You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Religious affiliation in the United States House of Representatives. Sundayclose (talk) 01:47, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove maintenance templates from Wikipedia articles without resolving the problem that the template refers to, as you did at 2021–22 Regionalliga. Sundayclose (talk) 01:23, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sundayclose: Is the Regionalliga article verified? The external links were used properly. Santiago Claudio (talk) 01:32, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You removed the refimprove template. Fixing your problem edits is getting very tiresome, especially when you never explain yourself and rarely respond to other editors. You continued to add unsourced edits after the final warning above and the numerous warnings that you deleted. In case you don't realize this, your warnings are forever in this talk page history, and will be the first place an admin looks when they come to block you. If there's something about "unsourced" that you don't understand, ask right here, right now. Otherwise after your next problem edit I promise you that you will either defend yourself at WP:ANI or get another block. Second blocks are longer, and after that you could get an indefinite block. You also have been asked repeatedly to leave edit summaries, but you obviously don't consider that important, so the assumption of good faith for you no longer exists. Sundayclose (talk) 01:40, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sundayclose: I dislike an indefinite block. Is it practical for me to leave hundreds, even thousands of edit summaries? I disagree that assumption of good faith for me no longer exists. Santiago Claudio (talk) 01:49, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you "dislike indefinite block", then STOP making problem edits. It's "practical" for the rest of Wikipedia to leave edit summaries (yes, thousands of them), and you don't have any special privilege here despite what you might assume. You can disagree as much as you want, but you no longer have my assumption of good faith, and I'm certain that's true of several other editors. Your editing privileges are hanging by a thread, and you seem oblivious to that, so you'll very like get a block whether you "dislike indefinite block" or not. Sundayclose (talk) 01:55, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sundayclose: If unsourced texts are general facts, do they still have to be cited? Santiago Claudio (talk) 01:58, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In your case, you seem to have a lack of understanding of what "general facts" are, so you should source everything. None of the warnings you've received for making unsourced edits involved "general facts". You're never wrong to cite a source, so do it every time, no exceptions. I'm not getting into an argument with you every time you falsely assume something is a "general fact". If it's unsourced, I'm going straight to WP:ANI. If you were a new editor who had made a reasonable effort to communicate with others here, I might have some sympathy. But you are not new, and you have made almost no effort to communicate. So as I said, I now never assume good faith with you. Sundayclose (talk) 02:17, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sundayclose: So if you have no assumption of good faith with me, for me I have. On the contrary, I do understand what "general facts" are. Santiago Claudio (talk) 02:24, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, none of the warnings you received were for "general facts". I've made my point very clear. One more unsourced or other problem edit, and we're going to WP:ANI. It looks like the only way you'll learn what is required here is to have it removed from you for a while. I'm not wasting any more time on this matter. That's my final comment. Sundayclose (talk) 02:31, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Check the Talk section again, Species. I've alerted @Mutt Lunker: & @Sundayclose:. I hope you start responding & take this matter seriously. NKM1974 (talk) 01:59, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Check the Talk section again, Species. @Mutt Lunker: & @Sundayclose: must be watching this log, closely. I want your response & don't ignore my message. NKM1974 (talk) 02:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@NKM1974: I have checked. Santiago Claudio (talk) 03:03, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Santiago Claudio: "I have checked". The matter isn't resolved. You have to reply on the follow-up question. NKM1974 (talk) 00:39, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@NKM1974: You're a nagger like Sundayclose. You should be reported instead.Santiago Claudio (talk) 05:19, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 01:29, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Mike Devecka. Addition of unsourced content after repeated warnings, refusal to use edit summaries. Please immediately start using edit summaries and stop adding unsourced content. —valereee (talk) 15:04, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: Sundayclose pointed that out; there are sources, on the contrary. Santiago Claudio (talk) 15:08, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you think I "pointed out". But let's be very clear. Your comment "there are sources" is yet another attempt by you to shift blame or cover up your problem edits. For the edits in question here, you made the edits without sources and didn't bother to add sources until the ANI report was made. It's becoming increasingly evident that you are not willing to accept responsibility for your edits. That's not a good sign for your chances of avoiding a block. Pinging Valereee. Sundayclose (talk) 15:13, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the source for this edit? And please don't tell me it's in the edit you made four days later. It is not okay to add unsourced content and only bother to add a source if someone complains. Frankly it's shocking that someone with 24K edits and 8 years experience does not understand this and do it as a matter of course. Persistently adding unsourced content forces other editors to check your content to see if it's got a source, which wastes their time. That is disruptive editing. —valereee (talk) 15:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In my first few editing years there were no or few complaints. Why take exception only now? By the way, I'm already asleep. Santiago Claudio (talk) 15:33, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That comment captures precisely the problem with your approach to editing: "If I can get away with bad edits for years, I should be able to do it forever". The reason for "taking exception only now" is that with years of experience, many thousands of edits, and numerous warnings, your unsourced and other problem edits become increasingly egregious. It's an indication that you do not accept responsibility for your edits and don't plan to accept responsibility, even after others try repeatedly to convince you. You show no remorse for damaging Wikipedia. Quite frankly, after seeing that comment, if it was up to me you would immediately get another block. But I'm not an admin so that's not my decision. But with your attitude it's only a matter of time. Again pinging Valereee. Sundayclose (talk) 15:46, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP has steadily increased our standards. You'll need to comply with the current requirements or SC is likely right. It's been five years since the previous block, which was for something unrelated, so I'm not comfortable blocking if a strongly-worded warning can work. I guess we'll see. —valereee (talk) 16:00, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at 2021–22 NBA G League season. The source must support EVERYTHING in your edit. Not just part of it. EVERYTHING. Sundayclose (talk) 05:12, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sundayclose: You're also a nagger like NKM1974. Santiago Claudio (talk) 05:19, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Santiago Claudio. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 14:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]