|
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at List of common misconceptions. CactusRoy🏴 (talk) 15:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Best luck CactusRoy🏴 (talk) 15:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
You have been blocked for one week from editing List of common misconceptions. Edit warring to remove swathes of content from the article and supporting it with formalistic wikilawyering on talk, such as, repeatedly, "Referred to in article as an urban legend rather than as common misconception", is pretty disruptive. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text ((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~))
, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bishonen | tålk 15:26, 30 September 2021 (UTC).
Rollinginhisgrave (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
ah sorry, my initial removal of content was me trying to be bold. When it was first reverted and discussed with WikiDan61, I understood his approval of my reasoning on several points (including the urban legend point) as grounds for reinstating; my only revert after this wasn't due to edit warring but because the editor above who reverted it and flagged it for a ban (see above) didn't seem to notice I justified my edits on the talk page and had made the revert by erroneous logic. I didn't see this as something that required consensus before editing; I do now. I don't think it was wikilawering on the urban legend issue, as since we already have a page for list of urban legends, and both pages feature large bloat, doubling up doesn't seem super desireable, although I will avoid editing the page for such issues unless a consensus is gained for their removal. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 15:50, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Procedural decline only as the block has expired. Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 19:08, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
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.
Hello! I'm Sundayclose. Your recent edit(s) to the page List of common misconceptions appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been reverted for now. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. 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. Sundayclose (talk) 11:30, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of common misconceptions, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The State Journal. 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) 06:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
I have reverted the source you added to Thatching because the newspaper article included whole sentences that were in the Wikipedia article before the newspaper article was published, an apparent case of copying from Wikipedia. Citing such a source in Wikipedia produces citogenesis, a form of circular sourcing. This is a growing problem, and one that I think needs more effort to inform editors about. Donald Albury 13:55, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
My apologies for reverting both citations. I should have just dealt with the one. I wasn't paying enough attention to what I was doing. It is always good to see someone improving sourcing in articles. - Donald Albury 17:00, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of common misconceptions, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wiley.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:58, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
![]() |
Thanks for the quality GA review on MidCity SmashedBurger; you did pretty good for your first one! TWOrantulaTM (enter the web) 18:10, 18 July 2024 (UTC) |
Thank you for the quick review. I've nominated the article for FAC, if you'd like to leave additional feedback or comments on the nomination page. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 21:39, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks again for your interest in Fostoria Shade and Lamp Company. I have finished "breaking off" the Consolidated Lamp and Glass Company piece from Fostoria Shade and Lamp Company. The Consolidated piece is still in one of my sandboxes, as I still have to create an InfoBox, Intro, and Background for it. As info, two of the references in Fostoria Shade and Lamp Company are self-published books: 1) Jack K. Paquette was overall Vice President of O-I Glass (a.k.a. Owens-Illinois). His book has citations (360 in chapter 5 alone) and a long bibliography. He has also written other glass-related books. Here is a link to his papers at U of Toledo; 2) Melvin L. Murray was a trustee for Bowling Green State University, and was a member of the Fostoria library board for 50 years. He was president of the Ohio Library Trustees Association. The research wing of the Kaubisch Memorial Public Library in Fostoria was named in his honor. He was president of the Fostoria Glass Association and was a founder of the Fostoria Glass Heritage Gallery, where he was curator emeritus and a lecturer. He uses trade magazines (probably from the Kaubisch Library) for much of the information in his book. In most of the times he is cited as a source, a second or third source is also used. Also, Wikipedia footnotes are used to describe his sources (Crockery & Glass Journal, March 1, 1888 edition; Pottery and Glassware Reporter dated November 29, 1888; etc....) where possible. Both of those two books are highly recommended by the Fostoria Ohio Glass Association. There is some info on the self-published issue under References that is commented out so one cannot see it without reviewing the source code. I will be having some visitors this Saturday and Sunday—so I will have to stay off Wikipedia on those days. TwoScars (talk) 19:00, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Hi Rollinginhisgrave, thanks for your contributions to WP:GA. I hope you are able to continue. I mentioned in the discussion at WT:GAN a bit of overfocus on GACR1, however, that may have been looking too much at your earlier reviews. The more recent Talk:New York State Pavilion/GA1 has the source spotchecks laid out, which is what we look for. It may be worth mentioning the source in addition to the relevant text, but the source checks seem to being done and that's the important thing. Also presentation-wise, I would lightly discourage the appearance of simply providing a checklist for the other criteria, although again this is mostly for appearance and ease of communication. I do understand that checking for neutrality, stability, and image licences does often feel like a bit of a checklist. I like your division of issues and "suggestions". Best, CMD (talk) 05:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
See my comments (and fails) at Talk:Mount Kailash/GA1#Unreliable sourcing and Talk:Tamil culture/GA1#Content issues. Regards, TrangaBellam (talk) 13:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)