User talk:BluejacketT

Snooki and JWoww vs. The World

Welcome to Wikipedia. You removed content from Wikipedia with your edits to Snooki and JWoww vs. The World, but without providing a rationale for this in an Edit Summary. When removing material, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page.

In addition, Wikipedia requires that all material added to articles be accompanied by reliable, verifiable (usually secondary) sources explicitly cited in the text in the form of an inline citation, which you can learn to make here. The sources already cited in the article do not support the shortened title that you indicated in your edits. If you have a reliable source for this new title, can you cite them in the article? I can help you do this if you're not sure how to.

Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any other questions about editing, or need help regarding the site's policies, just let me know by leaving a message for me in a new section at the bottom of my talk page. Thanks. :-) Nightscream (talk) 20:40, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

May 2012

Your addition to Men at Work (TV series) has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. (If you are the copyright holder, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material without verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Episode summaries copied word-for-word from http://www.tbs.com/stories/story/0,,261540,00.html . Note that eliminating some words from a copied summary does not eliminate the copyright violation. Logical Fuzz (talk) 02:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

It's understandable. The summary came from a TV listings website though.

June 2012

Your addition to List of Common Law episodes has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text, or images borrowed from other websites, or printed material without a verifiable license; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Changing one or two words in an episode summary is not enough; episode summaries must be original. Kevinbrogers (talk) 16:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Lamar Odom

Please do not add rumors to articles. Update only when something actually happens.—Chris!_c/t 04:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Not sure why you keep on adding a rumor to articles. As you know, rumors about free agent signing often don't actually happen at the end. That is why we should not add it to an article before the rumor becomes fact.—Chris!_c/t 05:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Los Angeles Clippers shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. —Chris!_c/t 05:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Lamar Odom. 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.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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. —Bagumba (talk) 05:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

What hasn't been made clear to you? You are adding content that does not belong on Wikipedia and re-adding it despite being warned about it. Consider this a last warning before I will ask for administrator intervention. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 05:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Your edits are discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User: BluejacketT reported by User:Mosmof (Result: ) and your input is welcome. --Mosmof (talk) 06:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Lamar Odom. 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 adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

What edit warring? What are you talking about? BluejacketT 06:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Are you ignorant or fucking with me? The two articles you kept visiting and hitting "undo" on, completely ignoring ever warning you received and failing to discuss the issues. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

And? BluejacketT 06:37, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

And so five editors and an administrator have tried every tool at our disposal to get you to understand Wikipedia's policies. Have you even taken a look at the pages we linked to? --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 06:39, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Your edits in general

Besides the edit-warring in Lamar Odom and Los Angeles Clippers, I noticed that your edits often discuss future events. In general, we want to avoid presenting talking about future events as facts (or possible facts), basically saying "XYZ will happen". For example, in New York Times, instead of saying The New York Times will be launching a Chinese language news site, you want to talk about what's already happened, i.e. NY Times announced it will launch a news site. This helps us avoid having to correct that sentence when the launch happens, and it covers for the possibility that it happened. Also, in this particular case, the Times had already launched the Chinese site. --Mosmof (talk) 06:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Can you watch your grammar with your edits, particularly with the use of past tense? --Mosmof (talk) 03:30, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Shut up you ugly fat ass man whore.BluejacketT 03:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Mosmof (talk) 03:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't be a bitch you stupid little ass whore hairy butt turd.

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Mosmof (talk) 03:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about? BluejacketT 04:01, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what exactly you're having trouble with. I've given you links to explain why your edits don't follow Wikipedia's style guidelines and policies. Wikipedia's pretty specific about making personal attacks against other users. And you clearly have trouble forming sentences with past tense. How can I help? --Mosmof (talk) 04:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

No. You can't help me with anything.BluejacketT 04:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

That's too bad, because you seem to have terrible grasp of grammar and reading comprehension. --Mosmof (talk) 04:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

You are a ugly fat motherfucking hoochie momma's boy man whore, who has a face only a mother could love. BluejacketT 04:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you make personal attacks on other people, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. --Mosmof (talk) 04:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean? BluejacketT 05:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

What don't you understand? Several editors have left you messages in plain English to help you understand why your edits are problematic. I think Someguy1221's message at the bottom is pretty straight forward. Like Someguy1221 says, Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. If you can't play nicely with others, there's not really a place for you. --Mosmof (talk) 05:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

baklava is very delicouse Homayoun bakhtiary (talk) 09:34, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28

Hi. When you recently edited Property maintenance, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Refurbishment (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 13:30, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Usher

Dude, can you please try to at least make the lines you add to the Personal life section of the Usher article make some sense? There is no reason to repeat the entire story in every new sentence. Also, you should take Mosmof's suggestions about writing about the future some thought... -- Imladros (talk) 02:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I checked some of your other edits, you're basically just repeating the title or first lines of the articles you name as sources, no matter if it makes sense in the context of the paragraph in question. Really, terrible style. -- Imladros (talk) 02:26, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Blocked

Bluejacket, from looking over your edits since your block expired, I have decided to block you indefinitely. While I see that you genuinely wish to add constructive content to Wikipedia, you have utterly failed to grasp the concept that Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Try to imagine what Wikipedia would look like if all of our editors had the same variety of opinions they do now, but acted like yourself. When someone disagrees with your edit, you're supposed to discuss the matter, rather than edit war. When someone raises an issue on your talk page, you are supposed to address it, rather than insult them. Until you understand this, you will not be permitted to edit Wikipedia. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about? BluejacketT 05:14, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Neutral notice

A move request regarding Deadline.com / Deadline Hollywood, an article you have edited, is taking place at Talk:Deadline Hollywood#Requested move 11 March 2018. It is scheduled to end in seven days.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:10, 11 March 2018 (UTC)