User talk:90tillinfinitydue

March 2022

Hello, I'm Bonoahx. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, British Jamaicans, 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 referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please ensure you add a reliable source for your claims to avoid claims of defamation. You may want to discuss what you wanted to add to the article on the article's talk page. Bonoahx (talk) 08:20, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bonoahx I was in the process of expanding the section and the Guardian article seems reliable I will make changes when I gather my other sources. 90tillinfinitydue (talk) 08:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Bonoahx

Hello, 90tillinfinitydue. You have new messages at Bonoahx's talk page.
Message added 09:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Bonoahx (talk) 09:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. FDW777 (talk) 09:43, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 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 ~~~~}}.  Black Kite (talk) 10:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Admins please refer to Koppite1 [1] edit history recently they have been hell bent on pushing the grooming narrative primarily onto Pakistanis along with the extremist label to the article Race and crime in the United Kingdom. FDW777 has willingly ignored the blatant agenda driven editing and use of newspapers and tabloids to add negative tropes to one community while deleting anything negative to do with Black community in London. If this is not bias and favouring one editor or group over the other than what is ? FDW777 has the audacity to say I contradict myself while they gave a pass to Koppite1 to spread negative tropes and smear other groups please take this into account before making a decision as FDW777 will not tell you the whole picture. 90tillinfinitydue (talk) 10:03, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Child_grooming into Race and crime in the United Kingdom. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 15:14, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

Please familiarise yourself with the tenants and policies of Wikipedia before attacking editors. You have already been blocked for Edit Warring and your edits seem to indicate you are not here to work collaboratively.

edit fails to apply WP:AGF.

edit is a clear case of of WP:NPA.

edit manages to combine failures on both counts.

We work collaboratively, if you cannot you will find yourself involved in more WP:ANI than is good for you. GimliDotNet (talk) 15:24, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I think my issues with Koppite1 is due to it mostly being a single purpose account and they admittedly use what aboutism to push a certain narrative the user does not even hide the fact they add things in retaliation and their intentions are insincere when it comes to these crime topics. They clearly tried to smear an entire group of people based on what seems to be childish arguments about other things exist the intention was clear and I responded in turn in the same way they did. Now moving on I think undue edits from a single purpose account should be reviewed and monitored I do apologise if you feel I have been unreasonable. 90tillinfinitydue (talk) 16:22, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

don’t worry about notifying me, this page is on my watchlist so I will see any edits. I have also had issues with that user but we must still assume good faith and not make personal attacks. If the behaviour of the account is concerning it can be brought to the attention of the Admins or other users and they can give input. GimliDotNet (talk) 17:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See also links

Hi, you've added Crime in Jamaica to the "See also" section of the Jamaica article at least twice in the last 3 months. Per WP:NOTSEEALSO, "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body.". If you believe there's a good reason that this link should appear in the See also section when it's already linked in the article, you need to make your case on the article's talk page, and await a consensus to add it back. Thanks. BilCat (talk) 06:23, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}.  Bishonen | tålk 11:43, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• A more detailed block rationale is provided here. Bishonen | tålk 11:44, 23 July 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Nangparbat per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nangparbat. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

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 ~~~~}}.  Girth Summit _(blether) 13:25, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]