Hello, Wclifton968, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page London buses line 57 has not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and has been or will be removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or in other media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. Additionally, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LG A225GO until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Amccann421(talk)17:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, London buses line 200. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – London Buses route 200. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at London Buses route 200 – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.
If you think the article you created should remain separate, 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 removed 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. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Class455fan1 (talk)23:54, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on CELCUS requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.
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 removed 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. GABgab13:10, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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 living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.
Please don't go around making those kinds of accusations. Someone is an alcoholic because they order more than one drink? What craziness is that? And don't try to argue that there: you may write that in a Wikipedia article only if reliable sources claim it. Drmies (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I realise that it was rather stupid of stating that Sweeney is an alcoholic after only buying a few drinks in the pub. I only said that he was an alcoholic after seeing some YouTube video which showed him in some BBC program drinking alcohol (lots of it) and the narrator of the video saying that the BBC was fuelling his alcoholism. I've lost the video but I think it was uploaded by a user called Iconlast or something..... oh well. I've fixed the issues I made on the original edit of the John Sweeney article now and removed any references to alcoholism and that other thing (I've forgotten now lol).....--Wclifton968 (talk) 22:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Rebel Media is not a reliable source. It's a far-right political and social commentary media website. Please check out the Wikipedia article on it, and note also the way the article you actually refer to here is written: "the UK’s attorney general will make the case for prosecuting Tommy Robinson for a second time, for the non-crime of being a citizen journalist reporting on the epidemic of Muslim rape gangs in the UK last year", "they’re not even trying to hide their abusive misconduct these days" (where "they" refers to the UK’s attorney general), and so on. That's commentary, and highly opinionated with it. Don't use Rebel Media or similar websites as sources again, and definitely don't use YouTube. If I see you again trying to insert text into BLPs based on that type of source — never mind edit warring to keep it in — or otherwise disrupting BLPs, you may be topic banned from editing BLPs. This is a serious warning. Bishonen | talk21:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC).[reply]
So are we going by media definition of "Far-Right" which includes people such as Stephen-Yaxley-Lennon being called racist when he isn't and calling him a Nazi (despite him being Jewish & a proud Zionist) while they also call people who are racist as being "Far-Right" (people incl. Nick Griffin of the BNP and Britain First [the political party]) despite policies and actions being fascist and pointing towards the "Far-Left" and regimes such as Adolf Hitler's and Mao Zedong's regimes in the 1930s-1940s & 1949-1970s. One of Britain First's actual policies from what I can remember reading a while back was only having Christianity in the UK which is oddly familiar to Hitler's policies under the Far-Left wing socialist Nazi Party in Germany. I'm probably going to revert the page back to "Far-Left" considering that I don't follow the big media's definition of "Far-Right". Fascism was also a word made up by the Far-Left in order to smear the right so I hope that you class the terrorist organisation "Antifa" as fascists otherwise your probably a fascist yourself. Wclifton968 (talk) 01:09, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Great Wall Motors. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
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. You indicated many sources on the article including Global Times and China Daily are unreliable as they are state-owned newspapers in the People's Republic of China, when they would in fact be considered reliable, especially the sources used within the context of the article. See WP:BIASED.Bailmoney27talk14:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I Understand that you love the party too much especially considering that your User Pagesays that you live in China with the PRC Flag which indicates that your neither Taiwanese, Singaporean, Tibetan, Uhigur, Macanese or a Hong Konger so can you please refrain from spreading pro-china propaganda throughout Wikipedia. I am neither Pro or anti China and I usually would consider ALL state-owned media to be considered as an unreliable source unless there is hard solid evidence that they are officially separate from the state and are only funded through either a TV License/Tax or Advertising with examples being Channel Four TV Corporation in the UK Which is state-owned but receives 100% of its funding through advertising and grants. Wclifton968 (talk) 17:50, 31 October 2019 (UTC)Wclifton968 (talk) 17:49, 31 October 2019 (GMT+0)[reply]
You are receiving this notice because you recently edited one or more pages relating to blockchain or cryptocurrencies topics. You have not done anything wrong. We just want to alert you that "general" sanctions are authorized for certain types of edits to those pages.
General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after the editor has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
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. SharabSalam (talk) 13:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you are currently blocked, but regardless for when that block expires, this is not how we do things. Making a hidden note "I (User:wclifton968) have no source for this section but I am a veteran player of this game and its predecessor so if you have any disagreements with this part of the page then feel free to make any amendments but DO NOT remove it or it'll be placed back"? Per WP:BURDEN, it's up to the person who adds information to provide a source. You will have to find a source, you can't just proclaim yourself to be an authority on the subject and say you'll place back any information. I've tagged it as an unsourced section, so go nuts. I've removed the WP:GAMECRUFT table of in-game transportation, that's just unnecessary. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK09:59, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:IMAGE and compare it with the image. In what way does that image communicatie information in a way that text doesn't? The article already has plenty of images and your own work doesn't add anything new to it. Also, what the hell does an edit summary like "you just don't like southerners do you? I guess the North-South divide really does exist then." mean? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK16:31, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.
WTF? I have almost ZERO interest in ancient American Politics although it is definetly more than your average joe it certinly isn't wide enough for me to comment on or modify without good faith and facts to back up any statements. Wclifton968 (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's nice. These sanctions cover modern American politics, so I have no idea why you mention a lack of interest in topics not covered by them. Doug Wellertalk13:25, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Please carefully read this information:
A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The specific details of these sanctions are described here.
Broadly, general sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Doug Wellertalk13:34, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not use The Epoch Times as an information source as you did in this edit, which I have reverted. – attomir (talk | contribs) 23:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Why not cite The Epoch Times? What is so bad about the Epoch Times that makes them banned from being cited on the English Wikipedia site? Right now they seem to be the best source for information coming out of the People's Republic of China(PRC). I've reverted the edit because what you've done is started an edit war of which I'm already decided to call off. Wclifton968 (talk) 00:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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 ~~~~}}.
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.
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.
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to List of bus routes in London, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Muffled Pocketed 17:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
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 List of bus routes in London, you may be blocked from editing. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 17:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Great Wall Motors. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Great Wall Motors. The consensus between edits is that sources from mainland China are reliable considering the context of the article. Please stop your edit warring. Bailmoney27 talk 10:48, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Wclifton968 reported by User:MarkH21 (Result: ). Thank you. — MarkH21talk 02:16, 22 April 2020 (UTC)