User talk:Bryan773x

Welcome

Hello, Bryan773x, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of contents / Department directory

The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)

Need help?

Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

Bryan773x, good luck, and have fun. – Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:40, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your disruption at Orlando

Hello. As I stated in my edit summary, the article has consensus that "terrorism" should not be shown in the attack type field. I pointed you to the list of consensuses on the article's talk page. Had you checked that out, you would have seen links to the discussions where the consensus was formed. If you wanted to know why, you could have then read those discussions. Instead, you re-instated an edit that you knew to be disputed. Please self-revert; then, after reading the consensus discussions, if you want to seek a new consensus, you can do that by starting a discussion on the talk page. See also WP:EW. Thank you. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:04, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now it appears someone else has reverted you again, so no need to self-revert. In the future please do not re-revert disputed edits. We don't engage in discussions via the edit summaries of reverts. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:06, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that that it shouldn't be shown in the attack type?

It shows in Bernadino and 9/11

Bryan773x (talk) 22:53, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 2016

Your recent editing history at 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting 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 article's 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. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, you've made 7 edits ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]) trying to add terrorism to the type of attack parameter, despite the fact that parameter is not for that purpose (see the talk page consensus list at the top). This is your final warning. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:08, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Wikilobby campaign

A tag has been placed on Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Wikilobby campaign requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Entirely misplaced comment by editor

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

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 removed 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:09, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]