 Interested in becoming a regular contributor to Wikipedia? Create an account! This , so you might receive messages on this page that were not intended for you. To have your own user pages, keep track of articles you've edited in a watchlist, and have access to a few other special features, please consider registering an account! It's fast and free. If you are autoblocked repeatedly, contact your Internet service provider or network administrator and request it contact Wikimedia's XFF project about enabling X-Forwarded-For HTTP headers on its proxy servers so that blocks will affect only the intended user. Administrators: review contributions carefully if blocking this IP address or reverting its contributions. If a block is needed, consider a soft block using Template:Anonblock. In response to vandalism from this IP address, abuse reports may be sent to its network administrator for investigation.  Network administrators monitoring this IP address for vandalism can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format. |
Welcome!
edit
|
| Contents |
|---|
 This shared IP address has received multiple warnings for inappropriate edits. Since different users may be using this IP address, many of these warnings may be stale. Click [show] at far right to see all previous warnings and/or blocks. | ||
|---|---|---|
| The following is a record of previous warnings and/or blocks left for this IP. Please do not modify it. | ||
June 2012
May 2013
September 2013
February 2014
March 2014
August 2017
November 2017Your submission at Articles for creation: Chairman of the Board of Veterans' Appeals has been accepted The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. You may wish to consider registering an account so you can create articles yourself.
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Sulfurboy (talk) 18:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
December 2017Your submission at Articles for creation: James P. Terry (December 19) The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you. Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
January 2018Your submission at Articles for creation: Eligah Dane Clark (January 7)This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time. The comment the reviewer left was:
The complete absence of inline sources makes it impossible to demonstrate Notability or undertake Verification of the article's content. Of the two sources not inline, they show that the article subject was appointed to a role 20 years ago, and nothing more. This isn't enough to demonstrate Notability. Is he still in post? Not according to Wikipedia's article on the BVA. How did it go, successes, issues? Really needs more work, more content and more Sources. Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
February 2018
June 2018
National varieties of English
For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author of the article used. In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
December 2019
March 2020
More broken redirects to CousinHello, Thanks for making so many updates to the redirects that go to the Cousin article before removing that "Removed" anchor. It looks like the WP:Broken redirects list was only partial, and there are more (not just to a #Removed anchor) listed here: https://dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/rdcheck.py?page=Cousin . I just point this out to you since you seem to have an interest in the page. I was just going for a quick fix that appeared relevant in my edit. Anyway, thanks for the cleanup help! --2pou (talk) 02:27, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
|
April 2020
edit
Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. El_C 12:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Removal of "three-quarter sibling" from Sibling page
editHello. I was looking for Wikipedia's explanation of sibling-cousins a.k.a. three-quarter siblings, and I couldn't find it, although I did find a mention on Wiktionary that had a link to a now-deleted section of the Sibling article. Some investigation revealed you had removed the section and reinstated the removal after it was reverted rather than discuss it as the reverter had requested.
There are two points I wish to make here.
1) Reverting a reversion without discussing it, in all but a few special cases, is considered a form of edit-warring and strongly discouraged on this site. It is discouraged because it leaves pages in the state desired by the most persistent individual editor, rather than in a state the community can agree on.
2) By removing the mention of this from the Sibling article, you created a lacuna in Wikipedia - no Wikipedia article currently describes this relationship despite its being relatively well-known (and referred to by a now-broken link on a sister project). Removing something from an article where it doesn't belong is all well and good, but if it's notable it needs to be discussed somewhere and you should check for this before removing sections of articles wholesale.
I actually agree that "three-quarter sibling" is a terrible name for this relationship, and am not sure where would be best to cover it ("Sibling" and/or "Cousin" are the obvious choices, although there may be some other relevant page of which I am unaware). However, wholesale removing a chunk of an article, leaving a hole in Wikipedia, and then ignoring a request for discussion in favour of brute-force reinstatement, is not a good solution. (I will note that had you discussed this rather than re-reverting, the concept's lack of coverage elsewhere would almost certainly have been raised.)
I would ask that you use a little more caution when improving articles. Bold edits are great (though as I said, it's worth checking for lacuna issues in the specific case of deleting large sections of articles), but if you get reverted - even for a reason that doesn't seem very valid on the surface - you need to discuss things to make sure you're not missing something.
(And for the record, I've made the mistake of ignoring an "invalid" revert reason and re-reverting myself; it's easy to do in the heat of the moment. In at least one case I was also missing something and in hindsight I should have discussed it first. Remember - there's no harm in talking.) Magic9mushroom (talk) 08:18, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Used in everyday life
edit
Hello, 198.151.8.4. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Used in everyday life".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
May 2022
edit
Hello, I'm 0xDeadbeef. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Kelli Johnson have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. 0xDeadbeef (T C) 01:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
January 2023
edit
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Chris Beard. 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:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- 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. Cerebral726 (talk) 20:30, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
August 2023
edit Hello, I'm Felida97. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Generation Alpha—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Felida97 (talk) 18:13, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
