User talk:WheresMyFC

Welcome![edit]

Hello, WheresMyFC, 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:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

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 Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! -🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 09:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:ZhouQi2017.png[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:ZhouQi2017.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 02:30, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:ZhouQi2017.png[edit]

Thank you for uploading File:ZhouQi2017.png. 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, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Train2104 (t • c) 12:40, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Snopes is a very RS[edit]

I noticed your deletion and edit summary about Snopes. As you should know by now, Wikipedians value RS, and it is essential that they know the difference between reliable and unreliable sources. I hope we don't see more edits of this type. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:25, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018[edit]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Chairmen of the Board, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Egghead06 (talk) 06:23, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 2018[edit]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to List of Rugrats episodes. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. AussieLegend (✉) 02:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to claim that the fictional "Ultra Bowl XXXVII" is the real Super Bowl you need to provide a citation from a reliable source otherwise your claim is just an assumption, which is not permitted. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:57, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at List of Rugrats episodes. 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. AussieLegend (✉) 03:19, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When an edit of yours is good faith reverted, please do not just revert the change. Per WP:BRD, discuss your proposed edits on the article's talk page and note that, until there is consensus for your edits, per WP:STATUSQUO the status quo should remain. Edit summaries are not the place to put forward arguments for keeping your preferred edits but, in answer to your question, if there are inappropriate links they should be removed. We don't compound problems by adding more inappropriate links. Please note though, removing links to football teams should not be done until such time as it is connfirmed that the links are inappropriate. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:24, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Charlotte Hornets draft history, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Larry Johnson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:43, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for Christmas moved to draftspace[edit]

An article you recently created, Thanks for Christmas, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:43, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery[edit]

The source says "Far-right and neo-Nazi groups are spreading racist and false information about....", not the alt-right. The alt-right is just a sub-group of the far-right anyway; see the corresponding Wikipedia article. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 15:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Shooting of Ahmaud Arbery. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
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.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020[edit]

Your recent editing history at More popular than Jesus 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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—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—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. JG66 (talk) 03:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]