User talk:BBB76

Welcome!

Hello, BBB76, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may be removed if they have not yet been. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. As well, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or you can type {{helpme}} on your user page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Musdan77 (talk) 04:40, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BBB76, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi BBB76! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Writ Keeper (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:15, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, BBB76. You have new messages at Musdan77's talk page.
Message added 17:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Reply --Musdan77 (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You either put your message in the wrong section or you thought that I'm talking to you in that section -- I'm not. Your edit on the main 19 Kids page was just fine. --Musdan77 (talk) 05:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're in the right section. :) --Musdan77 (talk) 18:31, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't ask questions in the edit summary about why your edit was reverted while at the same time reverting back to the way you had it. Use the talk pages. And please read WP:BRD. For now, I'll answer your questions: "As for the books, where would you put them?" Where they already are: Jim Bob Duggar. "Other TV shows reality/fictional have books listed, why not this show?" I don't think I've ever seen a TV series article with a list of books. Give me some examples. And it wouldn't go under "Availability". Availability means where you can see the show. --Musdan77 (talk) 04:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

March 2013

Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you. Are you deliberately going against Wikipedia MOS? (not a good move) First I tell you that my edit is to conform to MOS, but you ignore that; then I give 3 links to show how your edit was wrong. Did you read them? The only way to not follow MOS is to find consensus on the article talk page. You also continue to not follow WP:BRD (which means you are edit warring and that could get you banned). You were doing good for a while, but now you've reverted to your former ways. Please heed this warning. Musdan77 (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, you may be blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. You don't just violate one MOS but three? (not including edit warring). It would be better to remove the whole section (which really isn't necessary) than to make these violations. Also see: WP:REV Musdan77 (talk) 02:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at 19 Kids and Counting shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. --Musdan77 (talk) 03:06, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you make disruptive edits to Wikipedia contrary to the Manual of Style, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Musdan77 (talk) 21:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to be blocked? I've given several links to MOS guidelines showing why your edit is not acceptable, and if you still didn't understand, you could have asked me on my talk page, but I guess you didn't even read them. I also explained to you (with links) that you can't keep reverting and not discuss on talk pages, but you just ignore that. I've really been lenient with you, thinking that you were starting to understand the right way to edit -- and more importantly, how to (or how not to) work with other editors -- according to Wikipedia policy. But, to hopefully keep you from being blocked, I'm going to remove the section "Duggar appearances on other shows" (which I thought about doing for some time) because it really doesn't belong on this article about a TV show. But, you can't keep doing things like that. So, make this your very last warning. --Musdan77 (talk) 16:44, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again. How many times do I have to tell you this before you're finally blocked from the site? Do Not change back to the way it was before it was reverted -- especially without discussing it on talk page. --Musdan77 (talk) 16:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of 19 Kids and Counting episodes

It's either "Priscilla (Anna's sister) visits" or "Anna's sister, Priscilla, visits." Take your pick. But, "Anna's sister Priscilla visits" is poor grammar. And I have explained to you about Tokyo and overlinking. --Musdan77 (talk) 01:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Laura Secord, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bicentennial (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BBB76. You have new messages at Orlady's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your hostility toward content added by other users is not constructive

Your edits at United Bates of America, where you persist in deleting the indication that all 19 children were singleton births (because you say a person could figure that out for themselves by reading all 19 birthdates) do not suggest an interest in creating useful encyclopedic content. Wikipedia thrives on constructive collaboration. Your hostility toward other users' content is not constructive. You don't own the two articles about American megafamilies, and if you continue to act as if you do, you are liable to find your editing privileges revoked. --Orlady (talk) 03:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have made it clear that you don't like words with more than one syllable, and that you would rather study all of the entries in a 19-row table than look up an unfamiliar word in the dictionary, but your determined opinion that "A person has to read the information either way, let them read the birth chart I created, which is much easier to read then before" doesn't entitle you to remove content from United Bates of America. Don't force your learning style on everyone else. --Orlady (talk) 00:53, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

April 2013

Please do not attack other editors, as you did to User talk:Orlady. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Please drop comments like "Apparently you cannot read..." and "Do you have a job that requires you to use big/fancy words?" WP:AGF and fashion your comments constructively. Focus on the edits to be made and not on the contributors. – S. Rich (talk) 13:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. You need to read the edit summaries, then maybe you'd understand -- and if you don't then ask on talk page. And why do you continue to question my edits anyway? Have you seen my profile page? You should respect editors that have more experience than you. We make edits that we do because they are according to WP rules and standards. --Musdan77 (talk) 03:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, BBB76. You have new messages at Musdan77's talk page.
Message added 17:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Musdan77 (talk) 17:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Here we go again. You're doing it again -- fighting with me and ignoring what I say. Remember the last time, you came close to being blocked... Musdan77 (talk) 01:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Musdan77: What edit are you referring to? Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 01:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright considerations

Hello BBB76, and welcome to Wikipedia. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and a cited source. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied without attribution. If you want to copy from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.
The above is a template warning for new users. Although you aren't actually new, I think you will find this information helpful because I observed that some of your episode descriptions at List of 19 Kids and Counting episodes were very closely paraphrased from the source, and I think that you may not be aware that putting words in a slightly different order does not eliminate copyvio. Orlady (talk) 15:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed. Please consider this a warning: we take copyright very seriously and won't hesitate to block you if you continue to commit them. Drmies (talk) 21:40, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• BBB76, I agree that your words "Jim Bob and Josh decide to live a healthier lifestyle, so they challenge each other to see who can lose the most weight in 90 days. Meanwhile, Jason and his brothers decide to build a greenhouse." are not a verbatim copy of the source "Jim Bob and Josh decide to take their health more seriously and challenge each other to see who can lose the most weight in 90 days; Jason and the boys construct a greenhouse in the backyard." The problem is that minor wording changes, such as the ones you made, do not eliminate copyright violation. Please see WP:Close paraphrasing.

That is not the only place where your words have been too close to the source, but it's the one that is still in contention. In general, it seems to me that if you have seen the show, you should be able to revise the descriptions to include a bit more substance, rather than relying on promotional teasers. --Orlady (talk) 17:18, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of ANI discussion

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. The heading there is "BBB76 and TV megafamilies". --Orlady (talk) 21:31, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This has been archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive793#BBB76: disruptive editing in articles about TV megafamilies. --Orlady (talk) 18:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in edit wars to defend the copyvio text at List of 19 Kids and Counting episodes (see this edit) and to remove the text you don't like (see this revert) at United Bates of America. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. This behavior was an issue in the WP:ANI discussion noted above; you have been previously warned about it. --Orlady (talk) 16:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reference citations, copyright violations, and what Wikipedia is not

In one of your recent edit summaries at List of 19 Kids and Counting episodes‎, you asked "Orlady, how does one "expand" or "sign" on a website? Why put a reference for an episode that airs tonight?" This summary, coupled with other recent edits, makes me wonder if you get it.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. So that people can trust its content, there is a Wikipedia policy on verifiability that says that content here needs to be supported by reference citations to reliable published sources.

Content also needs to be the original work of Wikipedia contributors. Slight rewording of a source should be avoided because close paraphrasing is also a copyright violation.

If an episode has already aired, it's reasonable to suppose that the description of it was written by a Wikipedia contributor who has watched the episode. It's also OK to base the description here on descriptions published elsewhere, but the sources should be cited and they should not be copied or closely paraphrased. My comment about "expanding" on a website was my suggestion that if you have seen the episode, you should be able to say something about the content. "Expand upon" means "add to"; I meant that you should be able to add to (and change) the descriptions you got from the website.

If an episode hasn't ever been shown, then the information about it absolutely needs to be supported by a reference to a published source. Wikipedia is not a real-time TV guide. The fact that an episode will air tonight does not relieve of us of the obligation to cite a reliable source for its title and the description of the episode.

I don't know what you refer to when you mention "signing" on a website. I'm guessing that this part of your edit summary included a typo.

As for your edits at United Bates of America, where you have repeatedly removed text about the fact that all 19 children were born as singletons, what will it take to get you to realize that not everyone thinks like you -- and that many of us find it much easier to read a few short words than to study all of the dates in the entries in a 19-row table? As Drmies stated in his edit summary reverting one of your changes, "This is a helpful word for those who don't wish to look down the table to ponder the dates." Please remember that you don't own the articles you have edited, but when you act like you think you own them, you are being disruptive. Disruptive behavior that does not stop after repeated warnings is not tolerated here. --Orlady (talk) 17:36, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I've reverted your edits at List of 19 Kids and Counting episodes again: it's time to listen to Orlady's advice--they know Wikipedia and its guidelines. Reverting, or making more such problematic edits, will lead to a block. Drmies (talk) 17:41, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi. Please explain for me, as I seem to be very dense. How is verifiability supposed to be sustained when edits are done to Remove reference for tonight's episode? Yes, tonight's episode will no longer be in tomorrow's electronic TV guide, but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Please help me understand how deleting sources helps the encyclopedia. --Orlady (talk) 03:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright

Please read Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright and Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Neither of these is an easy read, so I'll repeat some key points:

• The absence of a copyright notice does not mean that a work may be freely used. If in doubt, assume you cannot use it.
• Seeing something on the Internet without a copyright notice does not mean that it is in the public domain.
• Copying material without the permission of the copyright holder from sources that are not public domain or compatibly licensed is likely to be a copyright violation. Even inserting text copied with some changes can be a copyright violation if there's substantial linguistic similarity in creative language or structure (this can also raise problems of plagiarism). Such a situation should be treated seriously, as copyright violations not only harm Wikipedia's redistributability, but also create legal issues.

Under U.S. copyright law, website content is considered to be protected by copyright unless there is an explicit indication of a free license or evidence that it is in the public domain (but TV guide information isn't going to be public domain). When you closely paraphrase content from online TV guides, you are potentially creating a copyright violation problem for Wikipedia. If you want to edit here, you need to be willing to follow policy -- and avoid edits that could create legal problems for Wikipedia. That's just the way it is -- and it's a serious matter. --Orlady (talk) 19:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Status

At List of 19 Kids and Counting episodes, the current descriptions for Season 11 look pretty good. (Thanks!) However, I found that the descriptions for some other seasons include a lot of copyvio of tv.com. I've edited a few descriptions to remove the issues, but I didn't get very far. The whole page needs attention. --Orlady (talk) 20:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, BBB76. You have new messages at Davejohnsan's talk page.
Message added 07:14, 27 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

—MelbourneStar☆^talk 07:14, 27 April 2013 (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.

May 2013

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring at List of 19 Kids and Counting episodes and United Bates of America. 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 appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Bbb23 (talk) 17:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for resumption of edit warring after expiration of block, as you did at United Bates of America. 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 appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Bbb23 (talk) 23:54, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at List of 19 Kids and Counting episodes, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Deleting valid reference citations, as you did in this pair of edits, is a serious form of vandalism. Are you deliberately trying to get yourself a long-term block? Orlady (talk) 18:58, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blanking

What's blanking and what does that have to with fixing mistakes? Do you ever have normal conversations with people on here? BBB76 (talk) 21:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at List of 19 Kids and Counting episodes, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. "Blanking" is part of the standard warning template. It refers to large-scale removal of content (such as deleting an entire article), which is something you haven't done. However, your persistence in removing reference citations and edit summaries like this one lead me to conclude that you have failed to grasp the fundamental concepts of WP:Verifiability and WP:Citing sources. Orlady (talk) 01:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Blanking is extra spacing, which I am removing." No, it's not (as explained). If you don't understand why an edit is made (by an experienced editor), ask on talk page. Do not just re-add. That's edit warring, and that's why you were blocked before. The reason for spaces (after =) is the same as in infoboxes: it makes it easier to read. The question is: why would you want to remove them? Only revert someone's edit if you have a good reason. --Musdan77 (talk) 02:14, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I am not the user who deletes episode summaries or titles for 19 Kids and Counting and when I add a new title or summary or title, the two of you don't like it. Why not just leave it alone then? You don't want me editing your stuff, but you two think it's okay to edit my stuf. Again, interesting.... BBB76 (talk) 18:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Time after time, we have tried to explain to you the proper way to edit and not edit according to the standards and policy of Wikipedia, but you don't seem to understand. Maybe it would help if you asked specific questions, and you'd get specific answers. But, as it is, you have yet to admit that you have done anything wrong -- and you just shift the blame onto others. --Musdan77 (talk) 05:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Kerry Butler (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Rescue Me (TV series)

Law & Order: Special Victims Unit (season 14) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Richard Thomas

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013

Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in List of 19 Kids and Counting episodes. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you. What a way to start off the month of June -- with multiple violations: going against MOS (Template:Episode list), not giving explanation in edit summary, and more edit warring?? Did you not learn anything when you were blocked? When are you going to start following the rules? Musdan77 (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Musdan77. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to List of 19 Kids and Counting episodes‎ because it did not appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Now it looks like you're acting like a troll. Even if it was a good-faith edit, it goes against Wikipedia standards as well as edit warring. If you don't understand something, ask on a talk page. But, it doesn't seem like you care about how things are supposed to be done. Musdan77 (talk) 17:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at List of 19 Kids and Counting episodes, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Specifically, your persistent allergy to reference citations, as in this edit, is deleterious to the purpose of building an encyclopedia. If you don't understand verifiability, you shouldn't be editing this encyclopedia. Orlady (talk) 17:56, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for persistently removing reference citations for article pages. If you wish to be unblocked before this block expires, please demonstrate that you understand what WP:Verifiability is all about, that you recognize why sources are cited in Wikipedia articles, and that you will abide by policy in the future. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are valid reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Orlady (talk) 14:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Editing anonymously to evade a block, as you did at List of 19 Kids and Counting episodes, is not permitted. See [{WP:Block evasion]] for more information. I have blocked the IP that you used. Any more block evasion will lead to an extension of your block. If you wish to appeal the block, you may do so on this page. --Orlady (talk) 05:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

Perhaps you are not aware of the Wikipedia policy on consensus. If not, please click on the link and look at the policy page. The gist of the policy is that all decisions at Wikipedia are made by consensus. Once consensus is reached, we end the discussion and move on -- meaning that people are supposed to try to abide by consensus.

At Talk:United Bates of America, we had a "request for comment" discussion about whether the article text should state that all of the children were born as single births. You apparently chose not to participate, but your opinion was represented in the opening statement. The clear consensus of the people who did participate was that the information should be in the article text, but the word "singleton" should be avoided. I edited the article consistent with that consensus. When you reverted that change, you were editing against consensus.

I recognize that you have objected in the past to my use of words you weren't familiar with. If you don't know what "consensus" means, please look it up and learn its meaning. This is a concept you need to understand if you want to continue to contribute to Wikipedia. If you don't agree with consensus and persist in editing contrary to consensus, you can expect to be blocked because deliberately and persistently editing against consensus is disruptive editing. --Orlady (talk) 00:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is your problem with reference citations?

When I posted the above message, I hadn't noticed this edit, in which you once again removed reference citations from List of 19 Kids and Counting episodes. If a week-long block wasn't enough to cause you to acknowledge that Wikipedia has policies that apply to contributors, including you, what would have that effect? --Orlady (talk) 01:57, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read this page before your latest reverts? --Orlady (talk) 22:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 2013

This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at 19 Kids and Counting, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. This is about your repeated removal of valid reference citations is contrary to WP:Verifiability (a policy) and your continuing unwillingness to acknowledge and follow the WP:Consensus (another policy) at United Bates of America. Orlady (talk) 04:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks 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 appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

This block is due primarily to your persistence in removing valid reference citations, in spite of messages advising you not to do so. This is disruptive -- and detrimental to the quality of the encyclopedia. --Orlady (talk) 05:06, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Why do you always talk like a dictionary? BBB76 (talk) 20:33, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked again

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one month for persistent refusal to abide by Wikipedia policies and guidelines regarding verifiability and consensus; also, block evasion during the previous block. I didn't bother with warnings this time because it's clear that you know exactly what you are doing. And if you don't recognize the big words used in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, try reading the explanations of those policies and guidelines -- you will find that they define the terminology.. 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 appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Orlady (talk) 04:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of ANI discussion

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is BBB76: TV fan with issues; now a block-evader. Thank you. —Orlady (talk) 20:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The various Administrator's Noticeboard threads about your behavior have been archived. For your convenience, they are:

• User:BBB76 reported by User:Drmies (Result: Blocked)
• BBB76: disruptive editing in articles about TV megafamilies
• BBB76: TV fan with issues; now a block-evader

--Orlady (talk) 18:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 2013

This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at List of Murdoch Mysteries episodes, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Your persistent campaigns to remove reference citations from television articles are vandalism that cannot be tolerated. The encyclopedia depends on citations for verifiability. TV articles aren't exempt. If you can't deal with that, we'll have to get along without your contributions. Orlady (talk) 05:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Block notification

You have been blocked from editing for a period of two months for for persistent removal of reference citations from TV articles -- and your bizarre attitude that articles shouldn't have citations except for information about future events. 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 appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Orlady (talk) 18:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely for abusing multiple accounts

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts to perpetuate edit-wars and evade blocks as shown at SPI. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Atama頭 19:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]