User talk:Johnsmith212254

August 2022[edit]

Hello, I'm Adakiko. I noticed that in this edit to White wedding, 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. Thank you. Adakiko (talk) 02:24, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at De Lisle carbine. 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. DMacks (talk) 01:35, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at De Lisle carbine. DMacks (talk) 03:26, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Except I didn’t "add unsourced or poorly sourced material"; I removed a load of bullshit. How about you stop with your pathetic attempts to bully me with your shitty automated messages? Johnsmith212254 (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=De_Lisle_carbine&diff=prev&oldid=1106316173 You wrote] in the De Lisle carbine article that it weighs 3.75 g. That's less than the weight of two sheets of paper. That's...not correct. In that same edit, you wrote that the title of of published book with ISBN 978-1-4402-2881-0 is Standard Catalogue of Military Firearms: The Collector's Price and Reference Guide. Regardless of the article's topic or our style guide (or your interpretation of our style guide), that's not its title. DMacks (talk) 23:08, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You also claim to have given me a "final warning", despite the fact that I haven’t had any prior fucking warnings, you arrogant little cunt. I will rip open you fucking little keyboard warriors. Johnsmith212254 (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please use a civil language when engaging with anyone else. See Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. When someone reverts your edit, consider discussing with that editor at their user talk page or at the correct article talk page to sort out any misunderstandings and achieve consensus. Cheers! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 22:11, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Metrication, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fuel economy. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 2022[edit]

Hello. In a recent edit to the page Nordic model, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. TylerBurden (talk) 19:11, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022[edit]

Many of your recent edits have been reverted as unhelpful. For example:

8 October: Mandeville Canyon, Los Angeles - changing an article about a US topic from American English, despite having already received a specific warning about doing this.
6 October: Richard Herrnstein - changing the proper name of an organisation, despite your previous warning.
20 September: Life unworthy of life - replacing terms with pejorative slang.
Several instances of adding material without providing any explanation or citation (e.g. 1) or removing material without providing any explanation (e.g. 1, 2).
Many edits which remove unit conversions or change the way we present measurements from the convention in our Manual of Style.
Several edits which changed dates from the convention in our Manual of Style.

In the case of the latter edits, perhaps you were unfamiliar with the relevant style conventions. Now that you know the Wikipedia policies for these, please stop changing units and dates. This looks like the fifth warning you've received for these kinds of edits, so if you continue to ignore these warnings your behaviour is likely to be interpreted as disruptive and you may be blocked from editing without any further warning. -Joe D (t) 15:18, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shut up. Johnsmith212254 (talk) 20:15, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, 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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Stilb (unit), you may be blocked from editing. --Srleffler (talk) 22:00, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Capital punishment in the United States. 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. Larry Hockett (Talk) 01:05, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Capital punishment in the United States. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Inexpiable (talk) 07:48, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for incompatibility with a collaborative project to build an encyclopedia (persistent incivility, personal attacks, disruptively ignoring community concerns about MOS:ENGVAR voiced here on this page).

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 ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:54, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I'll immediately revoke your current ability to edit this talk page if there's any further incivility in your following messages. If you actually understand the reason for the block and genuinely intend to change your behavior, you may be carefully welcomed back. Instructions for filing an appeal can be found above. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:57, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:40, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]