User talk:EJY257

November 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, you may be blocked from editing. ElKevbo (talk) 06:04, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Gemological Institute of America shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
This follows multiple reverts from an IP address. You have also reintroduced unsourced and poorly sourced content into other articles after being asked not to, and have failed to justify your reverts in the edit summaries. Verbcatcher (talk) 10:10, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Mastercard, 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. David J Johnson (talk) 11:47, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Visa Inc., 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 your sandbox for that. Thank you. David J Johnson (talk) 12:06, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I want to even add 18 with September 1958. Please.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Namecheap, you may be blocked from editing. You are edit warring and not supplying any sources, which are required. You are making exactly the same unsourced changes you were warned about when using IP:95.175.85.38. You will face a block if you continue. Thank you. David J Johnson (talk) 12:39, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is a valid source. The Namecheap agents told me. Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.140.129.37 (talk) 12:49, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As you have been told multiple times, you need to quote a valid, reliable, secondary source. Anything you have been "told" is only WP:OR and is not acceptable. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 13:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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 ~~~~}}.

Materialscientist (talk) 15:14, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Template:Z190 Largoplazo (talk) 11:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, they're all valid information.

We've been through this before. You have been found supplying false or unsupported dates in the past. You have been told of the need to supply sources. You continue to supply date after date after date claiming they're true without indicating a single source to verify any of them. "Because I said so" is not a reliable source. Largoplazo (talk) 11:53, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, but they're all 100% valid. Don't remove them and don't block me. These information are not from me. They're from on-line pages.

You need to cite the sources (not just say "I found them in sources"). See WP:Citing sources. Largoplazo (talk) 11:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I already did many times and they were all valid. Not from my own information.