourced estimates in lieu of actual census data. Thank you, '' Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:27, 15 April 2016 (UTC)