User talk:JamesJohn82

Hello, JamesJohn82, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. 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 complete 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! John of Reading (talk) 12:07, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Andyjsmith. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to SpaceX have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Thanks. Andyjsmith (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok JamesJohn82 (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi, James. It is not necessary to remove red links. Please have a look at this page. WP:RED Best wishes, Graham Beards (talk) 07:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok, can I create new page? JamesJohn82 (talk) 08:04, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, if you have a reliable source to use. You shouldn't create a blank page. Graham Beards (talk) 08:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok sir JamesJohn82 (talk) 09:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Prison Law requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01924036.2010.9678832. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. S Philbrick(Talk) 11:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

It's mean this not reliable source sir? JamesJohn82 (talk) 14:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

No, it means you must not copy your text from anywhere including websites unless it explicitly says can even for commercial purposes. You have to write everything in your own words. If you have been given permission to use text, you still have to say where you got it from. Wikipedia is very strict about respecting copyright. Graham Beards (talk) 14:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Ok sir, I understood 🙏 JamesJohn82 (talk) 15:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Validation des Acquis de l'Experience, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Portfolio (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 11:39, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

So, sir what should I do? JamesJohn82 (talk) 12:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Please don't wikilink terms like high school, instrument, computer. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok sir 😊 JamesJohn82 (talk) 02:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited My Little Hero, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Public viewing (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Sir, is it not good or what's wrong in this? JamesJohn82 (talk) 13:11, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Chotu gang (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Punjab Police

Neferefre (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Administration

Norman Lowrey (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Analog

Tarakeswar (community development block) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to ATM

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Dirkbb (talk) 16:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok sir, 😊 JamesJohn82 (talk) 16:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in William M. Branham, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.

I reverted your recent edits to William M. Branham. As a general practice you should avoid overlinking articles. In this case, because the article is already referring to a specific Christian preacher, it's not likely that linking to articles on God or Jesus Christ are going to improve understanding for the reader.

I also removed a link you added to Ronald Kidd, who is different from the Ronald Kydd mentioned in the article. Please be careful when creating links to individuals mentioned in articles. Although an individual might share a similar name (or even an identical name) with someone else who has their own Wikipedia article they may not be the same people. You should verify whether they are the same person before creating a link. VarjoGrAyJay 03:39, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok, will take care of this criteria and term or policy of wikipedia. JamesJohn82 (talk) 06:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I had to correct three issues you made at faith healing and were marked as minor edits. Please be more careful, —PaleoNeonate – 11:08, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

But, in my opinion I did just bit correction. If you have issues, so please provide me guide line of wikipedia that related with it. JamesJohn82 (talk) 11:11, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

This is my humble request to you. Please provide me dedicated link.🙏 JamesJohn82 (talk) 11:20, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to KYES-TV, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:28, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay sir I will take care of wiki policies and guidelines.😊 May be I made mistake because still I'm leaning wikipedia. JamesJohn82 (talk) 18:34, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I wanted to inform you of this MOS guideline which advises against repeating links in article text. I have thus undid your edits to isotope because the links you added repeated links already present earlier in the lead. Links to relevant background terms always help, but duplicate links generally are not very helpful and create extra blue text. Just keep this in mind. ComplexRational (talk) 11:33, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Got it. JamesJohn82 (talk) 11:42, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Please do not add citations to wikis on Wikipedia, as you did in this edit to Helios (spacecraft). Wikis are not considered reliable sources; see the section on user-generated content. Thtatithticth (talk) 19:35, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay. JamesJohn82 (talk) 01:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

You changed "The temple (puja) routines are strictly followed" to "Puja at temple routines are strictly followed" which makes no sense. Could you please fix this? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 11:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry sir, you can fix this JamesJohn82 (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing to the article Kalyan Bulchand Advani ‎. However, one of Wikipedia's core policies is that material must be verifiable and attributed to reliable sources. You have recently used citations which copied, or mirrored, material from Wikipedia. This leads to a circular reference and is not acceptable. Most mirrors are clearly labeled as such, but some are in violation of our license and do not provide the correct attribution. Please help by adding alternate sources to the article you edited! If you need any help or clarification, you can look at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia or ask at Wikipedia:New contributors' help page, or just ask me. Thank you. Kuru (talk) 12:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Sir, I tried to find out reliable source url or website, but I didn't got it, that's why I put this URL. I'm sure I will not do such activity next time, and will try to add authentic and reliable source.Thank you for your suggestions. JamesJohn82 (talk) 17:40, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

You just used the same mirror here. Now that you are aware this is a clearly unacceptable source, why are you still adding it? Kuru (talk) 19:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry sir, i am still confused little bit. I think i need to read again about again about reliable source. Sir can you tell me little bit more about reliable source? JamesJohn82 (talk) 19:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Evaluating reliable sources can be difficult at times, and subject to much debate. In this instance, it is very easy. The material was clearly copied from here. They even provide a link back to use: "The contents of this page are sourced from Wikipedia article." Obviously, we cannot source an article with a copy of itself. Does that make sense? Kuru (talk) 19:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

No, now I got it, I will do my best. A news website can be reliable source may be? JamesJohn82 (talk) 02:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, generally, any news site with sound editorial oversight and a reputation for fact checking is good. Every country has a few "news" sites that are unacceptable (like tabloids, etc). Kuru (talk) 02:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Ok sir, is there DA (domain authority) and PA (Page authority) matters in a reliable source? Can we add that website, who has good DA PA as a wikipedia citation? because last time did this, that's why I'm asking, what others things most metters sir, can you tell me more brief about it. JamesJohn82 (talk) 02:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

The general outline for news sources is here: WP:NEWSORG. If you really want to get into deails, there's a large list of common sources that goes into detail on why they are or are not acceptable at WP:RSP. Some get complex. For example: Newsweek, a large American magazine, was generally reliable before 2013 - after that, a new company took them over and they went crazy with poor editorial practices. It does get fuzzy, sorry.

As far as mirrors and other junk sources go, I keep a list of sources that I watch out for here. That might help you spot some of the really common mirrors, but there's just a lot of sites that copy us now and fail to make it clear.

Hope this helps a little. Kuru (talk) 03:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Very thank you sir for sharing such knowledge, I got your point, and now I will try do my best.😊 JamesJohn82 (talk) 10:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Re: this, you can't copy content from the sources, you have to be able to summarise content in your own words. Changing a few words around doesn't mean that it's no longer a copyright violation; even close paraphrasing can qualify. Two other things: Wikipedia is a netural encyclopedia. We don't need to call him a "veteran". And people don't "pass away", they die. We don't use euphemistic language. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Got it sir JamesJohn82 (talk) 15:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, here at Guskara you've added a link that very clearly gives credit to Wikipedia at the bottom of the page. Kuru (talk) 19:18, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Ok, sir please guide me about the problem , how do i prevent this JamesJohn82 (talk) 07:44, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

And again here. I'm really not sure how to help you more than I did in the section above. On the "triposo" link you just added, what do you think the giant 18-point font text at the bottom of that source that says "Source Wikipedia" means? How would you interpret that? Kuru (talk) 11:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry sir, actually I'm stil confused about wiki source and i don't know that much about wiki citation or source. I am still learning sir. But i will try, i will not do such mistake again JamesJohn82 (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

That's disappointing - in that particular instance, the problem seems to be very, very obvious. In looking at some of your other recent additions, it appears you are just randomly adding sources to articles that do not actually support the claim. For example, here, here, here, and here. In each example, you've added a link to material that does not address the concern - it may talk about the topic in general, but it does not specifically address the concern of the maintenance tag. I'm sorry, but please stop removing maintenance templates until you have a better grasp of sourcing. Kuru (talk) 11:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok sir, and very thank you for undoing my edits. I will try I will give my best, and i belive that one day I will become perfect sir.😊 JamesJohn82 (talk) 18:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Please don't remove problem templates without understanding and fixing the issue they describe. Your edit of moving a comma didn't address the issue there, and in fact made the paragraph even less correct. If you are not fluent in the English language, you're still welcome at Wikipedia, but I'd suggest focusing on adding original material and correcting factual mistakes, rather than copyediting articles. Thanks. --Lord Belbury (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Got it sir JamesJohn82 (talk) 07:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, I see I'm not the first one to tell you this, but please refrain from attempting to copy-edit articles as long as your knowledge of the English language is insufficient to fully understand correct sentence structure. For example, in this edit you completely broke the sentence you changed. For the time being, it is a fairly safe assumption that whenever you encounter phrasing you're unfamiliar with, it is probably due to you not knowing the underlying rules, rather than it being a mistake, so I'd also like to suggest you stay away from tasks like this until you get more proficient.

On an unrelated note, why do you insist on calling everyone you reply to on this page "Sir"? You mostly won't know whether an editor is male or female anyway, and it's just entirely unnecessary in general. I know you mean well and only want to be polite, but if you want my advice on being a more competent English speaker, I say just drop that habit. AngryHarpy‍^talk 12:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

In my opinion, "Sir" word is used for respect. It is doesn't matter whether the person is a male or a female. In our culture, at least, we use Sir to give someone respect when we don't know the person we are talking to. It is not used only for males. JamesJohn82 (talk) 18:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Well that's okay then, but please do be careful with the copy-edits in the future. Take care! AngryHarpy‍^talk 06:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Republic Day (India). Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Do not add irrelevant content on gods in an article on constitution and republic day. This is clearly written as a blog (see above). The whole site is unreliable also, seems a spiritual site . Quote from About Us "Mounting the spiritual need SA’s presence would be expanding from devotees to the people in search of God." Totally unreliable. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok, got it sir and I'm really sorry for my mistake JamesJohn82 (talk) 18:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

No problem. Looks like you haven't been posted a list of guidelines. I'll do that for ya. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:43, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Why did you remove the red link here? There is no problem having a red link in an article. In fact this man has an article in Russian Wikipedia, so I have been able to improve the encyclopedia by adding an {{Interlanguage link}} which shows that link. Did you decide for yourself that this Russian writer was not notable enough to have any chance of an article being written about him? You have been told above that red links in articles are quite OK. Please make sure that your edits actually improve the encyclopedia rather than damaging it. Thank you. PamD 11:43, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay.. Got it JamesJohn82 (talk) 12:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, what was your intention with this edit? The link appears to have nothing to do with Canadians? The grammar needs sorting however I can assist with that. The other point is that the intention of Wikipedia is not really to point readers to websites with "here is a guide". Neils51 (talk) 10:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok got it JamesJohn82 (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)