User talk:USA Eagle01

Hi USA Eagle01, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. Our intro page provides helpful information for new users—please check it out! If you have any questions, you can get help from experienced editors at the Teahouse. Happy editing! Moxy 🍁 12:02, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of Mexican Americans, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jorge Ramos. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:28, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

November 2020
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; however, please remember the essential rule of respecting copyrights. Edits to Wikipedia, such as your edit to the page History of Mexican Americans, may not contain material from copyrighted sources unless used with permission. It is almost never okay to copy extensive text out of a book or website and paste it into a Wikipedia article with little or no alteration, though you can clearly and briefly quote copyrighted text in the right circumstances. Content that does not comply with this legal rule must be removed. For more information on this, see:
 * Copying text from other sources
 * Policy on copyright
 * Frequently asked questions on Wikipedia's copyright policy
 * Policy and guideline on non-free content

If you still have questions, there is the teahouse, or you can and someone will be along to answer it shortly. As you get started, you may find the pages below to be helpful.


 * Introduction
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! — Diannaa (talk) 17:22, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikicode in English
Please change your citations to English. This being English Wikipedia, the software functions in English. A citation like the one you added here generates an error message. Even if it didn't cause an error, our readers and editors might not understand that noviembre is the same as November. Please return to the article and fix it. It would be helpful if you specified that the source is in Spanish by including  in the citation; you might also add an English translation of the source's title with. Thank you. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 03:47, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 30
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tourism in Mexico, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Manzanillo, Cantona and Tzintzuntzan.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 7
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Geography of Mexico, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bicentennial Park.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Infobox flags
Hello - the use of flags in infoboxes is now generally discouraged; this may be a more recent style change not yet reflected across all pages. The relevant guideline can be read at MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. Would you mind undoing your recent series of infobox additions? Chubbles (talk) 14:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

OK, I will stop. USA Eagle01 (talk)
 * I've gone and undone all the flag addditions you made today. This has never been good style in the English Wikipedia, though it is in other language versions. Graham 87 15:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

So it comes done to an Anglosphere sensitivity? Fine, but there's a bigger universe out there.USA Eagle01 (talk)

December 2020
One of your recent edits has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images&mdash;you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Copying text from other sources for more information. Moxy 🍁 12:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at California State University, Northridge, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:56, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 16
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mass media in Mexico, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Discovery.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:19, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

You need to stop
I just reverted another of your edits at California State University, Long Beach. I looked at one edit where you added a source which did not support the edit. And all the "access dates" to your sources are off. Based on the number of copyright warnings on your talk page I would assume you have been pasting in bogus sources to support your edits. You need to stop. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:03, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Take a look at the links below. US News and the CSU website are not bogus sources. You may want to take another look with more attention. Oh and if access dates are off who can throw stones who has no sin? I will try to be more careful next time. I will suggest the same of yourself. Easy to criticize someone else work instead of making the necessary changes. But I will live it like this so it remains out of date, it deserves to be. I only hope there are no alternative agenda as is the case most of the time and a lot of good it will do in time. USA Eagle01 (talk)

https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/california-state-university-long-beach-1139/academics

https://www.usnews.com/best-graduate-schools/california-state-university-long-beach-110583/overall-rankings

https://www.usnews.com/best-colleges/california-state-university-long-beach-1139

https://tableau.calstate.edu/views/SelfEnrollmentDashboard/EnrollmentSummary?iframeSizedToWindow=true&:embed=y&:showAppBanner=false&:display_count=no&:showVizHome=no

Specific Rankings
I have noticed the very specific rankings you have been adding to a large number of universities and colleges. If you are adding the more specific rankings published by U.S. News & World Report, then will you also be adding the more specific rankings published by Forbes? For example, Forbes ranks Sonoma State University as 160 among public colleges, 90 among universities in the West, and 179 among "America's best value colleges. You seem to have updated the overall ranking from Forbes, but not added the more specific rankings.  Is there a reason?

In order to include these specific rankings in individual tables the way you have while maintaining a neutral point of view, you would have to include ALL rankings from reputable sources in their own individual tables. This is outlined in the Wikipedia NPOV Due and undue weight policy. Adding all of these more specific rankings from reputable sources is impractical as it would make the page too crowded and render each individual listed ranking meaningless.

The guidance on balancing is also applicable here because these rankings are not regarded as equally notable/prominent as the overall rankings, however your edits present the rankings as if they are of equal prominence.

In order to resolve these issues, would you consider adding these rankings in the text of the articles you're editing and not in individual tables?

DKSwims (talk) 02:22, 27 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi DKSwims,


 * I added the very specific rankings almost specifically to the California State Universities, after I notice the Universities of California system had placed them on their individual pages. In their articles (UC's) I only helped placed them in order to help add more value given after all they are rankings. My goal in all is to better inform individuals, especially anybody trying to attend so they can make a better informed decision. I see this particular edits only adding in a positive way as a whole to something so important in my opinion as humanities education. In short, I as an individual appreciate this information and this is way I added, I felt others would appreciate it as well. To tell you the true the idea of adding the more specific rankings published by Forbes had not crossed my mind. I am not as familiar with seeing the Forbes rankings and that is way I started with the US News. But just like I told, now knowing how Forbes is ranking Sonoma for example, I feel like I am learning more about this institution of education. Haven been in a couple of the campuses for professional development, I appreciate their individual personalities if you may for what they are. In time I can try to add the more specific Forbes rankings, I need to spend some time going over the information. I will look at the NPOV Due and undue weight policy. I see way you talk about the impracticality of it, however like anything in life impracticality is everywhere if we diced to, and never the less this publications and some of this universities add them to their official publication for a reason don't you agree. It can also be argue that if individualism is not a goal or specification then don't we also risk meaningless. I am trying to present everything as much as possible as equal prominence this is way I looked at the UC articles for guidance.
 * May even look to see how the ivy is presenting. If you like I can add them as text and not in tables, but I will have to do it in time. But once more the table format is how the UC's are formatting I only wanted the same for the others as it seems like a clear way of adding value to pages. Again if you like, I will make the changes to the best of my abilities, specially if it resolves any issue at hand. I ask for time given I am having an issue with Magnolia677 (talk) regarding rankings as it is. See below. I can star with the Sonoma given I now have info to add and see if there is any opposition or not that is constructive. Best USA Eagle01 (talk)


 * The information you are adding is relevant, but it is important to present the information with due weight. The way you have listed three tables next to each other implies that all the rankings are equally notable.  That gives undue weight to the lesser known rankings.  Many people follow the USNWR overall rankings, but few have heard of the USNWR ranking on social mobility.  That means those rankings are not equally notable.  I think it would be best to include the more specific rankings in the text of the article, while the overall rankings from notable sources can remain in the infobox.  This would be more reflective of how notable each of the rankings is.


 * DKSwims (talk) 05:56, 27 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I will fallow your advice and will move to change according. USA Eagle01 (talk)

Remember to include the year
If you add rankings to an article, please remember to include the specific year that the ranking was assigned. They change every year so this information is essential. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 05:34, 28 December 2020 (UTC)


 * ElKevbo I have added the years rankings to Sonoma State and will give it one to two days before moving on with the other CSU's. Lets see if anybody has constructive input. For now feel free to let me know if I should consider anything else and thanks for keeping an eye out. USA Eagle01 (talk)


 * Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 06:06, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 24
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited History of science and technology in Mexico, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Interplanetary.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:11, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Random image spamming
For the 8th time pls review WP:Sandwich MOS:IMAGESIZE,,,and pls read over MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE. -- Moxy - 10:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

May 2021
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add inappropriate images, you may be blocked from editing. Moxy - 10:54, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Moxy all my editing art intended to be constructive. Even when others disagree I try to see their point of view and move on if their point has some validity. For example two out of three agree on validity. At this time, there is no consensus not to include the image, so any further removal without a change in consensus can not be considered disruptive. However, I hardly think all of your Edits are correct all the time. Furthermore I will even go as fair as to say you may be trying to push your views. For now I will live things reverted back as is. Next time, I feel a more coherent point or argument need to be made other then aesthetics. If not I will continue to edit for anybody can edit. You need to prove inappropriate editing and may move to also try to block you from editing or at least discredit you. USA Eagle01 (talk)
 * So have you seen/read our conventions on images? Notice how it says don't sandwich text between two images.....don't set pixel size....and images should be relevant and emphasize the text? Need to know your understanding what the problem is with adding random images with fixed pixel size and causing accessibility problems because of Sandwich text. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 01:56, 11 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, according to you "most images should be on the right side of the page, which is the default placement". I emphasis the word should. A word use by you and it seem not a must. "Mul­ti­ple im­ages can be stag­gered right and left. How­ever, a­void sand­wich­ing text be­tween two im­ages that face each oth­er." Ones more according to you, they can be they don not have to be avoided but its a good idea overall to avoid doing this. Which is a fair idea and if made a good argument on a peer case edit, a very good concept and idea given it will add value to the article instead then only take away from it. This is way I imagen the talk page exist to avoid unnecessary censorship. Maybe its a sine of the times that its time to add more text to the page to fit a new image or that an image may be need, or at the very least consider it. The universe after all is expanding and we are not at the center of it. Given however, your remark had a snarky tone to it. I will say this, I personally don't see much to the argument that it makes it seem cleaner. Especially when value may be lost. This applies to pixel size....and as far as all images should be relevant and emphasize the text of course they need to, but at the same time images should not be excluded because the "don't fit" in the margins. If need be then I suppose a literal spelling of way they fit must be added by having text addressing it with references. By and large which many articles you have personally edit have at the very least multiple images to the left. I am striving to add value to the Wikipedia project and will work with others but if others are one-sided I will also strive to make my point. Given at the end its about value. USA Eagle01 (talk)

Disambiguation link notification for June 29
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chicano, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Voice.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

July 2021
Hello, I'm Moxy. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Moxy - 12:21, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

August 2021
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain namespaces ((Article) and Draft) for copyright violations. 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:. Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide 20:03, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

You have received 1 2 3 4 requests to not copy; the last one was marked as a final warning. Today, I saw your edit to Immigration to Mexico- it was wholly copied from https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/25/americas/afghanistan-women-robotics-team-intl-scli/index.html, so I deleted it from the page as a copyright violation. Unfortunately, we cannot usually keep content copied from external sources. If you would like to be unblocked, you will have to demonstrate a better understanding of copyright and the willingness to not copy from other sources. Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide 20:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Going further off of what Valereee said on my talk page, you have the habit of directly copying and pasting paragraphs into articles. Pledging to not doing that will help get you unblocked. Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide 04:12, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Getting unblocked
Hello USA Eagle01. I have not been able to edit Wikipedia recently, sorry for the delay in responding to you.

Having read your post on my talk page, I am considering unblocking you. Before I do that though, I would like to make some things clear. Given the articles you edit, and your responses on talk pages, I'm guessing you are working on your English, and may be heavily relying on sources when it comes to articles content, accidentally copying some content in here and there. If that is the case, and there's nothing wrong with it if it is, I recommend slowing down your editing when it comes to prose and sticking to adding statistics and other information. I think you should take your time improving upon your writing before going to write whole paragraphs on stuff, maybe only do a few sentences at a time. What are your thoughts on this? Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide 01:05, 19 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, Moneytrees I like to go to the point when ever possible. English is my second language technically and will say because of this I feel obligated to always be working on it. I spend the majority of my time looking at the hard sciences having graduated with a B.S. and haven worked in the applied science industry the majority of the time, so infect yes. I will say my English could always use some work because of this and because of the social attitudes about correctness that have been hearten by grammarians who, in their fervor to organize good English puzzled the rules of standard English with folklore. Folklore the rules that too many well-educated writes obsess over, style I up for in talk pages at times. I see you considering unblocking me as good, I think over all I could of been more clear, slow down and taken my time on articles and I'm willing to do so going forward. I will stick to adding statistics and other information. I sincerely feel my contributions, collaborations and opining add value to the Wikipedia project overall. This is way in effect I acknowledge that for article pages clarity and understanding are the basics of grace and should be maintain. Talk pages could stand a bit of correctness and choice however, elegant options. I will like to continue editing as it has become a hobby and a place to learn, but find myself becoming indifferent Moneytrees. Consider it, I could always use my time in other endeavors. USA Eagle01 (talk) 03:59, 19 September 2021 (UTC) USA Eagle01 (talk) 04:01, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Pls review Copying text from other sources. Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 04:52, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the response, and thanks for signing your post (that's the "03:59, 19 September 2021" at the end- it makes replying to you easier). I will be unblock per this conversation, especially from your commitment to slow down and take more time. If you have any questions about editing or anything moving forward, please feel free to come to me or another user for help- I will try to respond as soon as I can. Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide 04:58, 19 September 2021 (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) 01:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)