User talk:EEJJLL

Your edit to "Voter ID Laws in the United States"

Today you added the statement "State Senate passes Photo ID law in 2016" to the article "Voter ID Laws in the United States". Would you please explain where you read this so someone more comfortable with citing sources can add a citation to the article? Jc3s5h (talk) 13:24, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm just now seeing your response. I can't seem to find that addition that you denoted...

EEJJLL, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi EEJJLL! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Soni (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

September 2016

Hello, I'm Zppix. I noticed that in this edit to Common-law marriage, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 20:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

REPLY: Sorry, I thought I clearly stated that the information was out of order, outdated and confusing.

≥== November 2016 ==

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Antichrist, you may be blocked from editing. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, it doesn't matter whether you were logged in or logged out -- the edit was bad. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and I see you were plagiarizing this website (which completely fails our standards for reliable sourcing, by the way). Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, do not do that again. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

EEJJLL REPLY: I've never been called out this harshly. Don't even know how to do a talk page. I will list a couple of responses here, even though that will probably throw you into a tizzy:

1) How can I be plagiarizing a page that I reference? 2) I stated all facts, and zero opinion (the anagram, etc). 3) This information can be found widely online, so I will repost with a new citing. I hope that this does not offend. You seem like you're having a pretty rough day. 4) I'm simply trying to state the most commonly known information on the antichrist. You're acting like I'm coming with this out of nowhere. This simply is not a credible page if the widely known Nostradomas angle is ignored. Period. 5) Seriously, there is no need to blast the shit out of me or others (swearing is allowed, you say on your talk page, so...)

(talk page stalker) Use wp:ping to alert someone to a reply. Care must be taken or the ping may not work. Jim1138 (talk) 02:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm having to post this from a work computer (which I will not log into because it is not secure), but this is User:Ian.thomson. You used the same words as the source -- that's plagiarism. The anagram is that author's opinion, which you need good sources for. You are citing garbage sources such as crackpot blogs and tabloids. You need professionally published mainstream academic sources to support your claim that this is how non-conspiracy theorists interpret the prophecies of Nostradamus (who was a Christian, by the way, so I don't know why you keep putting him in the non-Christian views section). 120.199.57.178 (talk) 05:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@Jim1138: If you're still up, could you cover anything further that comes up? I'll be teaching for about the next four and a half hours. No worries if you've turned in. 120.199.57.178 (talk) 05:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

EEJJLL REPLY: An HBO show called "The Man That Saw Tomorrow", hosted by Orsen Wells, stated most of this. May we cite a "mainstream" TV show, hosted by a "mainstream" actor? Clearly, Nostradamus is not something that the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, NY Times, etc. writes about everyday. Yet it is common knowledge that Nostradamus had these views. You know as well as I do that no recent "mainstream" paper will have written about Nostradamus' views on Hitler, etc. Also, I listed this as non-Christian because the church obviously does not recognize Nostradamus' interpretation of the anti-Christ. You obviously have to realize that just because a Christian writes a viewpoint, that it is not automatically a "Christian viewpoint." Wow. This had turned into a big joke. ALSO, I REFERENCED THE WORK THAT I POSTED. I DID NOT PASS IT OFF AS MY OWN. REVIEW THE DEFINITION OF THE ACCUSATORY WORD THAT YOU USED TO DESCRIBE ME BELOW. AND PLEASE LEARN IT BEFORE EVER TEACHING THAT FALSE DEFINITION TO YOUR STUDENTS. YOU ARE USING THAT WORD IN AN EXTREMELY IRRESPONSIBLE WAY. I respect the job that editors do on this website to keep Wikepedia legit. But when power hungry, strongly opinionated in inflexible people edit, it turns corrupt. If you do not want Nostradamus' viewpoints on here, just say so. Don't hide behind B.S. If you can do a better job, then do it yourself. But then again, what's the saying? Those that can't do, teach? You, sir, are a quack. I will not waste my time here again.

By the way: pla·gia·rism

/ˈplājəˌrizəm/

noun

noun: plagiarism; plural noun: plagiarisms

the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own.

BY THE WAY, I GUESS I JUST PALIGERISED THE DEFINITION OF PLAIGERISM LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL.

(@ Wikipedia: You guys need to lose this Ian Thompson character fast)

"Hosted by Orson Wells" is not a standard listed at WP:Identifying reliable sources. Do you know what "academic sources" even means? Stuff like books written by professional scholars and published by university presses.

This was a big joke the second you started editing.

Citing the source you plagiarize does not excuse plagiarism -- that's not even freshman college stuff, that's high school.

Wikipedia just summarizes mainstream academic sources. It is not a blog for conspiracy theories based on misinterpreting the writings of a late medieval crackpot. If you find a mainstream academic source that describes Nostradamus's views on the antichrist, then it would appropriate to include -- but given the (lack of) quality you've sunk to in looking for sources, that sort of work would not be something you'd appreciate. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:02, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Final warning

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Antichrist. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:08, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

EEJJLL REPLY: Ahhhhh, and there it is. The truth comes out. Nostradamus is a "crackpot." He may very well be, but that is not for you to decide.

No final warning needed. I will not waste my time here anymore, and I will resign my password.

If you're going to misrepresent another user's words, don't let the door hit you on the way out. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I would recommend that you ask at the wp:teahouse how to do this edit. There are very specific policy on Wikipedia. See wp:Plagiarism. It is required that you "use your own words" in most instances. The Wikipedia article: Nostradamus does not paint a rosy picture - most academics say his predictions are so vague as to render them useless. The Nostradamus stuff should not go on Antichrist unless you can supply a much better source. I don't believe such a source exists. Jim1138 (talk) 17:08, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 26 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Palimony in the United States page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited McKnight, Pennsylvania, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ross Township, Pennsylvania. 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) 10:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (McKnight, Pennsylvania) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating McKnight, Pennsylvania, EEJJLL!

Wikipedia editor Boleyn just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

This has been tagged as 'refimprove'.

To reply, leave a comment on Boleyn's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Boleyn (talk) 20:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, EEJJLL. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, EEJJLL. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)