User talk:ThePlane11

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, ThePlane11! Thank you for your contributions. I am Doug Weller and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Questions or type at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Doug Weller talk 18:50, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

-

Discretionary sanctions alert, please read carefully
Again, this does not mean you have edited badly, just that you are new and editing in a contentious area. Doug Weller talk 18:52, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

September 2017
Hello, I'm Sundayclose. I noticed that you recently removed content from Gambino crime family without adequately 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; the removed content has been restored. 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. Sundayclose (talk) 00:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Situation has been explained. Several of the crime family pages are not fresh / updated. ThePlane11 (talk) 00:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The appropriate place to explain such a removal is in the edit summary. And if you have updated information, it requires a source to confirm it. Please read WP:V and WP:CITE. 00:47, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

So could you please remove where it says "current administration" and "boss" down as Frank Cali. The information, like I said, has not been updated. I have used the edit summary to explain also. ThePlane11 (talk) 00:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you take a few minutes to read the links I provided above? The current information is sourced. If you want to change it, please provide a reliable source to verify it. The cornerstone of Wikipedia is reliable sourcing, not an editor's personal knowledge. Sundayclose (talk) 00:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Are you stupid because you're acting like it? The Frank Cali capo section has not been updated since around 2009 / 2010. An other editor who found 2 reliable sources in 2015 has Frank Cali under "boss" and the current administration sections. It also says under "underboss" that he served from 2012 to 2015 - this is all on Wikipedia. I'm trying to remove the non updated contradictory information. So how do I source it when I'm attempting to remove all of the information I'm not quite understanding? You cannot take my word for it and other editor sources are not good enough for you... ThePlane11 (talk) 00:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Once again, read WP:V. If it's "all on Wikipedia" then it should be a simple matter to find the sources on Wikipedia to confirm it. As for your "stupid" comment:


 * Information.svg Hello, I'm Sundayclose. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.  Sundayclose (talk) 01:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Gambino crime family. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, 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 be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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 block. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 01:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

You appear to be obstructing me and annoying me. Please do not abuse your authority when you are in the wrong. You are trying to keep the contradictory information remaining and cannot be bothered to look for yourself. The user is asking me to provide a source where the information should be deleted? ThePlane11 (talk) 01:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Identity Evropa
Please don't repeat the edit Grayfell reverted. See this RfC and if you look at the history of the article you'll see that material has been rev/deleted, which I can tell you was similar material. I've rev/deleted it from this article. Thanks Doug Weller  talk 15:39, 4 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I've now seen the article talk page and see that you apparently now understand the situation. Please note that DS alerts such as the ones I've given you are informational in the main. The caveat is because they must be given to editors before any action under discrationary sanctions, as opposed to ordinary Admin action, can be taken. I don't see any reason to consider any action towards you on the basis of your edit which you made before knowing about the RfC. Doug Weller  talk 15:45, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Please note that these discretionary sanctions apply to mentions of living people in any article, not just biographies
Doug Weller talk 15:41, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Buffalo crime family
Hey there. If you're interested, could you take a look at Buffalo crime family, there's a user who keeps adding sources to blogs and possibly unreliable sites, especially in the current events of the family. Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 05:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don’t know how accurate some of the info is and a few editors in the recent past have reverted but he keeps adding things back. I know you’re interested in the American Mafia so if you’re interested just take a quick look. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 13:32, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah I mean Sitush is doing a pretty good job, but at this point this is kind of out of my realm of knowledge, so I’m just being a spectator right now. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 13:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Blocked
You have been blocked for 48 hours for personal attacks and poisoning the discussion climate at Talk:Buffalo crime family, as you did with this post. Please take some time to read our no personal attacks and civility policies. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen &#124; talk 19:17, 23 January 2018 (UTC).

Frank Valenti
Hi, do you have documents and references with Frank Valenti as boss of the Pittsburg crime family with references stating he took over the crime family from LaRocca. All references I have found stated Valenti left Pittsburg and became boss of the Rochester crime family with support of LaRocca.

https://books.google.com/books?id=GhfExAeLSBAC&pg=PA79&dq=Frank+Valenti&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiltZOFjM_ZAhWMY98KHY0wCTwQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=Frank%20Valenti&f=false pp.78 The Complete Idiot's Guide to the Mafia By Jerry Capeci

The Mafia Made Easy: The Anatomy and Culture of La Cosa Nostra by Peter J. Devico pp.190

Thanks --Vic49 (talk)  02:26, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Galanti article
Hi - Just to let you know, I was not the editor who removed the infobox from the Galante article. If you look at the version history, you will see that it was a one-time editor who came in just before me that same morning. I have contributed to this article over the years and would never vandalize it or any other article. Thanks for fixing it! Rogermx (talk) 15:08, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert for articles and content relating to post-1932 American politics
Doug Weller talk 16:36, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

September 2018
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. -- irn (talk) 04:09, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Nice to see that you've only warned me. ThePlane11 (talk) 05:28, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Please support all your future edits with citations, or they are liable to be reverted.
Please put in the effort to support edits like this with citations. Other readers need to be able to Verify what you've added. You should expect other editors to remove your work if you fail to do this, which would be a shame, as I'm sure they're made in good faith. Please read WP:REFBEGIN to learn how to do add citations. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

January 2021
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Genovese crime family, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. If you know these edits are correct, please include a citation to allow others to verify them. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of David Huck


A tag has been placed on David Huck requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Articles for deletion/David Huck. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:01, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

August 2022
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Gang stalking. ''The information you added appeared to be sourced to a source unlikely to be considered reliable. It also does not appear that the person and example you gave has coverage to indicate that it is notable enough to be included.''  01:15, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contribution(s). I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, while user talk pages permit a small degree of generalisation, other talk pages are strictly for discussing the topic of their associated main pages and many of them have special instructions on the top. They are not a general discussion forum about unrelated topics. If you have questions or ideas and are not sure where to post them, consider asking at the Teahouse. Thanks. MrOllie (talk) 23:08, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

September 2022
 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week 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:. Orange Mike &#124;  Talk  04:03, 1 September 2022 (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) 01:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)