Hello, MyGosh789!

I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

• Editing
• Referencing
• Images
• Tables
• Policies and guidelines
• Talk pages
• Navigating
• Manual of Style

---

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

---

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

• Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
• It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
• If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
• Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
• When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
• If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
• Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, 〜 Adflatuss • talk 15:19, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Tupac Shakur, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 05:07, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cleveland Guardians, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paul Dolan. 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) 19:56, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your inclusion of Bill Mercer who has been identified as the reporter telling Oswald he was charged. I think the comments made by Vincent Bugliosi about Oswald’s reaction to be charged at midnight press conference are pertininent, and WP:NPOV requires that we present various sides of a story, if there are good sources. Bugliosi is an excellent source, and this can be included in the last paragraph “arrest at Texas threatre section” on the Oswald page. Something written like this, to note Oswald voice breaking and how he seemed to react at told he was charged:

“A reporter asked Oswald, "Did you kill the President?" and Oswald answered, "No, I have not been charged with that. In fact, nobody has said that to me yet." Oswald continued, "The first thing I heard about it was when the newspaper reporters in the hall (at this point, Oswald's voice cracked nervously) asked me that question."^[1] Bill Mercer told Oswald that he had been charged. Oswald asked "Sir?" and when Mercer affirmed again that he had been charged, Oswald reacted with a look of astonishment.”^[2] 78.150.8.113 (talk) 17:26, 24 March 2025 (UTC) 78.150.8.113 (talk) 17:26, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use styles that are nonstandard, unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you. livelikemusic (TALK!) 23:42, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Sahaib. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Bruce Fanjoy, 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 referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Sahaib (talk) 17:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Killing of Patrick Lyoya, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page WOOD.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:57, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are a significant contributor to our list of Charles III's international travel. I would like your help on a similar page for Princess Anne. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Michigan Wolverines football, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Matt Weiss.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:57, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Thank you for updating the information regarding the Chris Brown rape lawsuit. I noticed a small discrepancy: you mentioned that the docuseries revealed the yacht was owned by controversial music producer Sean "Diddy" Combs. However, this detail was actually reported in the original 2022 lawsuit.

Could you please correct this information accordingly? Thank you for your attention to this matter. J-Majestik (talk) 12:49, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you're ignoring this message. Should I interpret this as an indication that the discrepancy was intentional and that this constitutes a case of Wikipedia:False and malicious outing? Let me know because I'm on my way to reporting you.J-Majestik (talk) 15:41, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Rick Derringer, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 16:08, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Katie Miller, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history, as well as helping prevent edit conflicts. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. —tony^{st (talk)} 02:40, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on The Long Way Home (anti-drug PSA requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer, or other unlikely search term.

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. 204.111.137.20 (talk) 03:49, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page 2025 San Antonio mayoral election, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 00:45, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We need to wait for the CERTIFIED OFFICIAL results before posting the San Antonio election. Please stop posting unofficial results. - SanAnMan (talk) 02:14, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. This is a standard message to inform you that India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. TEMPO156 (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Republican insurgency in Afghanistan, you may be blocked from editing. TEMPO156 (talk) 22:20, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't call it "vandalism," as they do have territory in Panjshir.MyGosh789 (talk) 22:23, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Republican insurgency in Afghanistan 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; read about 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.

Above remarks submitted by Noorullah21.

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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Noorullah (talk) 00:48, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at John Wayne.
Please use edit summaries, you've been asked before - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 21:00, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Above remarks submitted by FlightTime Phone.

How is it "disruption." I was looking for the right section to put the I Love Liberty clip edit. I figured it should be in his personal and social views section. Don't rush to judgement and read the source for yourself.[1]MyGosh789 (talk) 21:03, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In your recent avalanche of editing for the article Trial of Sean Combs, there were many errors, no doubt due to hastiness. Please, do try and review your edits before posting them up. It saves everyone's time, including yours. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 18:18, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is MyGosh789. Thank you. TEMPO156 (talk) 22:45, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MyGosh789,

It would be worth your time to come to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#MyGosh789 and offer your perspective on this complaint. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:25, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Trial of Sean Combs, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL and missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 01:35, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Billy Joel, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 17:49, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Flaco Jiménez, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.

Please review the documentation for that template @ {{Recent death}} - FlightTime (open channel) 16:55, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember that {{recent death}} is not a template to play with As such, this template should be used only in cases where many editors (perhaps dozens or more) are editing the article on the same day. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:04, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Mandalay Pictures. 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. AnonymousScholar49 (talk) 17:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is true, the film got a theatrical release today. They opted not to make Highest 2 Lowest a "direct-to-video" film.MyGosh789 (talk) 17:44, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Acroterion (talk) 12:10, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Never intended to make an edit to the Jane Fonda page without a reliable source. It was just something I heard and wanted clarification on.MyGosh789 (talk) 12:13, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:BLP policy applies everywhere on Wikipedia. Talkpages aren't fora for speculation about living persons. Acroterion (talk) 12:22, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.MyGosh789 (talk) 13:03, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at The Beatles' 1966 US tour shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. An edit war occurs when two or more users begin repeatedly changing content—in a back-and-forth fashion—back to how they think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree with their changes. 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 creating a version of the page that represents consensus among the editors involved. The best practice at this stage is to discuss the disagreements, issues, and concerns at-hand, not to engage in edit-warring. Wikipedia provides a page that details how this is accomplished. 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, please 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sundayclose (talk) 22:22, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You had complaints about that one source, so I provided a second source.[2]MyGosh789 (talk) 22:23, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This one is not worth the battle so I'm leaving it. But your warning about edit warring stands. I advise reading WP:3RR AND WP:BRD to avoid losing your editing privileges if you again engage in edit warring. Sundayclose (talk) 22:25, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Beatles' 1966 US tour. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.

You did not follow the BRD advice though. You didn't discuss.MyGosh789 (talk) 22:51, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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 and 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. You have exceeded WP:3RR. Tkbrett (✉) 22:48, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did discuss on the talk page. You didn't though.MyGosh789 (talk) 22:49, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see you did not follow Sundayclose's advice and read WP:3RR AND WP:BRD since you chose to instantly revert your changes back a fourth time without waiting for a talk page consensus to form. Tkbrett (✉) 22:50, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't follow the WP:BRD advice, as you didn't discuss on the talk page.MyGosh789 (talk) 22:52, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MyGosh789, you could be blocked right now for edit warring. You were already warned about edit warring and you did it again. I suggesting reverting your last edit to the article and resolving this on the talk page. I can't promise that will avoid a block, but it would be a good faith effort on your part. Reverting more than three times is sufficient for a block, even if your edit is correct. Sundayclose (talk) 22:53, 2 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Burning Man, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL and missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 10:23, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Shall fix the typo.MyGosh789 (talk) 10:24, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Toronto International Film Festival specifically stated "Baz Luhrmann’s extraordinary documentary may be the most poignant account of Elvis Presley’s life and career to date, featuring long-lost footage from his epochal 1970s residency in Las Vegas "[3]MyGosh789 (talk) 20:34, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A courtesy note to let you know that simpleflying is not a reliable source - WP:SIMPLEFLYING. Thanks. 10mmsocket (talk) 15:20, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page 2025 state visit by Donald Trump to the United Kingdom, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 21:37, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2026 Sundance Film Festival is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2026 Sundance Film Festival until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

Cameremote (talk) 02:18, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I have closed the AFD for 2026 Sundance Film Festival. You can take your time to work on it. But while at it, it is better to move the page to draft and finish working on it before pushing to mainspace. That way, you will not have issues with speedy deletions. Thank you for your work on Wikipedia! Cameremote (talk) 03:29, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contribution(s). However, as a general rule, while user talk pages permit a small degree of generalisation, other talk pages such as Talk:2025 deployment of federal forces in the United States are strictly for discussing improvements to their associated main pages, and many of them have special instructions on the top. They are not a general discussion forum about the article's topic or any other topic. If you have questions or ideas and are not sure where to post them, consider asking at the Teahouse. Thanks. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 02:30, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know. I noted why i distrust the true motive for the deployment.MyGosh789 (talk) 02:52, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. Considering the amount of warnings you have received concerning this behaviour, the next immediate step is a report to the noticeboards concerning your behaviour. livelikemusic (TALK!) 21:36, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:57, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that one or more recent edits you made did not have an edit summary. Collaboration among editors is fundamental to Wikipedia, and every edit should be explained by a clear edit summary, or by discussion on the talk page. Please use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit and/or to describe what it changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

or in the visual editor:

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. When logged in to your Wikipedia account, you can give yourself a reminder by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary), and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:13, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Tina Turner, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 23:00, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Anwar Sadat, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL and missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 22:52, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Black Phone 2, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 21:24, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On 21 October 2025, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Sanae Takaichi, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:27, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please check the activity levels of the article before adding {{recent death}} template, its been the first thing you add, please slow down. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 21:42, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your recent edits to Fred Cowan when you modified the page, you introduced unknown parameters. Just because you specify |some_param=some_variable does not always mean that variable will display. The |some_param= must be defined in the template. You can look at the documentation for the template you are using but it is also helpful to use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and ensure that the values you have added are displaying correctly. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the page will look like without actually saving it. It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Thank you. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:49, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Darkwarriorblake. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Back to the Future have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:31, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Girth Summit _(blether) 23:16, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are several warnings about edit warring above, but you seem not to be getting the message. Your recent editing at Back to the Future was not ok. You knew your edits were contested, but you ignored that and reinstated them. This is a very short block - if you continue in the same vein when it expires, you may find the next one is substantially longer. Knock it off. Girth Summit _(blether) 23:22, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You were correct to self revert here. If you hadn't, Id be imposing a longer block now. You need to stop impulsively reverting people who revert you. If someone reverts your edit, do not reinstate it - go to the talk page and discuss it. Girth Summit _(blether) 06:24, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

non-NPOV or vandalism. The Back to the Future edits were also added in modified fashion by someone else during the period I was blocked.MyGosh789 (talk) 06:29, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing whatsoever that I can see in the edit you reverted to make me suspect it was either POV-pushing or vandalism. You will not be successful if you try to use that as an excuse in similar situations in the future. I'll add that I have no interest in the content of your edits to Back to the Future - I didn't read them. What I noticed was you repeatedly undoing other people's reverts of your work, when they were trying to explain their position to you on the talk page (of a featured article, no less). That's the problem - when your edits are contested, the onus is on you to gain consensus for them, not on the person who reverts you to convince you that you are wrong. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:56, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why reply at this point in time? The edit also re-included in modified form by a completely different user.MyGosh789 (talk) 17:00, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand the question. If it's "why are you replying at this particular time?", that's when I happened to log in, and saw that you had responded to my message from this morning. If it's, "why are you replying at all?", that's because I want you to understand that edit warring is not OK, and at this point in time I'm not sure that you do. Your comments suggest that you think editing warring can be in some way validated by an impression that someone else is pushing a particular POV, or that someone else comes along and agrees with you after the fact. I'm trying to make sure you understand that they are not. Exemptions are listed at WP:3RRNO, and your vague hand-wave at vandalism would not be sufficient to qualify for an exemption. I'm not trying to intimidate you, I'm trying help you avoid you getting blocked again in future. Once more, I reiterate: when someone reverts your edit, do not reinstate it - go to the talk page and gain consensus. I hope that's clear. Girth Summit _(blether) 19:10, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, so now I find myself in the position of having to revert your edits myself. I'm going to give you a link, and I'm going to implore you to read it: WP:SYNTH. There is no sense in which the source you used in that edit supports the content you added, without you independently linking the two concepts. That is fundamentally Not What We Do. We summarise existing sources about a particular subject. Where the sources don't exist, we stay silent. if you have to use critical facilities to link two subjects, don't make the link.
• Apologies for failing to sign my last post. One more piece of advice for you: please read WP:LOUTSOCK. I've noticed that you quote often fail to log in to edit. That is not, in and of itself, a breach of policy, but when it is done deceptively to evade scrutiny, it is what we call WP:LOUTSOCKing. If you have already edited an article under your account, please be careful to ensure that you don't edit it again while you are logged out - it could give the impression that you are trying to present as two different people. I hope this is clear. Girth Summit _(blether) 22:03, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Someone is obsessed with following me for some reason.MyGosh789 (talk) 22:05, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're not giving me the impression that you intend to stop your disruptive editing. I could just indef block you now, but I wanted to give you a wake up call and get you to agree to knock it off. Girth Summit _(blether) 22:25, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have continued editing without responding here. This is now the last chance saloon. I am asking you to confirm that you have received the message, that you will refrain from edit warring, and that you will be more careful about logging in when you are editing a page you have been active on already. I am explicitly not asking for an apology, merely an acknowledgement that you have understood what I have explained, and an undertaking to abide by it. Your account may be blocked if you do not provide these assurances. Girth Summit _(blether) 01:07, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, you didn't ask for that. However, I don't need to edit war.MyGosh789 (talk) 01:16, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to me as "saloon" also isn't helpful. I do understand what you have explained though and will not edit war and can do WP:SYNTH. Though it is not the case on every occasion where my username is signed out, I also often get automatically signed out at times too, as the "sign me in for a year" thing isn't always working right.MyGosh789 (talk) 01:18, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't calling you a saloon - it's just an expression meaning it's someone's last chance, but if you didn't understand then I apologise for being unclear. I also get logged out occasionally, you just need to be careful about it. Thank you for committing to stop edit warring, whether you are logged in or not. Girth Summit _(blether) 08:49, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to the results of any national or sub-national election. This is a standard message to inform you that the results of any national or sub-national election is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:05, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even Seattle's local Fox station today acknowledged "only around half of the votes turned in have been counted so far."[4]MyGosh789 (talk) 23:34, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will not edit war, but this is an issue that even someone other than me will likely include in the article if I don't.MyGosh789 (talk) 23:36, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Akon, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 19:34, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:51, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Helena Moreno, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL and missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 02:25, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On 19 November 2025, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Kessler Twins, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Schwede66 23:07, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 03:03, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have your ever even seen Radio Bart? Aired on January 9, 1992, only three months before the 1992 Los Angeles riots, and featured Bart playing Larry the Looter and saying "stick it to the man" while doing so.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Apne-itN6gE] At the moment, I only want the matter to be looked into and yet included into the article until a reliable source connecting Radio Bart with the riots can be found.MyGosh789 (talk) 03:08, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given your recent edits and the history of this talkpage, I am considering indefinitely blocking you for ignoring warnings concerning original research. You have a much bigger problem than anything concerning the Simpsons and the riots. Acroterion (talk) 03:26, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Besides that, and the edit warring, there's the matter of intellectual laziness. If you would like to know whether the Simpsons et cetera, look it up. That's why God gave you the internet. Don't abuse Wikipedia talk pages to have other people do the work for you. "Obnoxious trivialization" was a valid comment. You keep saying "well look at the video" or, sillier still, "read the transcript", when you should know by now that you need secondary sourcing on Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 13:56, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Acroterion, I'm cleaning up the LA riots article and to my surprise I find the editor responsible for this, where they argue sourced content needs to be removed because they have thoughts about something in a movie, and insert other content without, apparently, understanding what the word "exploited" means (and "to" is not a preposition that can follow that verb). I'm not saying this to prompt you to drop the block on them--I'm saying this to confirm your point about original research. MyGosh, you are skating on very thin ice. Drmies (talk) 14:39, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Obnoxious trivialization" wasn't meant to be "nice," it's a reasonable response to the proposition that riots resulting in 63 deaths were inspired by a TV show, rather than by pervasive social and economic issues, and triggered by police brutality. This kind of "just asking questions" and "connecting the dots" belongs on the lower rungs of conspiratist social media, not on Wikipedia. I considered blocking right there, but since what I saw wasn't in article space I didn't. MyGosh789, there will be no more second, third or fourth chances. Acroterion (talk) 17:55, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles. This is a standard message to inform you that living or recently deceased subjects of biographical content on Wikipedia articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 14:08, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Noam Chomsky, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL and missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 19:27, 19 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Nicolás Maduro, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 18:57, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy! I just wanted to let you know I made changes to the Legal Issues section on the article due to incorrect information that was added in this edit that possibly violates Wikipedia's policy on false outing, with the citation you adding to the edit contradicting what you wrote (you wrote that Smith committed the hotel intrusion, with the article stating that it was an unknown person). If you believe it was correct, and have a citation for it, please re-submit it with the correct citation! Nigel757 (talk) 02:44, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Misinterpretations happen, and that is what I likely did. I like how you rewrote it, and I'll keep it that way. I guess all these recent celebrity sexual assault arrests and lawsuits over these past years in the wake of the Weinstein and Cosby cases caused me to judge too quickly.MyGosh789 (talk) 14:58, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, that's why I didn't want to jump to conclusions on your intent! Appreciate the clarification as well! Nigel757 (talk) 05:46, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Willis Van Devanter, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 15:31, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:MyGosh789: Could you modify the sentences below from the Anne Pramaggiore page to say that the court delayed her prison report date for medical reasons? The government didn’t oppose the delay due to medical reasons.

“However, Pramaggiore would not report to prison by the initially scheduled date of December 1, 2025.[10] Her prison report date was later rescheduled for January 12, 2026.”

It is the same citation sourced for these updates. The way it is written now makes it look like she decided not to report. The reason would allow this to be more balanced content. The same can be said for the last sentence in the lede section: “However, she has yet to be imprisoned.” Thank you! Marksherr16 (talk) Marksherr16 (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:17, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contribution(s). However, as a general rule, while user talk pages permit a small degree of generalisation, other talk pages such as Talk:Jacob Frey are strictly for discussing improvements to their associated main pages, and many of them have special instructions on the top. They are not a general discussion forum about the article's topic or any other topic. If you have questions or ideas and are not sure where to post them, consider asking at the Teahouse. Thanks. Qwerty123M (talk) 05:08, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your work today. Bearian (talk) 03:22, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

On 8 January 2026, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Michael Reagan, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. —Bagumba (talk) 07:31, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Janaury 2026 ICE Portland shootings. 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 – [[:{{{article}}}]]. 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 [[:{{{article}}}]]. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at [[Talk:{{{article}}}|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 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. 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. JTtheOG (talk) 01:05, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Operation Metro Surge, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL and missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 06:28, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MyGosh789. Thank you for your work on 2026 North Minneapolis ICE home shooting. Another editor, Mariamnei, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for your work on this article. Please establish notability as per WP:NEVENT. Thanks and have a great day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Mariamnei}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Mariamnei (talk) 08:15, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

{{Re|MariamneiThank you so much. I aim to establish notability with an expanded page. Other users should contribute too.MyGosh789 (talk) 08:32, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have included more detail to address its notability. Other editors can join in expanding the page too.MyGosh789 (talk) 08:50, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Elián González, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A bare URL and missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 03:50, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]