Welcome LemonJuice78, thank you for contributing but please don't keep adding the same material that has been removed. The reason for removal is in the edit summary, whereas you have given no reasons for adding it. Making the same edit repeatedly without explanation is edit warring and can get you blocked from editing. There is a lot of help available, have a look at Help:Getting started for guidance. Cheers! Captainllama (talk) 00:33, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked if you continue to edit war. Regarding the edit you keep making, the edit summary given on 13 March 2020 puts it plainly: 'the on-screen credits indicate Keith David's character as "General Kimsey", not as "Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Kimsey, USAF"'. We go by what the credits say, not by what we might like them to say. Captainllama (talk) 05:41, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Curtis LeMay, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 17:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited David C. Jones, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Airborne Warning and Control System. 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) 06:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 9 August 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Brent Scowcroft, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. —Bagumba (talk) 01:15, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I wanted to let you know that your recent edit(s) to Independence Day (1996 film) have been removed because you cited the information you added to another Wikipedia article or an external wiki. As discussed at WP:CIRCULAR and WP:SPS, Wikipedia and other wikis should not be used in citations because they are not considered reliable sources. You are welcome to re-add the information using a different reference, perhaps from the article you originally linked to. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 16:21, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use styles that are nonstandard, unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in Strategic Air Command. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Thank you. BilCat (talk) 18:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Per Wikipedia:Image use policy#Displayed image size: "Except with very good reason, do not use px (e.g. |thumb|300px), which forces a fixed image width measured in pixels, disregarding the user's image size preference setting." (Bolding in original) BilCat (talk) 18:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Twice now you have re-added the gallery section to Richard Myers, without comment or discussion, and in doing so have manually reverted my edits. This is not only rude, but violates WP:GALLERY and constitutes edit warring. As I have pointed out in my edit summaries, WP:GALLERY clearly states: "Wikipedia is not an image repository. A gallery is not a tool to shoehorn images into an article, and a gallery consisting of an indiscriminate collection of images of the article subject should generally either be improved ... or moved to Wikimedia Commons." The gallery in Richard Myers falls into this category. As the article already features a large number of images and a linked Wikimedia category, the gallery section does not enhance nor add anything to the article beyond an indiscriminate collection of images of the subject. It does not belong in the article. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:29, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is SuperWIKI. I have added your Richard Myers image to the Richard Myers article. I plan on adding a new section tomorrow to List of active duty United States four-star officers to cover command elevations to four-star rank. As such, I am still planning an image scheme that covers all service branches (i.e. equal images across time periods for all services for the Army, Marine Corps, Navy and Air Force), as well as a reformatting to fit MOS:IMAGESIZE. While I appreciate your help in finding older images (i.e. the George S. Brown image), I humbly request that you take care when adding images. The addition of the Richard Myers image and moving my Marines image down the section where you added it is cutting into the next section (if on web, notice the format line that is now cut off at the end rather than going all the way through), as well as the addition of mostly Air Force image. I intend to reorder the images a final time to ensure that, where possible, an equal amount is devoted to either pinning ceremonies, change of commands, retirement ceremonies, Senate hearings and public briefings, as well as being equally distributed among the services to ensure equilbrium. Thank you for your consideration. SuperWIKI (talk) 16:07, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I stress that I do value your contributions. Some images (such as the James Doolittle one in Air Force four-star generals list) I would never have found without your help, but take extreme care when adding images as some skirt the lines of MOS:PERTINENCE. SuperWIKI (talk) 16:12, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Mark Milley. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 16:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, 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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 16:08, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Use the talkpage first, and please use correct grammar and spelling. Acroterion (talk) 16:09, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mark Milley. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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 and 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. Acroterion (talk) 16:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at The Matrix Resurrections, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Your edit does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you politely to stop adding unsourced word salad to the page. You didn't respond and, instead, you added the material a third time, here and here, and for good measure you added a nonsensical caption to one of the images. At least this time you added an actual source to your first edit, but it doesn't support your edit that "Milley's nomination was controversy" [sic]. Even if it did, who cares whether "there's never been any Air Force General who serve as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff since 2005", at any rate anybody reading Milley's page? You also seem to reinsert material that editors have objected to without discussing them on the talk page and without giving an edit summary, like here and here. Please, stop this behavior. @Acroterion:, @SuperWIKI:, @Wtmitchell:, @Truthsofwolf:, @Snooganssnoogans: pinging other editors who have reverted your edits on the page. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 16:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Acroterion (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've made this a site-wide block rather than a block from the article you've been focused on to get your attention, since you've been uncommunicative. When this block expires, I will place a partial block unless you are able to explain to us what you'll do differently. Acroterion (talk) 01:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Acroterion (talk) 22:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

⚠️ Why? You've received multiple warnings and just came off a block earlier in the day, but you still go and add this image to USS Bon Homme Richard (CV-31) and again to George Stephen Morrison, and despite the information provided on the image file page, you added deliberately false information to the image caption, then added the image to two pages it didn't belong to.

Now we'll have to go through your recent edits (many have been reverted, but the ones that haven't will need to be checked) to see if they are legit. This is a purely disruptive timesink by a WP:NOTHERE user. I am pinging Acroterion to make him aware of this, and will advise him of any further issues that are found. If you do resume editing when your current block expires, you need to give serious thought to why you're here and how you can really contribute to building this project. - wolf 06:34, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, this editor has never once used any talkpage or communicated with any editor in any way. Based on what you’ve described above, I’m going to convert this to an indefinite if there’s no communication or explanation in the next couple of days, for deliberately introducing errors across multiple articles. Acroterion (talk) 06:41, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shared views. I've attempted contact whilst stressing my belief in AGF to this user, with no response. Additionally, have also stated the issues with this user's unresponsiveness. In particular, his edits have a tendency to only be for the purpose of filling emptier pages with WP:SOB for the sake of filling those pages with content, by deliberately extending certain facts and sensationalizing them into longer sentences with little intent to actually deliver information. The same goes for image captioning. Additionally, for every edit he makes to a page that involves Person A (say, an image containing Person A, B, and C), he will also make large-scale edits to the articles of Person B and C. This makes reverting these edits more extensive in scope. SuperWIKI (talk) 06:50, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes you can't do a revert, or restore an earlier version, but instead need to do it manually. Sometimes it can be a tedious pain in the ass, but it's the only way. Hopefully there isn't any more damage in need of correction. - wolf 07:27, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Acroterion (talk) 04:42, 9 November 2021 (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).

LemonJuice78 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

request for unblock and apologize for all of the disruptive editing since I've followed much of my ego and ambition and totally apologize for not been talking at user talk since I just learn how to use it by now and also still learning to use wikipedia further. Please accept my apology and will not repeat again in the future. LemonJuice78 17:01, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This does not address the concern that you were deliberately adding false information. Yamla (talk) 17:48, 19 November 2021 (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.