Hi Legend of 14! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! I dream of horses ^{(Contribs) (Talk)} 15:05, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Ontario's Long-Term Care COVID-19 Commission. Thanks! Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:01, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario's Long-Term Care COVID-19 Commission, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates, as you did to User talk:76.64.222.10. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Giving a warning for an edit that happened two weeks ago is pointless. Secondly, I do use edit summaries, just not all the time. Edit summaries are strongly recommended but they are not mandatory.76.64.222.10 (talk) 03:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You did the behaviour in question. It is not an abuse or violation of policy to leave a notice related to a behaviour a user actually engaged in. I obviously wasn't testing. I understand that you disagree with my decision to leave a notice, because 2 weeks have since you made the edits in question, but their is no policy preventing this. You're free to remove and move on. I'm not entertaining further discussion about this on my talk page. Happy editing. Legend of 14 (talk) 04:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Darrel Kent shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
This is your formal warning which you have not received yet. While you are welcome to BOLDLY edit, once your edit has been reverted by someone else you should NOT redo the same or similar edit again. I am glad to see that once that was reverted a second time you left the matter alone. But be cautioned that edit warring is prohibited. This is your SINGLE WARNING on this matter, and should be BROADLY CONSTRUED towards all articles, not just this one article referenced. TiggerJay (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I thought reverting Vandalism like removing valid maintenance tags, and WP:BOLP violations like unsourced claims about living people were exemptions to the edit warring policy, Can you please clarify why these aren't applicable? Thanks. Legend of 14 (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I might agree that on the surface it looks like removing that information would be an acceptable BOLD edit, that does not mean that it is vandalism. It does not matter if your initial reason to remove was justified or unjustified, if it does not fit under the narrow scope of WP:3RRNO then your consecutive removal of information does count towards disruptive edit warring. TiggerJay (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was not saying all of the content I removed was vandalism, I'm calling the removal of the {{onesource}} obvious vandalism. The other content was not obvious vandalism but subject to another exception. The rest of it was "Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy." -WP:3RRNO [emphasis added, hyperlinks omitted]

I hope this clarification is helpful. Legend of 14 (talk) 19:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you opted to overlook the rest of that line in 3RRNO, What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.. While that statement you removed might need a proper citation, there isn't anything specifically "contentious material". The three-way race, around 28% actually seems to be fully supported at 1991 Ottawa-Carleton Regional Municipality elections. So what part of that was contentious? To be clear, that exemption is narrowly for contentious material not simply "unsourced" material. TiggerJay (talk) 19:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I always get concerned about elections results, as elections are contentious topics. I was not aware that 1991 Ottawa-Carleton Regional Municipality elections had the same information, the article didn't come up in my search and that the information was cited. I conducted an internet search for 28% figure, but couldn't find a source online to support it. I removed it since I couldn't find a source and uncited material must be removed immediately. People will very likely be angry if the number for a candidate they liked is lower than it should be, or an opponent would likely be angry if the number is higher. Great care is exercised to ensure election results are as accurate as possible. That is why I concluded the information was contentious.

In the past when I have been able to find a source for the correct information, I used it instead of simply deleting content: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:2009_Ontario_provincial_by-elections/St._Paul%27s&diff=prev&oldid=1269744829 (in this case some of the information was actually wrong). I concluded the material was contentious and uncited and about a living person, therefore in violation of WP:BOLP. Thank you for reading this additional information. Legend of 14 (talk) 20:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, regardless of the reason for the 1st instance removal of information, there is NOTHING wrong done... However, it was on the second revert that you should not have done. That is where it needs to go to the article talk page, to discuss that specific item, and therein a source would have likely been found. For example I simply did a google search for "darrel kent peter clark race" and that WP article was the third result. But instead of either independently researching it or going to the talk page, you reverted the edit again, which is edit warring behavior. A bit of advice, while edit count and age of a user isn't definitive, when you find yourself in a situation with an editor with many times the number of years of experience and over 100,000 edits to their name, it might be worth a pause and consider for a moment that they might not be the perpetrator here, or rather that you're not the victim in this situation. That is not always going to be true, but it is always worth a moment to pause and think, what am I not understanding about this situation. TiggerJay (talk) 22:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I never said I was a victim.

I just have 1 clarifying question. What is the reason for finding that the content stopped being contentiousness between my first and second revert? Because if it didn't change, then the above exception applies. Legend of 14 (talk) 22:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What changed is that your edit was WP:REVERTED. TiggerJay (talk) 22:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. Don't forget to sign your posts. GoodDay (talk) 16:53, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder. Legend of 14 (talk) 16:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop filling the noticeboard with redundant sections, people get the idea. MrOllie (talk) 17:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Legend, it's best if you actually fix the problems you see yourself rather than spamming the BLP noticeboard with every uncited claim you see. Please WP:BEBOLD. It saves us a lot of time. Thank you. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 17:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tried, see the history of the articles in question. I also tried article talk pages, but the sections were literally removed by an administrator who wants me banned. See the Section January 2025 on this talk page for what happened when I tried to remove WP:BLP violations myself. Can't use article talk, not risking editing the articles myself again, BLPN is my only option. Legend of 14 (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where you get the idea that you cannot go to the article talk pages. Per our discussion above, you can be bold and edit the article, but if your edit is reverted then you must go to the article talk page discuss the problems. TiggerJay (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've been reverted on 2 of the article talk pages by User:Adam Bishop. If I readd the discussion, that's edit warring. Legend of 14 (talk) 17:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From looking at those two reverts [1] [2] it is not typical to remove article talk page messages, typically the next course of action would be to then go to that user's talk page, however I see you've done that already. However, you have addressed them in an uncivil way, that was pointy, and is a misunderstanding of policy. I would strongly caution you against making accusations (see also ASPERSIONS) against other editors (especially those with far more experience) when you are clearly still just learning the ropes and do not yet know enough on how to follow policy with your own activity. You need to learn to stay in your lane until you've figured out how to drive before you begin to think you have a good enough understanding to bring corrections to others. TiggerJay (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The top of BLPN says "Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input." I have closed several discussions on BLPN that you opened where there appears to have been no attempt to discuss on the article page. Several more of the discussions you have opened probably should also be closed. – notwally (talk) 18:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Copying the same redundant message to a bunch of article talk pages is not any better. If you've got a problem with the sourcing, copy the citations over from the related elections articles. There is no reason to delete these tables. MrOllie (talk) 18:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with MrOllie. WP:TENDENTIOUS or WP:POINTY or WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT editing can also result in behavior sanctions. At a certain point WP:DROPTHESTICK. – notwally (talk) 18:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May wanna warn you: [Content removed] may need to have almost all of his edits reverted. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 19:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't assume my gender. Legend of 14 (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to declare a gender, you're welcome to, and people will refer to you as such. But by sidestepping the concerned raised, and by switching the topic to you being offended, further supports WP:NOTHERE. Instead of sidestepping issues, I strongly advise that you take the time to understand why you're running into problems, instead of just jumping ship on one topic and then running elsewhere to also run into problems over there. You are on the road to a block if you don't curtail your behavior -- this isn't because your new, nor because of your gender or even because you're making mistakes -- there is a LOT of good faith going around for all of those -- but rather it is because of your disruptive editing for failing to heed the correction that over a dozen editors have tried to direct you towards, but you're failing to get the point. TiggerJay (talk) 20:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions were closed because I didn't use the article talk pages, so I went to the article talk pages. I haven't removed uncited content from any article since your warning yesterday. What am I not getting? Legend of 14 (talk) 20:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what I thought. But I'll give Legend a good rest of today, than fate will be determined here. 2601AC47 (talk·contribs·my rights) Isn't a IP anon 20:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your pronouns preferences, let me assure you that they are considered an important issue at Wikipedia, although that does not mean you get to define the rules however you want. Instead please take time to read the entirety of WP:EDPRONOUNS and how they are handled here. You will also find a clear way of stating your preferred pronouns which will greatly reduce the risk of this happening in the future. It also makes it clear that you should assume good faith of the person who made an assumption of your gender, even though you didn't otherwise like what they were talking about. Please do not use pronouns as a red herring, diversionary, or ad hominem attack when someone is trying to talk with you and further illustrates WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior and will result in becoming blocked. TiggerJay (talk) 21:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is rephrasing a message you already sent. I'm respectfully asking that you stop interacting with my user pages until at least January 20, 2025 (UTC). I have the right to do this under WP:User pages. Thanks. Legend of 14 (talk) 21:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While you are allowed to do this respectfully, completely ignoring the advice of more experienced editors isn't a good sign. Please, when actually given advice, take the advice. Listen to the people who've been here longer than you. Pushing away those trying to help you is disruptive. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 22:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Deb Hutton is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deb Hutton (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

TiggerJay (talk) 06:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]