User talk:Blackbirdxd

Hello, Blackbirdxd, and welcome to Wikipedia!

An edit that you recently made to NordLink seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox.

Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:53, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Tbhotch. I noticed that you recently removed content from Slovenia without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 23:28, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Euronet Worldwide. Thank you. Barkeep^Chat 14:24, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, you were incredibly rude when reverting an edit I made on Euronet Worldwide, telling me to "f@#k off" in your edit summary. Wikipedia's code of conduct includes Civility as well as assume good faith like Barkeep mentions above. Thanks!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.113.174 (talk) 19:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]  

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to assume bad faith when dealing with other editors, as you did at Ariane 5, you may be blocked from editing. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Barkeep^Chat 05:24, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain to me how the Ariane 5 edit is disruptive. Blackbirdxd (talk) 11:42, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see above. While your edit has a point, you can't insult other users for disagreeing with them. Wikipedia has a policy of civility and against personal attacks. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 11:46, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I see in a recent addition to European Union energy label you included material from a webpage that is available under a compatible Creative Commons Licence. That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying from compatibly-licensed material in the future. — Diannaa (talk) 13:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have no WP:COI or any association whatsoever with this article subject. As pointed out by another user in a previous revision/revert, I'm following Wikipedia Policies WP:NPOV and WP:CRITS. Moreover, the meat of the content you want included (events associated with Prague and Amsterdam) is just being repositioned in the article and excluding the "criticism" section (per WP:CRITS). There is no censorship with my edits. If you disagree with this point of view, before reverting again to your version, please discuss on the article's talk page to obtain an community consensus on the matter, or if you feel this is not an adequate solution, please seek out a dispute resolution request. Thank you. Barkeep^Chat 22:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't have WP:COI why are you so invested in such a insignificant article for over 12 years? The WP:CRITS argument is pure nonsense, if you actually read WP:CRITS you'd see that Criticism sections are "discouraged" and not prohibited. And in this particular case I believe it's well warranted. It has reliable sources, it's written completely factualy and indiscriminately and most importantly it's something that the general public should know. Do you want more people getting scammed, is that it? I've seen hundreds of popular articles on Wikipedia with dumber things written in Criticism sections but pointing our that a company is deliberately scamming people is apparently too much. Feel free to file for dispute resolution yourself. Blackbirdxd (talk) 15:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've sought out a 3rd opinion and have moved the discussion to the talk page. Barkeep^Chat 15:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit here, I reverted some information that appears to be a violation of our copyright policy.

I provided a brief summary of the problem in the edit summary, which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. This should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask.

I do occasionally make mistakes. We get hundreds of reports of potential copyright violations every week, and sometimes there are false positives, for a variety of reasons. (Perhaps the material was moved from another Wikipedia article, or the material was properly licensed but the license information was not obvious, or the material is in the public domain but I didn't realize it was public domain, and there can be other situations generating a report to our Copy Patrol tool that turn out not to be actual copyright violations.) If you think my edit was mistaken, please politely let me know and I will investigate. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand what's the problem, the link you provided has nothing to do with my edits, everything was taken from the official website(http://www.emsa.europa.eu/about/administrative-board.html ) which states "Reproduction is authorised, provided the source is acknowledged, save where otherwise stated."(http://www.emsa.europa.eu/disclaimer.html).Blackbirdxd (talk) 15:56, 19 January 2021 (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 (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. 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.

Funcrunch (talk) 15:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please join the discussion at Talk:Car#Lead image. There's several proposals but none of them favor an expensive luxury car. Your edit summaries are not helpful in understanding your intentions, but regardless, the place you need to be is at Talk:Car#Lead image seeking consensus with others on this article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:48, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Eurocopter Tiger 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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.

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. BilCat (talk) 20:28, 21 January 2021 (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 Eurocopter Tiger. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. BilCat (talk) 20:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Eurocopter Tiger ; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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.

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. discuss the issue on the article talk page - not just by blindly revertingNigel Ish (talk) 22:18, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at United Kingdom. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Keep in mind WP:CIVIL. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 20:32, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Eurocopter Tiger 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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.

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. McSly (talk) 19:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In a recent edit to the page 2022 FIFA World Cup, 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. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When you make an edit to include something in an article, and then somebody reverts that edit, what you do next is to not put that content back in the article. What you do next is to go to the article talk page and discuss why you believe your content is relevant for inclusion, as explained at WP:BRD. Suggesting that the other editor is reverting you because of "hurt feelings" is a personal attack, as is suggesting that you are being reverted due to nationalism. You have been asked, repeatedly, to bring your discussion to the article talk page, instead you have been attacking other editors and have edit-warred to include the wording you desire in the article. Accordingly, you have been blocked from editing the article Eurocopter Tiger (a partial block) for a period of one week; you are expected to discuss your desired changes and establish consensus for their inclusion, or exclusion, during that time. Use of personal attacks in that discussion, or a resumption of edit-warring once this parblock expires, can be expected to result in an immediate full block. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Treaty of Lisbon 2007 Group Photo.jpg, which you've attributed to Miguel A R Lopes. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [email protected], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{permission pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [email protected].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. Here is a list of your uploads. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 14:16, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Srebrenica genocide. has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 4 § Srebrenica genocide. until a consensus is reached. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:32, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]