User talk:Ajax1995

Welcome!

Hello, Ajax1995, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! CHECK THIS OUT FOR TIPS, I'M NOT SO OLD IN WIKI SO I HOPE TO SHARE WITH YOU WHAT I HAVE GOT SO FAR. Crosstemplejay 18:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC) crosstemplejay

Disambiguation link notification for July 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Uncertain (album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Uncertain (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:52, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

March 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Lynda Thomas may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

such as "[[Tu Nombre (Alissa song)|Tu Nombre]]", "Vuelve El Sol a Brillar" and "[[Despues De Ti]]"); she is the sister and recurrent collaborator throughout the whole career of Lynda, she always

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2014

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, Ajax1995. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Lynda Thomas. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lynda Thomas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Whale Sanctuary. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:01, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Romeos, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ian Pringle. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:54, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 2016

Your recent editing history at Madonna shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Krimuk90. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Julianne Moore 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 the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please don't remove well-cited information from FA-quality articles without discussing them first. Cheers! Krimuk|90 (talk) 18:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to remove Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, you may be blocked from editing. GSMR (talk) 16:33, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summaries

Please tone down your edit summaries. There's no need to display such hostility towards other editors editing in good faith. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:04, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kanye West

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Kanye West.

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 notice boards.
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, you may be blocked from editing. GentleCollapse16 (talk) 15:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that, despite your strong and obnoxious opinion that xyz information should be removed from the Kanye West page, you don't actually own Wikipedia, and, it being a collaborative enterprise, one requires consensus from a majority of editors and basic rationality to back the removal of sourced (and blatantly relevant) content, right? GentleCollapse16 (talk) 17:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Kanye West. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
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; 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. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 16:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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:Ajax1995 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: ). Thank you. Dr. K. 16:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do read this. Flyer22 has made some good points.

WP:BLP applies everywhere, including edit summaries
Removals of content should be made judiciously, keeping an eye on how surrounding text is affected
Continuing to edit war across articles is going to draw the attention of admins, sooner than later, resulting in a block for you

Some articles need to be trimmed, there's no doubt about that, but often these trims need to be made working together with other editors rather than unilaterally. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:56, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Daphne Zuniga, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Slasher. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:09, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Selma Blair, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anne Winters. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Gabriel

Hey Ajax1995, I too am a big fan of Juan Gabriel, but I just wanted to remind you that you still need to provide sources for the statements you are putting on his article even if they are true as per WP:V. Erick (talk) 16:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1992 Summer Olympics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mike Moran. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:32, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your continual reckless removal of material

Looking at your recent edit history, I see that you are still recklessly removing material and edit warring over the removals even after the #Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion section that Dr.K. started above and what NeilN stated in it.

If we look at this, we can see that you removed some important summary information from the lead. While, per WP:PEACOCK, we should avoid "Latin Grammy Award-nominated," there was no need for you to butcher the lead. I restored a piece of what you removed. We can see with this edit that Karst understands the WP:Lead guideline. Your edit also removed information from lower in the article that looks like it should be there.

In this case, Matieszyn was right to revert you. You removed a lot of content that should very well be in that article. Most of that is not trivia. I've reverted you.

You need to stop editing like this. I reiterate that some of your edits are good, but you are still being quite reckless and are too often editing from a WP:IDON'TLIKEIT point of view. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if I entirely agree with that assessment @Flyer22 Reborn:. The Fey issue was featured in an ANI and was dealt with there, what you point at is an editing conflict that I choose to ignore and posted in the ANI instead. This to avoid further edit-warring.

The part of the sentence you restored "is a pop artist who became a pop teen idol for Latin America in the mid-1990s" is vague. I changed this today to note her origin. The source for her being vegetarian comes from PETA and is an archived one; we need more reliable sources to ensure that is correct. Not saying PETA is wrong, but a listing of the World's Sexiest Vegetarians from 2008 is not sufficient.

I have not edited the Anahí page so I cannot comment on the content. However, looking at the history of the page I do notice similar edit-warring as opposed to finding consensus on the Talk page. I too would encourage Ajax1995 to pursue this route. Karst (talk) 15:28, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two discretionary sanctions alerts

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. Bishonen | talk 16:55, 7 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. Bishonen | talk 16:55, 7 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

I'm concerned about your recent removals of sourced content in Hillary Clinton, and Donald Trump. Also about your tendentious edit summaries, and actually not least about the guidelines you refer to. WP:EDITORIALISING has precious little to do with this removal, and your reference to WP:SAID for this is completely baffling to me — did you ever click on it? If you're not aware of a relevant policy or guideline to refer to for an edit, please don't just add some alphabet soup at random. Bishonen | talk 16:55, 7 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

Too thankful

The way you use the thanks function devalues it.[1] I see a user complaining higher up on this page about pointless thanking, apparently feeling it as harassment. Don't thank me again, and please be a lot more careful with other people, too. Bishonen | talk 17:17, 7 November 2016 (UTC).[reply]

mmmm, well, normaly, I do not use this function, maybe each month or when a revision is useful in my opinion, but some people may be suffering some kind of health condition, anxiety disorder or a severe persecution delirium that in some cases, it can trigger an unprecedented explosive reaction to a simple "thank"; I promise that I will be very careful to this, I see that to thank some revisions may have irreparable consequences. Regarding to your advices, I will take it into account for future editions. Good election day! Ajax1995 (talk) 17:01, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Talk page stalker) This is truly sad, to see someone admonished for thanking others. The linked thanks log shows four thanks in one day, which seems ENTIRELY normal. Reaming someone out for thanking others is uncivil behaviour, administrator or not. 104.163.154.161 (talk) 22:49, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Ajax1995. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that a recent edit of yours to the page Lynda Thomas has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. Thank you. Karst (talk) 16:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ajax1995. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bbb23 (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have revoked your access to this page because of the personal attacks and polemics. You may use WP:UTRS for appeals.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I saw what appeared to be socking from this editor at one article (at the moment, I can't remember which one), but I let it go because I knew that it wasn't enough evidence and because this editor was just too much to deal with (as should be clear by earlier commentary from me above). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:27, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]