User talk:JasonBalagtas

Welcome!

Hi JasonBalagtas! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 19:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of unsourced content

Hello, I'm Abbyjjjj96. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Gary Oldman, 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 the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 19:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the edit summary field

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 19:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Chris Norman, 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) 05:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Stephen Fry, you may be blocked from editing. You seem to be intent on adding honorifics without any sources, or even any explanation in the edit summary. This is getting quite bothersome. Please stop. Thank you. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 12:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editing while locked out

It's patently obvious that you are the person who also edits as 111.125.121.216 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Combined, you have received a number of warnings regarding insufficiently sourced contributions. I must strongly advise you to a) be careful to reference your edits, and b) use your named account. Currently, you could give the impression of trying to avoid scrutiny, which brings you closer to a block. Favonian (talk) 16:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Bill Gates 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Kuru (talk) 03:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Joy Montalba Ongcachuy

The article Joy Montalba Ongcachuy has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Passenger pigeon (talk) 04:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on Rodrigo Duterte page

Hey, if you are to revert my edit on Rodrigo Duterte, please give a decent reason as to why under this, since I do not want to start a talk page discussion as it takes a while. Jeremy^(Message) 10:23, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Jack Stauber

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Jack Stauber requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Stauber. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. ~ Amkgp ✉ 11:11, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Oliver Ford Davies. Enterprisey (talk!) 21:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content.

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Mz7 (talk) 18:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]