User talk:Thomasrussell

Image source problem with Image:Burke img169.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Burke img169.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 13:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Geni 13:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

July 2018
Hello, I'm Aspening. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to John Alite— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. Aspening (talk) 05:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

edit warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on John Alite; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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.Resnjari (talk) 19:12, 22 March 2019 (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.

Resnjari making changes to page that are unsubstainted, non referenced or only referenced by the subject himself
All of the changes Im making are directly referenced by 3rd party journalists or court documents. They're giving no explanation for the changes other than thats the way they want it. My changes are unbiased and ONLY based on facts that can best be adhered to.

3rr
Your recent editing history at John Alite shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 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 you 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.Resnjari (talk) 20:01, 22 March 2019 (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. Jeb3 Talk at me here  20:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I dont know how to use the talk page, Im trying to figure it out. I study court cases and the use of Witness Protection for a living and Alite's appearances and the background on him I'm very familiar with. I'm not trying to flame the guy, only state facts because someone is using his page as a PR board.
 * You should discuss it with . So far, it doesn't seem like you have. Talk pages aren't very different from articles, but there are guidelines. I suggest you review Wikipedia's guidelines. Jeb3  Talk at me here  20:14, 22 March 2019 (UTC)


 * You managed to edit this one and the Teahouse, so you're getting it. Go to Talk:John Alite, click "New section" near the top and type away. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The editor was removing cited content about Alite's origins and claiming it part of a mass deletion of content as being unsourced. That is not constructive editing. To the editor i am aware that the page has been targeted by those who are for or against Alite regarding personal feuds. The edits and edit history of the page show. You need to explain properly what are the issues.Resnjari (talk) 20:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

This isnt an agenda but corrections to one of the few topics I know something about and can back up with references. His page was being used to perpetuate a lot of points that are simply untrue and documented to the contrary in court. Im only trying to make the changes to what I know to be facts and can reference to 3rd parties. In its old form the page was unreferenced or links to quotes from John Alite himself. I thought this was what Wikipedia was for - as long as what's being written could be shown as accurate and substantiated. lastly edited my changes with the explanation that "you removed his albanian heritage". I have no idea what that was to do with this page but I left it in the last edits. He's Albanian, no argument from me.
 * Hello Thomasrussell. You've been warned for edit warring as the result of a complaint at the edit warring noticeboard. You may be blocked if you revert the article again unless you get prior agreement for your change on the article talk page. Please be aware that http://johnalitefacts.com does not qualify as a WP:Reliable source for an article about a living person. Your own personal knowledge is not a reliable source; we need to have something published that you can link to. If you have any questions, ask an experienced person. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:50, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

October 2019
Hello, I'm CASSIOPEIA. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Nate Diaz have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk.  pls see - https://www.sherdog.com/fighter/Nate-Diaz-11451  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 02:31, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Nate Diaz. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. pls see - https://www.sherdog.com/fighter/Nate-Diaz-11451  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 07:11, 29 October 2019 (UTC)