~2026-18771-17

CS1 error on William Donner

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page William Donner, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A generic title error. References show this error when they have a generic placeholder title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 13:03, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

CS1 error on National Steel Corporation

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page National Steel Corporation, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters contains an invalid URL. Please edit the article to add the valid URL. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 14:17, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

April 2026

Hello, I'm Discospinster. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. On Wikipedia, it's important that article content be verifiable. If you'd like to resubmit your change with a citation, your edit is archived in the page history. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. ... discospinster _talk 03:24, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources to see how to add references to an article. Thank you. ... discospinster _talk 03:33, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

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 believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} or use the unblock wizard.  ... discospinster _talk 04:17, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

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).

~2026-18771-17 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

The following request was written through the unblock wizard.

Can you explain, in your own words, what you were blocked for?

a disagreement on what constitutes appropriate content. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=National_Steel_Corporation&diff=1350081555&oldid=1350075143 Something that is supposed to happen after 12 years happened after 3 years. That is rather quickly.

If unblocked, what edits would you make and what (if applicable) would you do differently?

i did nothing wrong

~2026-18771-17 (talk) 10:21, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Using the sample edit to which you linked, you added the words "(rather quickly)" which do not appear in the sources cited. They're your words, your opinion, and do not belong in Wikipedia's voice. If you have a source which says it's "rather quickly" then cite it. This is a breach of core policy not a mere "disagreement on what constitutes appropriate content". Declined. Cabayi (talk) 14:33, 20 April 2026 (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.

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).

~2026-18771-17 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

If you take a look at Wikipedia:Content assessment/C-Class criteria, you will read: "It may have some gaps or missing elements; need editing for clarity, balance, or flow; or contain policy violations,"

Decline reason:

Before being temporarily blocked, you were asked twice to remember to add reliable sources when adding material. This unblock request does not show that you understand that what you have done is disruptive to the encyclopedia nor have you given any confidence that you will not continue to be disruptive if unblocked. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 20:58, 21 April 2026 (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.

"May" refers to the possibility that a C-class article may have flaws in its current state. "May" does not refer to being allowed to make edits that contain policy violations.

It doesn't matter if the thing that take normally 12 years happens in three minutes; if the source doesn't characterize it that way, neither do we. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 07:04, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Trumbull-Cliffs Furnace Company, you may be blocked from editing. Dafootballguy | Want to talk? 21:26, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi ~2026-18771-17! I noticed that you've made several edits in order to restore a version of Trumbull-Cliffs Furnace Company. The impulse to repeatedly undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure that you're aware of Wikipedia's edit warring policy. Repeatedly undoing the changes made by other users in a back-and-forth fashion like this is disallowed, even if you feel what you're doing is justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages in order to try to reach a consensus with the other editors involved. If you are unable to come to an agreement at Talk:Trumbull-Cliffs Furnace Company, please use one of the dispute resolution options that are available in order to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of repeatedly reverting other editors' changes can help you avoid getting drawn into edit wars. Thank you. Dafootballguy | Want to talk? 21:39, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

You are edit warring and adding unsourced information. Stop. If you want to add a source for the information, that's fine. Dafootballguy | Want to talk? 22:03, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

@Dafootballguy: Sorry didn't see this message. You are mistaken. There is a source in the article. I read the source. The article summarized in poorly. I corrected the article.

You also removed other edits that only changed the reference URL to point to a version that is not behind a paywall at the same time. I assume that you have been given a rifle and a uniform and been told to stand watch on a corner. It's an important job, that nobody enjoys and nobody puts much effort into. Which explains why you are wrong.

Are you reasonably sure that i added unsourced content to the article? ~2026-18771-17 (talk) 22:41, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

I am pretty sure although I follow the policy of never saying I'm sure unless I'm positively certain. Dafootballguy | Want to talk? 22:50, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

So have you read the source? ~2026-18771-17 (talk) 22:51, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Give me a minute, I'm a bit busy with an Afd now. Dafootballguy | Want to talk? 22:52, 24 April 2026 (UTC)