User talk:Joseph1836

December 2019

Hello, I'm Jusdafax. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Selma, Texas, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jusdafax (talk) 01:09, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020

Hello, I'm Gardo Versace. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Sisterdale, Texas, 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. Gardo Versace (talk) 19:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

October 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, you may be blocked from editing. — Maile (talk) 21:09, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. — Maile (talk) 21:12, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Lauren Southern, you may be blocked from editing. You were just previously blocked for similar edits. You can't remove reliably sourced information that's been added by consensus with the rationale of "remove bias/infamous quote". If you want to dispute whether this is accurate or encyclopedic, start a discussion on the talkpage. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 05:40, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maile66, since you were the blocking administrator, I thought you might want to be made aware that Joseph1836 seems to have resumed their disruptive editing, albeit on only one BLP article. Joseph1836, you can't simply blank information from an article that you don't agree with. You've been warned about this previously, and blocked for similar behaviour in other articles. I've advised you in the warning above, and I suggest you take that advice and try a collaborative approach, if you want to continue editing here. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 05:55, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week to prevent further disruptive removal of material. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. Daniel Case (talk) 16:29, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 16:30, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2020

Hi Joseph1836! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 16:31, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Parler. 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. Jorm (talk) 00:10, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joseph1836! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Parler that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Jorm (talk) 00:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Parler, you may be blocked from editing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}. — Newslinger talk 04:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]