User talk:Wikihil123

Recent edit to Stephen Jay Gould
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Stephen Jay Gould, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Materialscientist (talk) 02:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)     I was just saying

November 2015
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Raffi (musician). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted or removed. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 23:24, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

i am just making a new title

Burial details
Hello, there's no need to add what happened to people's remains as you've been doing, unless it's as interesting as Hunter S. Thompson's story. Graham 87 15:52, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

i wanted to show people what happened to them after they died thats all its not a crime

i was just trying t o figure out what happand to them

Disambiguation link notification for January 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Four Loko, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Blast and Tilt. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

i was tryying show similar pruducts

January 2016
Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Baltic Sea, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Thomas.W talk 19:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

i was making it for people in there

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Joe Yule. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ''I don't know if you're doing it in order to spam links to "findagrave.com" all over Wikipedia, or if it's because of an obsession with peoples' death, but please stop making the unhelpful edits you have now done on a large number of articles. Especially since another editor has also posted a message about it here on your talk page.'' Thomas.W talk 19:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

I was just trying to like show more facts

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you insert a spam link, as you did at Lewis Hine. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. Final warning for spamming links to a user-contributed non-WP:RS website on a large number of articles. Thomas.W talk 00:48, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

what kind of stuff is spam give me some examples
 * Spam. Quote: "Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed.". "findagrave.com" is a user-contributed web site that cannot be used as a reference, so there's no legitimate reason to add links to them. See Reliable sources. Thomas.W talk 01:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

i was showing were i got my information from
 * ... and were told to stop, and why, but didn't. Your repeated addition of links to "findagrave.com", a user-contributed/user-generated website that cannot be used as a reference, on a large number of articles violate Wikipedia's rules, and your other edits are unhelpful. Thomas.W talk 11:40, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

should i use differant websites ?

Proposed deletion of Rochelle D


The article Rochelle D has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * My searches found no better sourcing and there's nothing to suggest better solid independent notability from the film and for WP:CREATIVE.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on |the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. SwisterTwister  talk  23:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

have a problem because when i tried t create the page it didn't let me start a new article it kept going back to the film

January 2016
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Donald Teare, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Thomas.W talk 15:04, 8 January 2016 (UTC) ohh i needed a source for the second sentence.

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Lucy Hannah, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --118.237.3.69 (talk) 12:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

i am not vandalizing these page i am giving a reliable source and showing my work please believe me

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you insert a spam link, as you did at Walter Breuning. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. Final warning for repeated continued spamming of links to "findagrave.com". Thomas.W talk 12:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

i was just trying to show where people are buried at it that a crime?
 * You have been told repeatedly that "findagrave.com" isn't a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards, and can't be used as a source/reference, but still keep adding links to them, on a large number of articles. Which is a clear case of spamming, and against Wikipedia's rules. Thomas.W talk 13:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

find a grave tells n detail that and about how a person died and when it has lots of information

ANI
You might want to comment about the removal of your Findagrave links at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:40, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

i will and the might be ok with it

Wikidata
Your addition of Findagrave links is always welcome at Wikidata, and they will never be removed. You can add the cemetery there too. If the cemetery is not in Wikipedia, you can add in a new cemetery entry in Wikidata like I have been doing. I Added in a dozen cemeteries and then linked them to the Findagrave cemetery number. You can see how a cemetery is formatted here: Green-Wood Cemetery and all the people buried there at: Burials at Green-Wood Cemetery. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

i was just tying to post up where people are buried at find a grave would not be a a source, i don't know why people are making a big deal about it

In popular culture
Hi, please refrain from creating sections with only incidental mentions of the article subject. Popular culture sections are meant to illustrate the lasting impact that a subject had, not every pop culture reference or line of dialogue that mentions them. See "In popular culture" content for further guidance. Opencooper (talk) 02:32, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * was just trying to sow mentions of TV shows that used the words of the title — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikihil123 (talk • contribs)
 * I know you were "just trying". We all assume good faith here. But I hope you know now that using the words of the title isn't enough. Opencooper (talk) 13:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Your sources don't support your edits
I recently reverted eight (8) of your edits because the source you gave does not support the change you made to the article. ,, , , , , ,. The sources have biographical information on the subjects, but they don't mention your assertions about cremation, where they were buried, etc. When you make an edit to Wikipedia, the source given must support the statement. In future, if you fail to pay attention to this simple and very reasonable requirement, your edits could be considered as vandalism. Willondon (talk) 04:37, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * i showed the website were got the information from  just wrote it in my own words .I read t from the website and rewrote it in my own words, the how and tell how or when the died — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikihil123 (talk • contribs)


 * I checked every one of those sources. Nowhere did they match the statements you made. Your knowledge may be true about where those people are buried, or whether they were cremated or not, but it doesn't come from the sources you gave. You need to pay more attention to giving a proper source, where you got the information from, so readers can verify what you say. Willondon (talk) 05:05, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

i tried to and the websites were true with the information i seen it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikihil123 (talk • contribs)


 * Whoever made the edits was a lot more competent with written English and editing Wikipedia. Can I speak to them again, please? *sigh* Willondon (talk) 06:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

i seen other wiki pages it is typed the same way — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikihil123 (talk • contribs)

Vandal, incompetent, or troll? In the end, I went with the vandal / failed troll option. -- Willondon (talk) 04:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC) can you please give me a example of to edit done correctly with the deaths of celebrities — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikihil123 (talk • contribs)


 * I've already provided eight links to edits I've reversed because the source does not support the statement you made. For example, with link #1, you say "He was cremated after his death", and source it to a page from Internet Movie Database . Nowhere on that page does it say that he was cremated. The remaining seven links can be examined in a similar fashion to reveal that the source you provided does not match the claim you made. This about enough .time spending me to can pretend how are you .competint and not -- Willondon (talk) 14:25, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Administrators' Notice Board/Incidents post regarding you
I opened a discussion that involves you at the administrators' notice board for incidents requiring attention. It's at WP:ANI. -- Willondon (talk) 15:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016
Hello, I'm ScrapIronIV. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Jack Soo, 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! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.  Scr ★ pIron IV 15:48, 19 January 2016 (U

i shown it where i got it from
 * Yes, but where you got it from is not a reliable source. See WP:RS. This is not the first time, and I'm reading the ANI discussion right now--a discussion you should participate in. Drmies (talk) 17:36, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistent disruptive editing. 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:. Drmies (talk) 17:39, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Not citing reliable sources and making edits that don't conform to our guidelines (including that we use proper English) is disruptive: you are making work for other editors. I have blocked your account for a week; I hope you will take this time to read up on the various policies and guidelines we must all adhere by, and which are clearly indicated and linked in the welcome template on the very top of this page. And I will add one link: WP:CIR--Competence is Required. Your edits so far appear to be done in a very careless manner, and that cannot be. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: I asked for help on your behalf at Wikipedia's "Teahouse." Those folks were a very useful source of information for me when I first began editing. I'm hoping one of them steps in regarding your situation and helps you "learn the ropes", so that you can become a productive editor. I don't think you were being intentionally disruptive, and while I disagree with your block's length in particular, I hope you'll follow Drmies instructions regarding reading up on Wikipedia's policies as well. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 19:53, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

what would be a good examples of a website that i could use for deaths in famous people

Disambiguation link notification for January 31
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Reel Crime/Real Story, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages David Taylor and Jonathan Brown. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:37, 31 January 2016 (UTC) was adding links form vhs wiki page

Request for a source
I see that you edited Erin Brockovich to say that she is an actress. Can you tell me what source you have that says that? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Further editing problems
After posting the message above about the need for a source, I looked at your other recent edits. I found that you had created an article, Reel Crime/Real Story, without citing any sources. Considering that you were recently blocked for disruptive editing, and that need for sources is one of the things that you have been told about, you really need to start taking this seriously, or yo may well be blocked for much longer. However, when I searched for sources to support what you had written at Reel Crime/Real Story, I found a more serious problem, namely that the content was copied from another web site, in violation of copyright. You must not copy content from other places into Wikipedia sources. Because of the copyright problem, the article has been deleted. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

February 2016
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Phoebe Cates, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.  Scr ★ pIron IV 15:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

i shown a website where got it from
 * No, you didn't. Also, please sign your posts using four tildes, and use edit summaries. Thank you.  Scr ★ pIron IV 21:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

ill try harder
 * Please start by reading the instructions and links in the welcome message at the top of your talk page. It explains how to sign your posts, and has useful links on how to cite sources and more.   Scr ★ pIron IV 21:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

A question about apparently odd edits
Can you explain why you added content to Brandon Lee and then immediately removed it? I am willing to believe that you had a reason, but I would be interested to know what reason. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 22:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

i was trying to add films and TV shows he was in

February 2016
Hello, I'm ATinySliver. Your recent edit to the page Anthony Perkins 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. Thank you. &#128406; ATinySliver / ATalkPage 03:04, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Alma Reville, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Thomas.W talk 12:06, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

i showed a reliable source using the links button

When you add wikilinks to an article, please take the trouble to check what article you are linking to. It is not helpful to link to a completely irrelevant article which happens to have the same title as something you are referring to. To give just one example out of many such inappropriate links, an editor reading a "filmography" section of an article about an actor, and seeing a link about a film called "Theory" is unlikely to find it helpful if he or she clicks on the link and sees a page beginning "Theory is a contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking..." and not remotely connected to the film. It's quite simple: never add any link unless you have checked, and found that the page linked to actually contributes to knowledge or understanding of the subject where it is linked from. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

i did site a reliable source and was trying to show there filmography

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Central High School (Philadelphia). This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.  Scr ★ pIron IV 13:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Again, your sources don't support your edits
Once again (see previous discussion), your sources don't support your edits. At Vidal Sassoon, your edit says he was cremated, while the source, dubious though it is, says he was buried. Your edit to Teena Marie saying she was cremated is sourced to a YouTube slide show of somebody's funeral, titled "Grandma Marie's Funeral - September 3, 2011", which contradicts the article's assertion that Teena Marie died in December 2010. I didn't watch the whole eight minutes, but I saw a coffin, a headstone and no funeral pyre. Your edit to Joan Rivers has no source at all. Before I bring this up on AN/I again (see ANI archive #911), do you have anything to say by way of excuse or explanation? Willondon (talk) 02:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

i asked the people of the videos and the sad so and have fond tat on other websites as well
 * The video was for the wrong funeral: "Teena Marie" is not the same as "Grandma Marie." Teena Marie died in 2010.  The video is for a funeral in 2011.  No one waits a whole year to have a funeral.
 * You got the facts wrong about the video: Even if it was the right funeral (again, it was not), the video shows someone being buried, while your edit claims they were cremated
 * Youtube is not a reliable source: Even if you gave the right description, and the video was for the right funeral, Youtube is a user generated source and so fails our reliable sourcing guidelines.
 * It does not matter who you asked, or where you found it -- all of the information you gave was completely wrong. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:52, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Administrators' Notice Board/Incidents post regarding you (2)
I opened a discussion that involves you at the administrators' notice board for incidents requiring attention. It's at WP:ANI. -- Willondon (talk) 04:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

just want to how people what is going on with deceased people afterwards was showing a real references we seen

Blocked
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive incompetence. 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:.
 * Pretty much the same reasons as before. Your responses to all the warnings above indicate that you either are not paying attention, or are not capable of understanding why people are leaving you those messages, or just plain refuse to cooperate.  Still, in case you want to know what went wrong:
 * When a user adds new information to articles, it must be reliably sourced. This was explained to you.  You generally did not do much better with this after the previous block, even if you said you'd try harder.
 * When a user cites a source, that source must actually support every bit of information added. This was also explained to you and really should have been obvious.  Despite this, you kept citing sources that did not support the claims you made, even going as far as citing a video of a 2011 burial to claim that someone else was cremated in 2010.
 * When asked about your problems with the above, your responses have generally shown a failure or refusal to understand that you made mistakes. You told ScrapIron and Thomas.W that you cited a source when you quite obviously did not.  Either you were drastically mistaken, or you were trying to lie to them.  When JamesBWatson asked you to be more careful in adding wikilinks, you responded that you cited sources, when that was (for once) not the issue at all.  When Willodon pointed out the problems in citing a video showing a 2011 burial to claim that a completely different person was cremated in 2010, your response was "i asked the people of the videos and the sad so and have fond tat on other websites as well," as if that was relevant.  The only forgiving assumption I can make from that response is that you asked the person who uploaded it if their grandmother's name was Marie, and did not bother to establish whether or not it was Teena Marie.  What I find more likely (based on your other behavior) is that you saw the "recommended videos" to the side and got confused, or perhaps that you were lying (as you did to ScrapIron and Thomas.W).  In short, whenever someone tried to help you or asked you to not do something, your responses amounted to little more than a verbose "nuh-uh."  Now, granted, you were not directly warned that this could lead to a block, but it really should have been obvious that that's not acceptable.
 * We all make mistakes, but when almost all of an editor's activities are mistakes and they show no sign of learning from those mistakes, they become a burden to the site. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:59, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * That only addresses a small part of the problem, but in a way that further demonstrates it. People have repeatedly recommended that you read Help:Referencing for beginners and Identifying reliable sources for a while now.  It has also been explained to you that youtube is not a reliable source.  Ian.thomson (talk) 13:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * To expand on that, no website which any passer-by can edit is a reliable source.--Anthony Bradbury"talk" 14:43, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I can only echo what Ian has written. Did you even read over his words right below your block notice? Because people have gone out of their way to help you and you don't seem to comprehend that there is a problem. So, either WP:CIR applies or you are trolling. Liz  Read! Talk! 23:04, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

i was just trying to make the webpages more acculturate and cant believe that YouTube s not  reliable source it shows the funerals and burials and graves of the person and the people tell me more about them and i find the wiki pages very confusing to understand — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikihil123 (talk • contribs)
 * Anyone can upload a youtube video, so it fails our standards for reliable sourcing because it is user generated. This has already been explained.
 * If you "find the wiki pages very confusing to understand" then you should probably find something else to do. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:50, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

i want to do this where is a good bnch of websites that you can think of that shows where people are buried at
 * You've demonstrated that you're not capable of doing this. This has been explained to you, and you have not addressed those problems at all (which was one of the problems to begin with).  Ian.thomson (talk) 04:09, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

i was really trying to find good websites to source my words at and I did and you people think it is not goo enough
 * We know that you've said that you were trying, and that you'd try harder (because the rest of us actually pay attention to what other people say) -- but your intentions do not matter because you were doing a bad job regardless. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:51, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

how would you like for me to do t properly with a video demonstrate it
 * Wow, you really aren't listening at all. I give up. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:27, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

come on man was trying to do it correctly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikihil123 (talk • contribs)


 * Tried. Failed. Move on. Willondon (talk) 20:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

i will keep on trying show me a lnk to a video on how to properly site websites and how come people used the same websites before in their pages and the never got in trouble — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikihil123 (talk • contribs)
 * No, you will not keep trying. "how to properly site websites" was not the problem.  The problem has been explained for you repeatedly, and in detail.  If you are not capable of understanding what the problem is, you will never be able to understand how anything works here.  That is why you are blocked.  You will stay blocked unless you can prove that you understand what the problem is.  Simply wanting to try will not get you unblocked.  "how come people used the same website" is missing the problem by a gigametre.
 * There is no point in you posting here unless you have figured out what the problem is. There is no point in asking what the problem is, because it has already been explained to you (repeatedly and in detail).  There is no point in guessing at something else, because the answers are already right here on this page, and if you can't figure that out then you cannot be trusted to edit here.
 * Find something else to do. Ian.thomson (talk) 08:18, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

i want to do more practice n doing these edits i just hadn't really done⇒ them personally