User talk:Hmdwgf

Welcome!

Hello, Hmdwgf! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Squash Racket (talk) 06:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Jim Clark

Thanks for your additions to this article. There seems to be a spelling error (only one 'n' in finesse) and a missing word (should be 'caressed it into doing'?). Could you check against your source and, if I am right, correct the quote. Could you also add a reference to the quote - see WP:REF for the guidance and articles like Brabham BT19 for a practical demo. Many thanks. 4u1e (talk) 12:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Sebring International Raceway 1967-1982.gif

Thanks for uploading File:Sebring International Raceway 1967-1982.gif. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Peripitus (Talk) 12:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1970 1000km of Brands Hatch

Hello Hmdwgf, I just thought I'd let you know that I saw your article 1970 1000km of Brands Hatch in the New Articles list-- The layout of the article makes it very clear.However, I think the article seems to contain a few errors: the references in the article do not follow Wikipedia guidelines. There is a tutorial on formatting citations at Wikipedia:Referencing.It would be great if you could also improve the related article Chevron Cars.

And have a beautiful day! Cheers, Amy Z (talk) 03:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Sebring Raceway 1967-1982.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Sebring Raceway 1967-1982.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 23:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for an Interview

Hi Hmdwgf,

I recently sent you a message about 1970 1000km of Brands Hatch.

I am a researcher at Carnegie Mellon University examining how to make interaction in Wikipedia more effective. Our research has shown that certain types of feedback encourage Wikipedians to edit more while others seem to discourage them. Experienced and less experienced Wikipedians seem to have different reactions to very similar feedback. I am interested in interviewing you about your reaction to the message I sent you. A discussion with you will help us better understand the types of feedback that can encourage newcomers's participation to Wikipedia without turning off old-timers.

I can talk with you via online chat, on Skype, over the phone, or just through Wikipedia messages if you are more comfortable with that. The interview should take take less than 60 minutes. You do need to be over 18 years old, and consent to be a part of the study in order to for me to interview you. This study has been approved by Carnegie Mellon's research ethics committee (the IRB), and the Wikipedia Research Committee.

Thank you for your time, and I look forward to hearing from you soon. We will be glad to send you a draft describing our research results right after the interview.

Amy Z (talk) 15:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Corleone

Please refrain from making unconstructive revisions to Wikipedia, as you did last night – Michael Corleone – your most recent editing would appear to constitute possible vandalism and has been reverted.

Regards -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 08:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for causing any problems, but have you even seen any of those films? --Hmdwgf (talk) 17:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No trouble at all, my friend (I hope) – and yes, I have, each one, four or five times after seeing them in the cinema. I have the 25th anniversary box-set on good old-fashioned video tape. All the best! Kind regards, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (GG-J's Talk page) 17:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Postscript: Ha ha! I'll let you keep Kay! Left you a note there. Let me know that you've seen this please. Cheers! -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (GG-J's Talk page) 21:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free file File:Targa Florio 1906-1911, 1931.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Targa Florio 1906-1911, 1931.jpg. The file is currently tagged as non-free and has been identified as possibly not being in compliance with the non-free content policy. For specific information on the problems with the file and how they can be fixed, please check the message at File:Targa Florio 1906-1911, 1931.jpg. For further questions and comments, please use the non-free content review page. Thank you. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 17:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On vandalism, crystal balling and AGF

Hmdwgf,

If you're going to accuse someone of improper editing practices, then I suggest that you actually familiarise yourself with the practices you are accusing them of.

Firstly, you suggested that I was making speculative edits. If you read the policy on speculative edits, you will see the following:

All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred.

The edits that I made are supported by four separate reliable sources - 1, 2, 3 and 4 - with the only difference being that the edits were made to temapltes, which do not use sources the way articles do.

Secondly, you suggested that my edits were vandalism, simply because I am a long-term editor should have known that they were speculative. However, if you look at the policy on vandalism, you will not the following:

Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Examples of typical vandalism are adding irrelevant obscenities and crude humor to a page, illegitimately blanking pages, and inserting obvious nonsense into a page.

Given that I have made the edits with four separate reliable sources in mind, and that I have been a long-term editor (who mostly sticks to editing pages rlated to the content I was adding), there was obviously no malicious intent. I suggest you familiarise yourself with assuming good faith, particularly this part:

It is the assumption that editors' edits and comments are made in good faith. Most people try to help the project, not hurt it [...] editors should not attribute the actions being criticized to malice unless there is specific evidence of malice.

So, just because you think an edit is out of place, that does not automatically make it vandalism.

Perhaps you should consider the bold, revert, discuss cycle. Instead of simply removing content that you think it objectionable, you should discuss it - because if a long-standing editor has put that material in, they evidently do not think that it is objectionable. So instead of removing that content and shutting down any opportunity for debate, perhaps you should consider coming to a consensus on the issue first. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 04:18, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Hockenheimring 1982-1989.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Hockenheimring 1982-1989.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 08:31, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to French Grand Prix 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:

ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns24864.html |title=2014 French grand prix possible > F1 News > |publisher=Grandprix.com |date=26 February 2013 |accessdate=2013-04-22}}</ref>
[[File:French GP map.png|thumb|400px|Map of the French Grand Prix locations)]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:35, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Grand Prix map

Phillip Island is not really in the Melbourne area, it's two hours away. Also Point Cook is in Melbourne and known today as RAAF Williams. Leyburn is as far away from Brisbane as Bathurst is from Sydney. And you say five parts of the country? Perth, Adelaide, Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane, Longford, that's six and that does not include Bathurst. Needs a few corrections. --124.179.98.190 (talk) 04:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. I apologize; I have to admit I personally have never been to Australia and I was conducting my research through other means. I will certainly make the corrections; and I am aware of the fact that Point Cook is now known as RAAF Williams but I have to refer to it as Point Cook because that's what the location apparently was known as in 1947. There are so many different locations, it's crazy, really. --Hmdwgf (talk) 04:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion for British Racing Motors V16

An article that you have been involved in editing, British Racing Motors V16, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Spiderlounge (talk) 15:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Brazilian Grand Prix 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:

{{about|the Formula One race}}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:37, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chapter titles

Well now you see why placing years in F1 chapter titles isn't such a great idea. Chapter titles aren't supposed to be a calendar or a timeline, just a sumary of the contents. --Falcadore (talk) 22:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Years act as good marker points of history. And yes but I never did anything nearly as spectacularly messy as the user in question. He listed just about every year all of the continential European Grand Prixs on all the seperate pages.--Hmdwgf (talk) 15:27, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hmdwgf!

Good to see someone else working on expanding the Moss article! The pic with Innes Ireland is a great addition. You'll see I've changed the content of the Mille Miglia section back to the version before your changes. I've given the reasons for my edits, both in the edsum and on the talk page, and I hope the explanations (based on WP:OR) are agreeable to you. It would be nice if you could add any additional verifiable and reliably sourced information to the article as there's still much room for improvement :) . Best wishes, Writegeist (talk) 18:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Madonie Medio 1919-1930.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Madonie Medio 1919-1930.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 18:25, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Hockenheimring 1990-1991.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Hockenheimring 1990-1991.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 19:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Andrea De Cesaris 1983.jpg

Hi Hmdwgf. I notice you recently created File:Andrea De Cesaris 1983.jpg at Wikimedia Commons. I was wondering why you named the file "Andrea de Cesaris 1983.jpg" - the original photo you cropped looks as though it was taken at the launch of the 1982 Alfa Romeo, so I would have imagined the photo was taken in 1982, not 1983. (Note: I have left a similar message at your Commons talk page - if you respond here (or on my talk page), you don't need to reply there as well). Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 03:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is the 1982 image; I got it wrong. Someone needs to change the name of the file. --Hmdwgf (talk) 04:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll organise it. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 04:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:FIFA World Cup Final Matches

Template:FIFA World Cup Final Matches has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Pee Jay 16:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Get rid of it. I didn't even know there was a navbox that already had all those matches. --Hmdwgf (talk) 20:36, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1994 FIFA World Cup Final

You didn't move it to the bottom of the article, you moved it to the bottom of the lead section. This isn't your fault, but that article is in a terrible state and needs properly expanding. Furthermore, you haven't provided any source for the fact that Al Gore presented the trophy. – Pee Jay 15:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't talk to me about improving articles. Nothing that I have seen you do here is constructive- only destructive. You better not keep this selfish attitude of yours up any longer- it doesn't help anybody. Hmdwgf (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments about Pasadena being near Los Angeles are totally irrelevant. What difference does it make that the venue is a few miles away from another large city? Furthermore, to add that statement immediately after Brazil's dedication of their win to Ayrton Senna is a total non-sequitur; the fact that the game was played in southern California has no bearing on the dedication or the fact that Al Gore presented the trophy. Finally, you can't just add a section header and expect that that makes a difference, especially when the section header you added is irrelevant to the content that comes beneath. In what way does the content of that section constitute a report? I will find a way to incorporate the Al Gore info, but your obsession with mentioning Los Angeles is somewhat concerning. – Pee Jay 17:40, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not care what you think. And I can maintain that attitude- the fact that the Rose Bowl is near Los Angeles is not as relevant as the match itself, obviously- but no one around the world knows where Pasadena, California is- but more people know where Los Angeles is. So why not add it? It gives creedence and even more vaildity to the match itself because it was played very close to a major American city- which has hosted the summer Olympics twice, no less, and is where Hollywood is. Do you know what is really cause for concern? I'm obssessive? You are Howard Hughes-obsessive compared to me. Your manic, obsessive, reckless and aggressive behavior on these World Cup articles, your obsession about something so small and unimportant, and your blatant edit-warring- which you have been warned for before, is cause for concern. Your behavior and attitude towards your editing, as I have said before, is totally destructive. Almost every edit anyone ever does that you don't personally like on these World Cup articles, you go after them- you impulsively redo the edits without looking through them or trying to find something in those apparent mistakes that could enhance these articles. But to be honest (this defeats the purpose of my argument, I know, but I'm throwing it in anyway, because I'm sinking to your level right now) this is argument is utterly stupid- it's such a small detail- that Los Angeles and Al Gore edit I included it does nothing but slightly enhance that article- why are we arguing over it? I am only defending what I have done, I can't speak for you. And also- that Ayrton Senna thing- that has been on that for some time- I didn't include it. Once again, reckless. Remember what I said- if you change that edit on that article- I'm reporting you for edit-warring.Hmdwgf (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've clearly missed the point of what I was saying. I'm not saying the Ayrton Senna fact is irrelevant. It's unsourced, sure, but that's easily remedied. My problem is with the way you seem to want to follow Ayrton Senna with an odd comment about how big the stadium is, then you completely change tack again by mentioning Al Gore. None of it fits together! – Pee Jay 20:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, OK, fair enough. I will come up with a new way to format that paragraph.Hmdwgf (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KAL 007 Infobox

"Infobox Airliner accident" has been deprecated in favor of "Infobox Airliner occurrence". E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_Airliner_accident now redirects to Infobox Airliner accident. I respectfully request that you revert Korean Air Lines Flight 007 back to my conversion to the new Infobox standard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michaelmalak (talk • contribs) 00:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft accident infobox

The infobox is for a simple statement of the cause not for an extended list of everything that may have contributed, if you want to change the current consensus on how this field is used on these articles you are welcome to raise at the aviation talk page, thanks. MilborneOne (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cities that have hosted a FIFA World Cup final match

Category:Cities that have hosted a FIFA World Cup final match, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Sandstein 04:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Camp Nou 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:

all over Spain, including the opening match, where the traditional opening ceremonies took place (including the releasing of a dove. Before a 121,749 capacity crowd, [[Belgium national football

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm 8.21.180.41. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Isle of Man TT, 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! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. 8.21.180.41 (talk) 22:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Isle of Man TT. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Please do not add your own description to this article, as you have done for the second time. Wikipedia works on the basis of using published sources, not personal opinions.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) 20:59, 22 November 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) 14:05, 24 November 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) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

February 2016

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Brazil national football team. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Mattythewhite (talk) 02:35, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Castelloti

The event is conventionally referred to as Panamerica in English, e.g. here, hence the piped link to the article name. And your edit broke the ref again. Eagleash (talk) 21:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not. That is a spelling error on that reference article. Why don't you read further down the paragraph in that article, or do a google search? And the Carrera Panamericana is not referred to as the Carrera Panamerica in English- the Carrera Panamericana is referred to as the Carrera Panamericana in English, Spanish, Italian- any language on this Earth refers to the Carrera Panamericana as the Carrera Panamericana. Translated to English from Spanish, the Carrera Panamericana means "Pan-American Race". Please don't revert my edit again. --Hmdwgf (talk) 21:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016

This is a message, asking you to refrain from creating article pages about separate episodes of Top Gear (2002 TV Series). They have no notability to them whatsoever; if the show was a drama, sci-fi, fantasy, crime drama, any form of fictional show, the article would be fine if only to detail the plot, cast and crew of the episode. This show is a motoring magazine programme - times for Power Laps and Celebrity Segments are already covered by both List of Top Gear test track Power Lap Times and Top_Gear_test_track#Celebrity_laps, topics for the News Segments are out of date by now and inaccurate, and any opinions on a car (good or bad) should be compared on the main article for the car in question alongside those from other critics and reviewers.

Again, please refrain from making any more pages on episodes; if they are for the Specials not covered separately, then that is fine, so long as you can notably justify these being created. GUtt01 (talk) 10:36, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Top Gear (series 10, episode 1) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Top Gear (series 10, episode 1) 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/Top Gear (series 10, episode 1) until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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.

Reference errors on 27 September

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the List of films considered the worst page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RE: List of people barred or excluded from the United States

Hi. I had to revert your edits regarding Maradona as the entire thing is unsourced. Please read or re-read WP:RS. Thanks. Quis separabit? 21:07, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Hmdwgf. 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]

Saudia Flight 163

The section you added involving the Saudi King has been removed. The source for it is self-published and therefore fails WP:RS per consensus here[1]]....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 02:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Qatar Airways. Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:17, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Hmdwgf. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of people deported or removed from the United States

Not a bad job updating the list; hope you're gonna finish the list. You can never count on others finishing the work your start and it will look bad only half-done and likely be reverted. Yours, Quis separabit? 21:42, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Targa Florio 1906-1911, 1931.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Targa Florio 1906-1911, 1931.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Wcam (talk) 12:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Circuito delle Madonie Piccolo 1932-1936 1951-1977.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Circuito delle Madonie Piccolo 1932-1936 1951-1977.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Wcam (talk) 12:13, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Keith Newton (footballer), you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Unsourced content. Mattythewhite (talk) 13:58, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

June 2018

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to United Kingdom 2030 FIFA World Cup bid, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Jellyman (talk) 21:55, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Linking

The guideline on WP:OVERLINKs states "major examples of geographic features (e.g., the Himalayas, Pacific Ocean, South America)" should not be linked. I think that if South America is not normally to be linked, North America shouldn't be either. But if "there is a contextually important reason to link" it, we could link, but the article isn't about the geographic region, but about the tournament. If you have a reason to link it, feel free to explain it on the article's talk page and gain consensus to make the change. If you were to link it, you can do it like this: [[North America]]n. There' no need to pipe it the way you did. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:59, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

.... then why didn't you just correct my mistake instead of just reverting it? --Hmdwgf (talk) 20:02, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the whole thing and you'll understand. You still don't have a valid reason to link the major geographic feature. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at 2026 FIFA World Cup. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LA2028 apologies

Re. 2028 Summer Olympics article: On June 5th you spelled out the 4 winter games hosted in the U.S. and I reverted your good faith edit because I thought it was a bit over the top, but I had a change of heart this morning while editing that paragraph and I've reinstated the winter editions. Thanks, and credit to you. Rodney Baggins (talk) 07:46, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at 2018 FIFA World Cup, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Hhkohh (talk) 10:09, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. You are out of order speaking to me that way. I did not vandalize any page, nor would I vandalize any page on this site. That edit I made had everything to do with each image and the article image. Think about what you type before you type it. --Hmdwgf (talk) 01:22, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this edit is unnecessary to add. If you want to add like in xx, please go to talk page to gain consensus first Hhkohh (talk) 10:01, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to 1994 FIFA World Cup does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Hmdwgf. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018

Please do not add or change content 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. Tsumikiria (T/C) 06:08, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2019

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Edge (wrestler), 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. StaticVapor message me! 07:09, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:42, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 2019

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on WWE. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. StaticVapor message me! 02:05, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Edge (wrestler). StaticVapor message me! 19:28, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 2019

Thank you for your contributions. One of your recent contributions to Template:MotoGP races has been reverted or removed, because it contains speculative or unconfirmed information about a future event. Please only add material about future events if it is verifiable, based on a reliable source. ^{Babymissfortune} 04:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

August 2019

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on Randy Orton. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. StaticVapor message me! 18:07, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 2019

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to List of British Airways destinations, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Jetstreamer ^Talk 20:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Randy Orton. StaticVapor message me! 22:31, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at 2026 FIFA World Cup. 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 notice boards.
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. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:12, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2020

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 American Airlines Flight 191, 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. Thank you. Samf4u (talk) 13:58, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hmdwgf, Please keep the infobox summaries short and concise. - Samf4u (talk) 14:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020

Your addition to 1980 Formula One season has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 02:36, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to List of people barred or excluded from the United States. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 09:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add any unreferenced people to that article.--Hmdwgf (talk) 01:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say you did. You did add unreferenced information to the article to the pre-existing entry about Gerry Adams, which even if properly referenced was in direct violation of WP:BLPCRIME. FDW777 (talk) 15:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Morse page

Hi Hmdwgf. I just wanted to thank you for the additions you made to Alex Morse. The extra citation providing Morse's response helps Wikipedia show a more balanced point of view while still having all the necessary information. Gbear605 (talk) 05:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome.--Hmdwgf (talk) 06:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OVERLINK

How can you not know about WP:OVERLINK? "Unless a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article, the following are usually not linked ... The names of subjects with which most readers will be at least somewhat familiar. This generally includes major examples of ... countries". The United States in terms of this (or any tournament) is unnecessary to link. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:41, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I know about WP:OVERLINK. I linked the United States article because that was the country the 1994 FIFA World Cup happened in. I don't think linking the United States article is unnecessary, and it has obvious relevance. --Hmdwgf (talk) 08:38, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Dulles International Airport, 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. Nguyen QuocTrung (talk) 14:20, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2020

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to 2026 FIFA World Cup, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:20, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Assange

Hi Hmdwgf, You made a single change to the lead of Julian Assange on 26 December 2020‎, which describes him first and foremost as a computer hacker. This seems like a politically motivated change to influence public opinion days before the ruling on his extradition to the US. However I would like to know your motivation for making this change. Thank you Spreading Justice (talk) 08:49, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just felt his experience in computer hacking and his general knowledge of computer technology was worth noting. There was no political motivation on my end. Public opinion on Julian Assange has been as polarizing as it has been since his efforts with Chelsea Manning in 2010.--Hmdwgf (talk) 09:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also- this isn't a site on public opinion. You shouldn't come on this website if you intend to put your own bias on any specific individual- you'll get banned quickly.--Hmdwgf (talk) 09:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hmdwgf: This sounds a bit strange. The timing is also suspect. Why would you think that this is worth noting in the lead when it is already mentioned in the article? And why first? Implying that he is more of a computer hacker than an editor or publisher. The implications of this are massive. A simple google search then classified him as "Hacker" instead of "Editor". The major charge against him in his extradition request is for hacking - so this seems too coincidental. I don't have a bias for any specific individual, I just noticed this unfair and non-consensus change and fixed it. Spreading Justice (talk) 09:01, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Spreading Justice: First of all- I resent the implication that I am some anti-Julian Assange crusader- you have no concrete proof of this other than your own frankly delusional over-thinking of my so-called "motivations"- there was and is no political motivation on my end. You very clearly have pro-Assange bias- the fact that you even made your feelings clear about how "unfair" my edit was is concrete proof because this site is not about what you and only you think is fair and unfair- it is an online encyclopedia that is supposed to have neutral, factual information- and Assange is in fact known for activities related to computer hacking. Every edit you've made on this site as of when this response was written has been related to Julian Assange.

I don't want to talk about this anymore with someone who may have mental problems and needs professional help. Your thought process is disorganized and you seem to have paranoid delusions of me out to get someone you are clearly obsessed with- someone needs to get you off a computer and into a place where you can be helped. But if you can, please seek help.--Hmdwgf (talk) 09:43, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hmdwgf: Yes, you are right, I have no concrete proof. But someone wanting to represent the facts without any history of edits on a page making an unapproved change to the lead of that page which has consequences for public opinion on an upcoming ruling seems too strange. I don't know what your true motivations were, but they were probably not what you say they were. I'm not criticizing you as a person, although after your attacks on me I probably should, I'm just pointing out your highly suspicious edits to a page and questioning your motivation for it. Without any pro or contra Assange bias, your change, which was against consensus, given the timing of it, had an impact on public opinion and was detrimental to the subject. "Fair" it is not. Spreading Justice (talk) 11:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Christy Mack. Thank you. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Michelle Fairley. 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. FDW777 (talk) 08:00, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Coppa d' Oro delle Dolomiti for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Coppa d' Oro delle Dolomiti 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/Coppa d' Oro delle Dolomiti 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.

Mike Peel (talk) 21:06, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021

Your edit to Breedon Everard Raceway has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 12:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Autódromo Internacional de Luanda

Hello Hmdwgf,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Autódromo Internacional de Luanda for deletion, because it seems to be copied from another source, probably infringing copyright.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to rewrite it in your own words, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

John B123 (talk) 19:30, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Autódromo Internacional de Bogota moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Autódromo Internacional de Bogota, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:35, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable sources

Hi there. Please be mindful of adding unreliable sources to articles, as you did with this edit to Britt Baker. You can read through Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional wrestling/Sources for the full list of which professional wrestling sources are reliable. Thanks! KyleJoan^talk 08:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021

Hello, I'm KyleJoan. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Britt Baker, 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 the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. KyleJoan^talk 03:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Autódromo Internacional de Bogota

Hello, Hmdwgf. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Autódromo Internacional de Bogota, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 00:01, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Piper Niven. 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. Wario-Man ^talk 17:53, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

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) 00:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2022

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page. You have recieved numerous notices about this, yet you keep doing it. TylerBurden (talk) 20:56, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 2022

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia. FMSky (talk) 09:29, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 2022

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Targa Florio. FMSky (talk) 00:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:50, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Stadiums that have hosted a FIFA World Cup final match has been nominated for renaming

Category:Stadiums that have hosted a FIFA World Cup final match has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Dr Salvus 18:59, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Thomas DeSimone. FMSky (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ad Orientem (talk) 17:40, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You need to seriously tighten up your editing. WP:CITE is not optional. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:42, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 00:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Graham87 14:33, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this edit summary, where I reverted an edit where you added unsourced and badly sourced content (despite many many warnings about this over several years). Such extreme incompetence is not tolerated on Wikipedia; you are not welcome here. Graham87 14:33, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I've been on this website for 13 years and made thousands of edits over those years, and yes, I have had lots of warnings, and I have tightened up my editing- but a permanent block (let's face it, that's what this is) in this instance is way too harsh and I don't feel this is right. I feel like I got a life sentence with no parole for punching someone in the face, so to speak.

I provided sources on Ward Weaver III. According to this admin (and he's right), there was one mistake in that detailed edit that he pointed out that I had made in not providing a correct source for Wesley Rotteger (whom he referred to as "Rutger", and hence the mismatch), so this admin decided to go from 1 to 1000, delete my edit and then permanently block me from this website. Another example- the Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport and O'Hare International Airport changes: I simply changed the number of total gates because based on the cited number of gates, you add them up, and you get a number. Atlanta, for example. I changed it from 195 to 196 because 21+29+32+34+40+28+12=196, not 195.

I understand the block and I understand why I got blocked, and what I'm asking for is a non-permanent block. The last time I got blocked was for a week, and I feel 2 weeks to a month would be more appropriate. A permanent block is just way too harsh, and for someone who has contributed largely positively to this website over these years, I don't feel I have done enough at this stage over the years to warrant such a punishment, and I don't appreciate being told that I am "extremely incompetent" and that "I am not welcome here." I have contributed enough to make a positive difference on many pages on this website, and am always willing to improve my editing skills to this site's standards so that further blocks will be averted. --Hmdwgf (talk) 18:21, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Putting an end date on the block doesn't do anything to resolve the issues that led to the block. Blocks are not a punishment, but a means to prevent disruption to Wikipedia. The block can be removed when you can sufficiently assure us that the problematic behavior will not repeat. This request doesn't do that. 331dot (talk) 01:22, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

OK. I looked through the sources again, and a lot of them did not cover Ward Weaver III's family on his father's side. I willingly and carelessly did not provide enough or any reliable sources to my edits. That was a mistake- one I've made way too many times, and one I will never make again- if you have trouble believing me, all I have is my word. I consistently violated WP:Verifiability; I never took that seriously enough, and I will take it seriously next time- if there is a next time for me. This admin was justified in blocking me, he clearly felt like he was doing the right thing. But there are some things that admin got wrong with reverting my edits, and why I do not entirely deserve this block. Example 1: Again, I simply changed the number of total gates because based on the cited number of gates, you add them up, and you get a number. I changed the total number of gates on that article [195 to 196] because 21 + 29 + 32 + 34 + 40 + 28 + 12 =196, not 195. Same thing on the O'Hare International Airport article. I changed it [191 to 208] total gates, which was still wrong, as 50 + 41 + 79 + 40 = 210, not 208 or 191 as it is currently listed. Little things like basic math do count for something. I did forget to include sources for the bits about O'Hare and Atlanta airports being the busiest and second busiest respectively, which again, I will not do in the future. As hard as this may be to believe for some people, I am willing to learn from my mistakes, site my sources with cited, reliable information, not be a disruptive editor and prove that I am competent. Please message me back if there's anything you'd like me to do or if there is anything that needs to be done. Thank you.--Hmdwgf (talk) 05:06, 22 December 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Decline reason:

I accept your sincerity, but ... as you note, you've been editing for 13 years (albeit infrequently and intermittently). So it is somewhat troubling (as you seem to understand) that in the last six months, you got blocked three times for the same thing. It is much more likely in that situation, when the user is a registered account, that the next block be indefinite. A newer registered account might not even have been allowed to get that far. In sum, you got more than the usual chances, and still blew them.

"Indefinite" and "permanent" are not necessarily the same thing, no matter how much the Internet tries to make them be. The former means that there is a chance you can be unblocked. Permanence is more often the consequence of a formal ban by either ArbCom or the community, especially in the latter case. But even those bans have sometimes been lifted.

I think your case would be better served by leaving well enough alone for a while (like, not trying so hard to explain yourself in your unblock request ... your explanation about the gate arithmetic really isn't as relevant to your block as the fact that you went back to it like a moth to the flame. — Daniel Case (talk) 07:44, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

Hi. I am appealing my block. I willingly and carelessly did not provide enough or any reliable sources to my edits. I did that because I thought I could get away with it and that I would never face any real repercussions. That was a mistake- one I've made a lot too often, and it was wrong and not conducive to Wikipedia's growth and credibility as a worldwide source. It is a mistake that I will never make again. WP:Verifiability; I never took that seriously enough, and I will take it seriously next time- if there is a next time for me. This admin was justified in blocking me, he clearly felt like he was doing the right thing. Is there anything I can do to contribute to Wikipedia:Task Center that needs done? --Hmdwgf (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

As you now know and are certainly expected to know after nearly 14 years and 9,000 edits here, all information in Wikipedia is expected to be cited to a reliable source. Information on living persons is required to be cited inline, as misleading or incorrect information published here can have serious and severe real-world consequences for the persons affected. I am going to unblock you, however based on your recent editing history prior to your block, I believe it is prudent that as a condition of unblocking, you are topic banned from biographies of living persons. I will describe this further below. As always, repeating the behaviour which led to the block is likely to result in more serious sanctions, up to and including being banned from Wikipedia. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional unblock

As a condition of your unblocking, you are topic banned from the subject of living persons, broadly construed. You may not edit any page nor discuss any topic which concerns a living person, anywhere on the English Wikipedia, subject to the normal exceptions except I advise you not to depend on the exemption for reverting obvious vandalism to biographies of living persons, as doing so will likely be considered a violation of your ban. As an unblock condition, this sanction expires in one year, or you may appeal earlier to the administrators' noticeboard (see WP:STANDARDOFFER). Violations of this condition will result in your indefinite block being restored, and may result in lengthening the duration of your topic ban or expanding its scope. If you are not sure if an edit might violate this restriction, you are encouraged to ask before attempting the edit, as inadvertent violations will be treated as seriously as deliberate ones. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:17, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. OK. Great. Thank you so much. Hmdwgf (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 2023

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Sami Zayn, 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. General Ization ^Talk 03:54, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to provide a source before you changed it. Hmdwgf (talk) 03:55, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, you did not take the notice above seriously. You are not permitted to edit biographical articles concerning living persons here on Wikipedia. General Ization ^Talk 03:59, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I forgot about that. Hmdwgf (talk) 04:20, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]