User talk:Mi600740

Hello, Mi600740, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to List of James Bond films. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

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

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

Please remember to

Hello, I'm CatcherStorm. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to List of James Bond films has been undone because it did not appear constructive. 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. CatcherStorm ^talk 20:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I have reverted your addition of an infobox at
  WP:NOCONSENSUS for an infobox should you discuss the matter at the talk page and obtain one before restoring it to the article. Also, I noticed you changed various figures in the article without providing a source. It is important that all data is sourced to be consistent with Wikipedia's WP:Verifiability policy. Betty Logan (talk) 08:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Hello! Mi600740, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 02:30, 1 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who ever thinks about undoing or deleting any of the hard work and extensive research I had to do on my user page will have to reconsider. Because the page belongs to me, my personal property and please leave it alone and please stay away from it as warning, as caution. I don't want to face the past with I editing articles and people undoing them. So again, please pause, turn away and reconsider when encountering my user page, don't touch it. Thanks (Mi600740 (talk) 04:23, 2 January 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Betty Logan, do you know why SchroCat retired? --Mi600740 (talk) 06:15, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to a page, specifically

Please do not remove AFC decline notice or AFC comments. It doesn't increase the likelihood of acceptance, but it makes the review process harder. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more careful when you update figures at List of highest-grossing films. In doing so you also altered the reference format. All references are formatted in the standard way in the article (i.e. author, title, year, edition/journal, publisher, isbn) to meet the requirements of the Featured List criteria. When you update figures on that list you only need to update the access date; it is not necessary—and often counter-productive—to alter other parts of the reference. Betty Logan (talk) 10:43, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at List of highest-grossing films. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. - Arjayay (talk) 08:44, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated

--Mi600740 (talk) 06:18, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Since you really want it spelling out... [1]. Personally, I'd
  ^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 09:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

--Mi600740 (talk) 20:35, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also please answer this, do you even know Wikipedia is an untrustworthy site because teachers and other educators might the think the same since schools are taught not to use Wikipedia as a source for any research that they do for school or college or even a university. And, no I am not letting go of any of my arguments. If I really want to, I can give you an overwhelming amount of proof of my arguments. Please don't tell me that I should on quote "drop the stick" and don't block me.

Thanks Mi600740 (talk) 20:41, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please fix your signature so it complies with

Hello NeilN ^{talk to me}, I took a look at the article on how to fix my signature, but apparently, whatever method I used, the signature never appeared to be correct, please help me. Oh, never mind I knew what it was, how silly of me, I checked on a box in my user profile setting under user signature which comprimised with my desired signature whenever on talk pages.

--Mi600740 (talk) 06:16, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read

Your recent editing history at User talk:SchroCat 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 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. – SchroCat (talk) 00:43, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the last edit there SchoCat, I was trying to compromise with you by removing most of the content which made the user page look like a poor article. Ever since I have used Wikia Fandom I felt like I didn't need for the content to be here, but instead have it on the Fandom so I wouldn't need to have the article here. I could have it somewhere else. i could also see why the article was poorly written because everything was so inconsistent. I mean the way the villains and the cars were put together in that hideous timeline was appalling to me so I had merged some of the data onto an existing Fandom article so I would appear much cleaner and with more adequate grammar. See I have changed since I have last contacted you. (Mi600740 (talk) 00:51, 5 July 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Also, SchroCat, please see to my unfinished Draft of the next Bond film and tell me how it looks so far. Please. Do it please. Don't delete this message I'm begging you and I apologise profusely for my reckless actions.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called

page-specific restrictions

, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the

Arbitration Committee's decision here

. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 17:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called

page-specific restrictions

, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the

Arbitration Committee's decision here

. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 17:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.

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 ~~~~}}.  —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 17:33, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the few years struggling to have my contributions validated have been a intresting journey for me for I shall retire from Wikipedia as a user. I don't care to make anymore edits on articles as Wikipedia continues to push liberal bias. I don't edit here often anymore anyway. I have better things to do. I always didn't like here anyway.

Farewell (Mi600740 (talk) 18:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC))[reply]

1000 Women in Religion: A Wikipedia edit-a-thon at "Atla Annual 2019" in Vancouver, British Columbia

The 1000 Women in Religion Project is working to improve the coverage of women’s contributions to religious, spiritual and wisdom traditions worldwide. In support of this goal, the edit-a-thon at Atla's (formerly the American Theological Library Association) annual meeting will focus on improving articles about women in religion. We would love to have a few Vancouver area Wikipedians to help us get new editors oriented and editing!! Wednesday, June 12, 2019 8:00am-12:00pm Sheraton Vancouver Wall Centre 1088 Burrard Street, Vancouver, British Columbia V6Z 2R9 Canada For more details or to sign up, see: Wikipedia edit-a-thon at "Atla Annual Meeting" in Vancouver, British Columbia. For security reasons everyone attending the edit-a-thon must pre-register with Atla here or on our Vancouver Meetup page by May 31st. For questions, please contact: Dzingle1

Dzingle1 (talk) 02:39, 25 May 2019 (UTC)Dzingle1 (talk) 21:52, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]