Hello! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay. You are welcome to edit anonymously; however, creating an account is free and has several benefits (for example, the ability to create pages, upload media and edit without one's IP address being visible to the public).

Create an account

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

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Randykitty (talk) 17:18, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Waxworker. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Paget Brewster, 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. Waxworker (talk) 17:13, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And stop removing maintenance tags without explaining why. Thank you. Seasider53 (talk) 17:32, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to William Jefferson Blythe Jr., did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Aydoh8^[contribs] 14:25, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Jordana Brewster, 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. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:32, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Jennie Jacques, you may be blocked from editing. Bexaendos (talk) 17:44, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that one or more recent edit(s) you made did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit 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:

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a 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! JACKINTHEBOX • ^TALK 19:20, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Edmund Jenings (governor). All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 16:44, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't vandalize anything, I added referenced elements. 195.23.167.129 (talk) 16:45, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Gillian Jacobs has been reverted.
Your edit here to Gillian Jacobs was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links in references which are discouraged per our reliable sources guideline (see also this list of frequently-discussed sources). The reference(s) you added or changed (https://ethnicelebs.com/gillian-jacobs) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 19:27, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Wied-Neuwied. Robertjamal12 ~🔔 15:35, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't vandalize, I added more precise content. 195.23.167.129 (talk) 15:36, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.  Daniel Case (talk) 17:46, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I merely added the corresponding coats of arms to some articles. They're not unsourced, since they appear on the main article about the family. 195.23.167.129 (talk) 195.23.167.129 (talk) 17:47, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A family coat of arms must only appear on pages where its relevance to the topic is discussed, supported by a published source. Coats of arms must not be used for simple decoration. See MOS:IMAGEREL which says,

Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. Each image in an article should have a clear and unique illustrative purpose and serve as an important illustrative aid to understanding.

You can't decide for yourself that the coat of arms is relevant because of the family connection. WP:SECONDARY sources must make that connection for you. Binksternet (talk) 19:21, 13 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not decoration, and you can't decide for yourself that it's not relevant because of the family connection: since coats of armas are inherited, it's relevant to whomever is entitled to it, and its source is in articles related to the family. It's as much part of the article as a portrait. 195.23.167.129 (talk) 18:00, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. For most biographies, the coat of arms is only relevant if WP:SECONDARY sources comment on it. For historic barons, knights, earls, etc., a coat of arms is understood to be relevant. But non-military and modern people don't use it. Binksternet (talk) 18:31, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They're still entitled to them. The source is the automatic representation and succession. 195.23.167.129 (talk) 18:32, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Entitlement is not how this is decided. On Wikipedia, the image use policy is in effect. An image must be understood to be relevant. These things are only relevant if they were used by the person. For instance, there exists a coat of arms image for Teddy Roosevelt (File:Coat of Arms of Theodore Roosevelt.svg), but it is not used at Teddy's biography page because it has no bearing on his life or career. A 2010 discussion about the matter can be seen at Talk:Theodore_Roosevelt/Archive_3#The_coat_of_arms_of_Theodore_Roosevelt. Similarly, the coat of arms image for JFK is not used on his biography page.

If you want to insert a coat of arms image in a biography, you must satisfy MOS:IMAGEREL by showing that biographers discuss the coat of arms with relation to that person. Suitable context would be taken from the cited source, for instance the date that the coat of arms was created or bestowed, or times when the coat of arms was used explicitly by the person. Binksternet (talk) 19:25, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid, subjective and reinterpreted rules... 195.23.167.129 (talk) 19:33, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP, please follow the advice of others until you are at least a decent bit in your Wikipedia journey. We have rules that are built on around 20 years of writing an encyclopedia. You are right that some of them are flawed, but trying to change things without being here for quite a while would probably lead you to getting banned quite quickly. There are venues for discussing and proposing said change, but it's difficult to start a discussion if you don't understand why it exists or don't have an idea on how the encyclopedia works. Start with the introduction and try some tasks on the task center. You could be a valuable contributor, ping me if you need any help or have questions. Justiyaya 10:53, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 6 months for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:G.-M. Cupertino per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/G.-M. Cupertino. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  asilvering (talk) 06:42, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]