User talk:Juantheman96

Welcome!

Hello, Juantheman96, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to State Sponsors of Terrorism. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

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

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! GabeIglesia (talk) 04:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

References need to be added to the article, not to the wp:edit summary. Adding references is how we ensure that content is valid. Without references, a reader can not easily validate information and there is no presumption of accuracy. See Help:Referencing for beginners and Help:footnotes. This is covered by the Wikipedia policy of wp:verifiability (WP:V). Please wp:cite your edits with wp:reliable sources (RS). Per WP:V unsourced content can be removed. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 03:49, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Islamism sidebar

Why did you remove Gender segregation and Muslims (Gender Separation) from the Islamism sidebar? Does Islam not promote gender segregation? Also, why did you add anti-imperialism? While most peoples would tend to be against their land being occupied, Islam has, in the past, been the occupiers. As have most people with the power to be imperialistic. Given history, how is Islam itself anti-imperialistic? Please wp:ping me here. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 03:49, 3 November 2016 (UTC)yes Islam has a history of anti-imperialism and no islam the quran and the hadith does not support gender segregation[reply]

November 2016

Hello, I'm Parsley Man. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Template:Islamism sidebar have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Parsley Man (talk) 21:16, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Church attendance

FYI - I reverted your edit - someone had changed the commons image page (c:File:Church or synagogue attendance by state Gallup 2015.svg) description, without changing the image or supplying some referenced data to show why the change was necessary. (I've reverted that page as well). Ronhjones ^(Talk) 16:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Be aware

Removing warnings from your talk page does not remove them from the page history. When an admin shows up to block you soon, the warnings will be reviewed. Your absolute failure to discuss will also be a factor in your block. Sundayclose (talk) 22:06, 13 November 2016 (UTC) I'm sorry[reply]

Utøya

I undid your edit to Utøya as it was unreferenced. You need to add a reference to the body of the article. You can copy one from the Wiki page you mentioned in the wp:edit summary. However, please note that Wikipedia is not a wp:reliable source See WP:CIRCULAR. Adding references is how we ensure that content is valid. Without references, a reader can not easily validate information and there is no presumption of accuracy. To add a reference, please read Help:Referencing for beginners and Help:footnotes. This is covered by the Wikipedia policy of wp:verifiability (WP:V). Please wp:cite your edits with wp:reliable sources (RS). Per WP:V unsourced content can be removed. Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 22:09, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 2016

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at United Airlines Flight 93, you may be blocked from editing. Do not delete warnings from your Talk page, it is against policy. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia - you will be blocked from editing. David J Johnson (talk) 22:10, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for continued removal of material. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 00:16, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to The Internationale. DVdm (talk) 15:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Kendall Jenner. Sundayclose (talk) 16:02, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Category:Assassination of John F. Kennedy, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Sundayclose (talk) 20:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Nordic model. Sundayclose (talk) 23:48, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Italian colonization of Libya, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Sundayclose (talk) 23:57, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stop it???

You're the one violating one policy after another. You're about to be blocked again. In fact, you've already stepped over the line, so one more policy violation and you get blocked. Each successive block is for a longer period of time. Eventually the block is indefinite. Sundayclose (talk) 01:35, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 2016

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is only being used for vandalism. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:25, 18 November 2016 (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).

Juantheman96 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Insert your reason to be unblocked here

Decline reason:

You forgot to provide a reason. In your comments below, you indicate that you "need" to be unblocked and you deserve another chance. But you've already had multiple chances, all of which you threw away. Yamla (talk) 13:27, 20 November 2016 (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.

I need be unblocked because I deserve another chance and I don't want to vandalise again Juantheman96 (talk) 18:33, 19 November 2016 (UTC) The reason why I need to be unblocked because I understood what I did was wrong and I need to do some important edits that is citable and non-vandalism And not only that I need to be unblocked because I am not experienced in editing articles and this is my first year doing it Juantheman96 (talk) 19:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Juantheman96. 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. NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:17, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Juantheman96, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Sjö (talk) 20:15, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]