User talk:Hawaiifive0

Hello, Hawaiifive0, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction 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

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 your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! DBaK (talk) 12:24, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please make sure to include an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! DBaK (talk) 12:25, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that your edit on the Normandy landings has been reverted. Please be aware that the order of flags issue has been discussed and agreed some time ago. Please do not make edits without explanation and on subjects on which consensus already exists. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 17:06, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Stigni. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to 2013 FIFA Club World Cup because it didn't 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! Stigni (talk) 19:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I see you have again made changes to the Normandy landings article. The changes that you reverted again have been agreed by consensus if you care to read through the page history and I have again reverted your edits. Please abide by the conventions and stop your disruptive editing. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 20:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is never a replacement for fact. Hawaiifive0 (talk) 20:33, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely agree, but if you read the Talk Page, History etc; you will see that the consensus was agreed because of the number of ships, landing craft engaged in the landings: as well as troops involved. You have also made unnecessary comments to the other nations involved. As you will read from the contribution below, you seem to be intent on a edit war, this is not the way we do things at Wikipedia, please stop your disruptive activity. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 20:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All of the references you used are dead-links. It is well-known that the US had, by far, the largest concentration of troops and equipment during D-Day. That was why General Eisenhower was elected Supreme Commander: given the lopsided amount of support each nation was giving to the operation, it was unthinkable anyone but an American could be given overall command.

Monty was promoted to FM as consolation.

If you have any references to the contrary, please show me. Hawaiifive0 (talk) 21:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Normandy landings. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Normandy landings shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

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. Binksternet (talk) 21:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Normandy landings. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This is a pretty insulting edit summary. You are alleging malpractice. I don't know any of those people from Adam and I don't care what and how they edit. I assume that you read Wikipedia:Tag team before making that remark? You owe some apologies here. Best wishes DBaK (talk) 07:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice to see that such a new editor is already so familiar with obscure corners of the WP namespace. Perhaps they were here in 'a previous life'? Andy Dingley (talk) 08:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Santos FC, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Natal (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) 11:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Campeonato Brasileiro Série A, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Drawing of lots (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) 22:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Campeonato Brasileiro Série A, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page TV 2 Sport (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) 10:59, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1990 FIFA World Cup, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Mark Wright, Paul Parker and David Platt (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) 08:58, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qed237. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to 2013 FIFA Club World Cup 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. Thanks! QED237 (talk) 11:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Crimea shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

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. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 00:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning. You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Intercontinental Cup (football). Jim1138 (talk) 00:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. 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.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

Materialscientist (talk) 01:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Hawaiifive0 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I haven't gone over the three revert-rule as suggested since a new day started. Furthermore, I stated in the article in question that I will only revert once and then report the users for tag-teaming (for which they made it more than obvious). On top of that, a three day ban seems to be personally motivated to set POV agendas rather than reality.

Personally, I don't really edit here much as it is so I don't care about a long ban. But it speaks volumes to the low credibility of a site claiming to be an encyclopedia when only one user is punished severely and the others aren't. The neutral observer would see that as many are today seeing events unfold in the world.

The only result from it is that no one will take it seriously anymore which is why no one is buying anything some factions say today.

Decline reason:

You are blocked for edit warring, not for 3RR. The rest of this is not an unblock request and does not help your case. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:21, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• A new day started? Where exactly? Remember that the sun never sets on Wikipedia. 3RR is a 24 hour revert rule, not a day by day revert rule. You don't to keep edit warring just because the clock went past midnight where you are. That's got to be the best lane excuse I've ever heard. JOJ ^Hutton 01:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  To clarify, my block was for edit warring, thus 3RR arguments don't apply, valid or not. This is a second block, which is why 60 hours. Materialscientist (talk) 01:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Second block in almost a year? I have seen and known worse offenders get almost nothing. And the clock issue has been successfully used as a defense.

Regardless, it seems wikipedia has become another advert for POV. Thanks for proving that to me. Hawaiifive0 (talk) 01:29, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Intercontinental Cup (football). Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you.

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Intercontinental Cup (football), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Dl2000 (talk) 18:10, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did at Intercontinental Cup (football), you may be blocked from editing. Dl2000 (talk) 03:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken your edit to the talk page and as of yet no one has agreed that your wording is correct including the editors that changed your last revert to reflect the accuracy of the situation. If Spain had only lost to Chile, they would not be eliminated. Chile did not eliminate Spain without help. Please do not revert these edits if you are not willing to discuss the issue on the article's talk page. Chris1834 (talk) 01:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Bryan Ruiz. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please provide a source that states he is still on loan with PSV. Mattythewhite (talk) 11:38, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Joel Campbell. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1991 UNCAF Nations Cup Preliminary Round. Postcard Cathy (talk)

• Football. It is the same tournament. I will be building it up as you could see on the main article of the edition. Hawaiifive0 (talk) 22:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I patrolled your page. I went through the enormously-backlogged list of newly-created pages and confirmed that your page was okay: not spam, not an attack page, not a copyright violation, not any of the other reasons for which I would delete someone's page without asking. Then I clicked "patrolled" to remove it from the list of "pages that have not yet been patrolled", and moved on to the next entry. That's all. DS (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Costa Rica national football team, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Óscar Duarte. 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) 11:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. 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.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  5 albert square (talk) 14:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 1991 UNCAF Nations Cup you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 20:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article 1991 UNCAF Nations Cup you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:1991 UNCAF Nations Cup for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 00:00, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, do you still wish me to place this on hold for you? ☯ Jaguar ☯ 19:41, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article 1991 UNCAF Nations Cup you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:1991 UNCAF Nations Cup for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 20:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article 1991 UNCAF Nations Cup you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:1991 UNCAF Nations Cup for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jaguar -- Jaguar (talk) 14:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've reverted what you added on a number of football club articles regarding them being "one of 10 worldwide clubs". I did this for a number of reasons.

• It was unsourced. Where does this fact come from?
• It was undue weight placing it in the lead of articles. This is not a record I recognise from any footballing authority.
• It was rather convoluted and overly specific. Why choose only 10 worldwide? Why specify the top 3 successful clubs in the country? Why not top 2, or top 5? How is this success being determined?

--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:22, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Club Sport Herediano, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page International football. 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) 09:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give L.D. Alajuelense a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Liga Deportiva Alajuelense. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen. Thank you. Redrose64 (talk) 23:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give C.S. Herediano a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Club Sport Herediano. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut-and-paste-move repair holding pen. Thank you. Redrose64 (talk) 23:09, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hawaiifive0. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Attack on Titan is unfortunately the official name used on all the official English releases. So that's what we have to go by. Dream Focus 14:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hawaiifive0. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The numbering grid for the U.S. Highway System may increase the numbers north-to-south and east-to-west, but the mile markers on the highways themselves increase in the same direction as the Interstates, south-to-north and west-to-east. For that reason, the articles are written in the same direction, regardless if its a U.S. Highway or an Interstate Highway. Imzadi 1979 → 22:46, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at 2018 UEFA Champions League Final 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. S.A. Julio (talk) 02:56, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but are you a little dense? I've already explained to you that it is bad writing to state the fact that Real Madrid are the defending champions twice in the same sentence, so why do you keep adding it? The final clause of the sentence says they have won the last two finals, so why do you need to add a bit that says they're defending champions? – PeeJay 19:20, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hawaiifive0. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]