User talk:

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 2019[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm SouthernKangaroo. An edit that you recently made to Jughead Jones seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want to practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! ∞southernkangarootalk∞ 17:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Jughead Jones. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. DatGoodDude342 17:27, 26 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Archie Andrews, you may be blocked from editing.
Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: Archie Andrews was changed by (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.884973 on 2019-09-26T17:31:28+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 17:31, 26 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Archie Andrews. InvalidOS (talk) 17:36, 26 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

April 2022[edit]

Stop icon with clock
Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for block evasion.
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 ~~~~}}.  firefly ( t · c ) 16:40, 1 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))

Request reason:

No clear reason provided (talk) 16:42, 1 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Decline reason:

The reason is clearly stated above, "block evasion". 331dot (talk) 17:33, 1 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[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.

October 2022[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Riverbend21. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Keith Urban 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 or the Help desk. Thanks. Riverbend21 (talk) 12:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Vehicle frame. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Raydann (talk) 12:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Riverbend21, yep, that one was obviously wrongful, thanks. (talk) 12:45, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stop icon This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Lolkikmoddi (talk) 13:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Lolkikmoddi where do you see vandalism here? (talk) 13:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

every single revert you make Lolkikmoddi (talk) 13:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lolkikmoddi, please provide any rules that denies me to revert wrongful edits and I'll believe you. (talk) 14:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
stop pinging me. you have been reverting text for no reason plus its making the edit filter go crazy Lolkikmoddi (talk) 14:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Lolkikmoddi If it's discussion that you started and not an ultimatum (that is denied at wikipedia), that pinging is obvious thing. I you need reason, read it here: User talk: As of ediing filter (I bet that's real reason you abuse me here) - so just fix it or tell me how to AVOID it to go crazy by my edits with still doing it. (talk) 14:06, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i did not abused you? its just a revert you can revert back D: Lolkikmoddi (talk) 17:14, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lolkikmoddi: Please be sure you are not )) I wrote it not knowing you r newbie but thinking you are just uncompromising critic who want just to "bite". Do not take "to heart"/personally. Everything's ok ) (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Muboshgu: Can you please join current conversation and make a clear understanding for those numerous power users, who abuse me for more then half an year for same activity, that you marked as correct here? Thank you in advance. (talk) 14:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@PerpetuityGrat: Can you please also join current conversation and make a clear understanding for those numerous power users, who abuse me for more then half an year for same activity, that you marked as correct i.e. here or here? Thank you in advance. (talk) 14:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@JrawX: Can you please also join current conversation and make a clear understanding for those numerous power users, who abuse me for more then half an year for same activity of deleting emails from articles, that you partly duplicated here? Thank you in advance. (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see now what editing guideline you are going by, after looking through the edit history of your IP range some. I apologize for incorrectly identifying your edits as disruptive. It was not without a reason, however since you deviated from using edit summaries, as well as some of the rather unsavory comments you made before in another discussion regarding the same topic. I know it can be frustrating to have to explain your edits repeatedly when another editor isn't understanding where you are coming from. Perhaps writing a short Wikipedia essay that summarizes the basis behind your edits that you can direct other editors to would help you out. BlueNoise (talk) 15:13, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@BlueNoise:You are straight up Shakespeare according to your thoughts' deepness and word interweaving. As you can see at already mentioned User talk: and one more - User talk: - where talk had some intersection of prequel and sequel of that communication, I repeatedly tried to clear my intentions still maneuvering between opinions, as one as @Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 83#Category:CS1_errors: missing name, where I asked to use a bot to make that similar actions automated, but that all obviously didn't help and just led to addressed to me massive abuse from power users and blocking for half an year of wide range of IPs I could ever use. Also, as you can see, I commented precisely earlier my edits, but as I'm not a bot - that's quite time expensive thing, so I see no sense to do it repeatedly once massively already done but still not understood. Also, partly because of saving time, I can't explain stupidity of each power user, much simpler to just name it with only, but quite meaningful, word you mean I used. As of writing a Wikipedia essay - that's good idea - but if I've being repressed or just deleting email from articles, where's a warranty my essay won't be repressed/deleted/not even finished and hidden same way? ))) If I see no such warranty - so... What a point to write it? However - if you suggest me how to do it with no any clue of deleting it by power users - as for full understanding why is it needed - there have to be some unpleasant examples (probably including inter-wiki ones) that obviously will touch upon some power users' behaviour also - please let me know. So... As of my current edits... Can I continue? (talk) 16:36, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is highly unlikely that an essay explaining the basis behind your edits would be deleted, as you are not attempting to evade any blocks (or at least that are known to me). The tone at this point is unnecessary, and I'm doing my best to help you. The reason why the IPs you've been using have been getting blocked is because they are a part of a range that belongs to a p2p proxy, and no other reason. I've given you a suggestion that might alleviate the problem, as well as brought up that I see where you're coming and that your edits are more than likely not disruptive, as I and other editors assumed on WP:AIV. The tone at this point is unnecessary, and I'm doing my best to help you. BlueNoise (talk) 16:40, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@BlueNoise: I didn't mean any tone about you personally above (i.e. you doubled mentioning it but I don't dare to edit your comment according to WP:AVOIDABUSE, just pointing on it). As of ip-range blocked - it's not p2p, it's only me there always doing the same - deleting contact information for articles to fully follow Wikipedia:Not - that just widely (including inter-wiki projects) tearing up power user's farts and they just reacting same way inadequately for years unwilling to just follow wiki-projects global key rules i.e. by helping me clear projects of that rubbish data instead of "throw sand in the wheels". Thank you for your help/suggestion, but I still don't know how to write essays exactly. I know how to write articles, redirects, disambigs, etc., but not essays. Any links with helping suggestions? (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not a big deal to me, but your tone could definitely land you in hot water further down the road with somebody else. BlueNoise (talk) 04:44, 8 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@BlueNoise: If editor won't get there's no any tone even when s(he) directly told there no any, as, as it looks like, you are now, it can, - however if s(he) at least a little able to put h(er/im)self to the interlocutor's place it obviously can't. Anyway - thank you for your worries. (talk) 09:45, 8 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All I've done there is fill a bare citation and make sure that an e-mail address is not someone's last name? // JrawX / Talk / Contribs 15:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JrawX:There's much deeper idea exists according to WP:YELLOW, but anyway thanks for respond with even such simple explanation - that's also quite valuable. :) (talk) 16:36, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ira Leviton: Can you please also join current conversation and make a clear understanding for those numerous power users, who abuse me for more then half an year for same activity of deleting emails from articles, that you partly duplicated i.e. here or here? Thank you in advance. (talk) 14:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By simply deleting e-mail addresses from "last" parameters, you are solving one problem by creating another – citations with empty "last" parameters that have content in their "first" parameters. Articles that have these types of citations are automatically listed at Category:CS1 errors: missing name and maybe elsewhere. Editors who patrol this page, which currently has more than 1000 articles, then try to fix these mistakes.
The proper thing to do is delete the e-mail addresses and then move surnames in the "first" parameter to the "last" parameter, while keeping the forenames in the "first" parameter. (If there's only one name in "first", it should be moved to "last".) It's also a good idea to fix ALLCAPS and other errors in these citations as well – references with e-mail addresses in the "last" parameter of web or newspaper citations have often been generated by automated programs and contain other errors because they import the wrong information or format it incorrectly, such as by putting dates into "last" parameters, times of day into "date" parameters, names of websites into "title" parameters, and so on. In other words, fix the entire citation, just don't delete the e-mail address.
Ira Leviton (talk) 17:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ira Leviton:i appreciate your work of correcting citations, however let me be fair:
  1. Errorously filled citations does not violate wiki key rules as real emails, phones etc. presented at wiki-pages do.
  2. You are right about probably moving last name from "first" or whatever field, you already mentioned here, however there's widely spreaded cases when there's no any last name at whole citation and there's no reason to spend minutes on each such citation having email inside trying to find it out when there's still thousands of articles containing same violation.
  3. As of category article is being included same moment after sometimes deleting email from citation there it was also discussed here, however there's indisputable fact, that for last half an year almost no articles of hundreds of ones with my edits reverted was fixed properly. In view of it it's much better for article to be included at "errorous category" list because of "no last name" then being undetected by anyone indefinitely. As of "better correct all citation errors" "just don't delete emails"(what you mean?? It clearly violates WP:Not): I don't know all possible errors, and wikipedia is meant to be publicly edited and not by some only member doing all of it (at least it's exactly how I see means WP:5P3&WP:5P4), including fixing errors
  4. Fixing on same type error while massively editing makes do it much faster (up to 100 times) then trying to "embrace the immensity" doing everything at once. Other words - when I will do it for 1 minute and you will do it for one minute - we both will spend 2 minutes, because we both know what we both doing in narrow sense we both familiar with, and when I will do same things alone - I can spend up to 5 minutes (that is more then 2 times longer time then we both used total) doing it - so I see no any "win" in such strategy you suggest.
However - thank you for your respond here. (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ira Leviton: Can you please explain how to deal with such rare case when you personally created an "missing last name value" as there was no any information at cite tempate itself to fill that field with? (talk) 03:37, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That was an error by me. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. I have fixed it, because I can recognize when I've made a mistake, and even admit it in public, which apparently is something you can't do. From reading the content on this page, it's quite clear to me that you've asked several editors to intercede on your behalf and then became argumentative and didn't listen to suggestions, help, and proper solutions, even from editors with a lot of experience on Wikipedia. Don't you realize how much it takes to get banned for 6 months on multiple IP addresses? You should have changed your editing methods after that, but you still haven't learned. And if you're going to argue with me because you don't like my suggestions, please leave me alone – I have better ways to spend my time. Ira Leviton (talk) 04:13, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ira Leviton:you have a definite prejudice against me. What is written on this page is indeed a generalization of the procedure for interaction in case of violations of the policy in the articles and attempts to correct them by one side, as well as, at times, an inadequate reaction from the other side. As about what I should - it is written in the policy - and there nothing written about I should change the behavior, because only a certain part of the editors, regardless of their experience, does not like it, but is still strictly demanded by the whole community (policy content). As for you personally, I never tried to ignore your experience or reproach you for something, in contrast, by the way, from you to me, as above. You, apparently, did not understand the purpose of my last question to you - I did not try to "dip your face in milk", but just asked you to explain how to behave CORRECTLY in such situations - how to correct value of exactly cite template "last" field to not raise the template error or it's okay, that it remains empty in such cases when it is simply impossible to find out the value corresponding to it quickly or at all? If you still don't want to take part in the discussion anymore - that's ok, hope you just won't mind I will use your last correction as example of correct behaviour of what exactly editor have to do in situation where no any possibility to find out source author's last name to fill the "last" "cite" template's field - namely - to just delete "first" field value also. If I misunderstood your edit - please correct me. Thank you for your respond. (talk) 14:18, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ohhh i thought you was the person adding the emails, my bad im kinda new Lolkikmoddi (talk) 15:15, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lolkikmoddi:Thanks god! So can I continue? ) (talk) 16:36, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
prob, just don't make too much reverts because it does make the edit filter do weird stuff and people could mistake it with disruptive edits, im sorry for warning you.
again have a good rest of your afternoon! Lolkikmoddi (talk) 17:16, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Lolkikmoddi: I will still be needed to make a couple of hundreds of same-type undos more to return editing parity that was formerly rudely violated and continue editing new articles, so... Please let filter (i.e. which one? I didn't see any filtering notices) tolerate me. It's rather late (dark) evening here already, but thanks, I'll try to get some rest :) You try too, whatever time you have now. (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
the log is this --> Edit filter log - Wikipedia,
Im doing a website prodject which im making mine about tornados. have a good night or day! Lolkikmoddi (talk) 19:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@GoingBatty:Can you please tell why did you delete direct email address? Your voice would be useful for current conversation. Thank you in advance. (talk) 01:29, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because I was confident that the author's surname is not an email address. It appears the email address was added in this edit by an editor using the reFill tool. Although reFill can make some good suggestions, it makes some bad suggestions too, and editors are supposed to ensure the citation templates are filled out correctly before saving them. Please see Template:Cite_web#Authors for instructions on how the citation fields should be populated. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:49, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@GoingBatty:Thank you for sharing, that will be quite useful for ones who is concerned of current discussion topic and really care about what exactly causes such situation to avoid it in future. Have a nice day! (talk) 03:59, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Anomalocaris:Please tell us here why do you think deleting email from cite template is a good idea. (talk) 02:20, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GoingBatty and Anomalocaris are not just removing emails, but are also fixing the author/first/last attributes. Please, you've demonstrated that you know how to fix them, so just do that. Why spend so much time arguing and trying to score points, when that time would be so much better spent just fixing this reference issue you feel passionately about? Politanvm talk 02:30, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Politanvm:This fact does not diminish the importance of such activity highlighted. I'll look at level of your willing to edit something more (including template perfectionism you mean but what is not neccessary but only likely) then already done when all your edits will be reverted and you will just trying first to return what was already done by reverting it back. So please just don't interfere people to tell their voice. Because many power users use their power inadequately in an attempt to perfectionize just recommended by Wikipedia guidelines in prejudice of required following Wikipedia policies, that have to be finished finally. Community voices help these outnumbered editors to understand that. Do you have any more questions or comments? (talk) 02:44, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
IP user Thank you for your interest in improving Wikipedia. Rephrasing your question with greater clarity, you asked me why my edit of 13:57, 6 June 2022 (UTC) of List of March for Our Lives locations deleted an email address from a {{Cite news}} template. That edit included about 400 to 500 small individual changes, and I stand behind each and every one of them. The part that seems to concern you is:
Old: {{Cite news|url=|title=Students bring passionate speeches to March for Our Lives rally||first=J.B. SMITH||access-date=2018-03-28}} :, J.B. SMITH. "Students bring passionate speeches to March for Our Lives rally". Retrieved 2018-03-28.
New: {{Cite news|url=|title=Students bring passionate speeches to March for Our Lives rally |author=J.B. Smith |work=Waco Tribune |access-date=2018-03-28}} : J.B. Smith. "Students bring passionate speeches to March for Our Lives rally". Waco Tribune. Retrieved 2018-03-28.
In the Old version, the author's name "J.B. SMITH" appeared improperly in ALL CAPS as a first name and the author's e-mail address "" appeared improperly as a last name. Both parameters wrong. The |last= parameter is supposed to be a last name; the |first= parameter is supposed to be a first name; neither parameter is supposed to have anything else (such as an e-mail address) and neither parameter is supposed to be in ALL CAPS. Since the first and last names already appeared together in one parameter, I elected to keep it that way and used the |author= parameter. If someone else came long and separated the first and last names into separate parameters, I would not object, but I did nothing wrong. If you want to be a better editor, I encourage you to look further at this particular edit and any other edit in my editing history. I take pride in my edits and in writing clear and comprehensive edit summaries. In this case, with over 400 individual changes, the summary didn't detail everything, but everything I did was for a reason. The California city is "Benicia" not "Benecia". {{Cite news}} is preferred to {{Cite web}} when either is possible and the material is the work of a bona fide news organization. A few editors disagree, but I strongly believe that television stations should be considered publishers and not works, i.e. they should not be italicized. The hyphen (-) should be replaced with an en dash (–) to indicate a range. When used to indicate a range, the en dash should be spaced if and only if one of the items it appears between is a compound. Whenever possible, use the name of the publication or publisher, not its website, thus "" should be replaced with "The Connecticut Mirror". Items posted on social media websites such as Facebook should be listed with the social media appearing in the |via= parameter: |via=Facebook. Puffery should be removed from publishers or periodicals, thus |work=WPSD Local 6 - Your News, Weather, & Sports Authority becomes |publisher=WPSD. There are various standard ways of indicating elements of state, party, and district number of a member of the U.S. House of Representatives; "U.S. Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-5, of Maryland" is not in a proper format, so I fixed it to "U.S. Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD-5)". Piped links can be appropriate, but it is not appropriate to use a city link with the mayor of that city, so I fixed "Ardsley Mayor Nancy Kaboolian" to "Ardsley Mayor Nancy Kaboolian". Mouse over that to see that before I fixed it, clicking on the mayor's name sent you to the city she's mayor of. Others may disagree, but I believe that when a website's name isn't available except in URL style, like, it's usually best to omit any leading www. So, again, thank you for asking, now go and study my edits and my edit summary methods. For edit summaries, too much detail is better than too little. The great majority of Wikipedia article edits have edit summaries that are too short. Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:39, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Anomalocaris:You are welcome ) I really some way trying to )
WoW! You are like me sometimes when I have the inspiration ) Yep it is exact change I meant, I didn't notice first it veeery looong and when I did and clarified about line 3,293 I missed a username mentioned. Your comment is awesome and at no doubt most detailed and clearly specified of any of I've seen so far for last more then half an year this topic started, including my own ones )))
Despite I'll hardly follow all recomendations you circumstantially described just because of lack of time, at least now, when one-typed error have place at thousands of articles, I sincerely thank you for your, in fact, own how-to manual provided about how to use "cite"-typed templates and manage it's field's filling.
I'm sure that will help not to me only when I'll be ready to edit cite templates precisely, but to anyone, who'll be interested in doing it and some way will find that user talk page )
Thank you again (talk) 21:05, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Schazjmd: Please share why do you think deleting emails and full website url from "cite" template is a good idea. (talk) 03:21, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per Template:cite web, the website should be the plain language title of the website. The cited ref had no byline so there should not be author fields (last/first). Schazjmd (talk) 14:12, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Schazjmd:Thanks! That will be useful for further understanding of better paths avoinding such violations. (talk) 14:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Alextheconservative: Thank you for your fix. Can you please share in detail why you commented edit with "citation error" as one as deleted email here? That would be helpful for current duscusssion. Thanks (talk) 12:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I changed the citation because Rushcliffe Borough Council was listed twice (in the title field and the "last" and "first"). I changed it so there was no repetition in the citation. Thanks, Alextheconservative (talk) 10:02, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Alextheconservative:in fact your answer surprised me as I expected deleting email was your goal there, but goal of just clearing duplication author's name by writing it different ways (email, name, etc.) is also a great explanation ) Or you just didn't mention to delete email between two equal names and did it occasionally at first fix? What about deleting email right after line 3,293 of second fix you probably missed to explain why? And, for sure, thank you again for your reply. (talk) 14:18, 6 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't do the second edit (Anomalocaris did) so I can't comment on it. Thanks, Alextheconservative (talk) 08:16, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Alextheconservative:Oops, really. Sorry, missed the username difference :)

@C.Fred:Please share why you think deleting email from cite template is fixing it. That just a question, your answer to will be helpful for current duscusssion. (talk) 12:39, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The author of the Santa Fe New Mexican article is Mr. Gould, not Mr. There were several references that had authors' names improperly placed in the first and last fields. —C.Fred (talk) 16:24, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@C.Fred:Thank you. I bet it will help ones who still doubt to hear a voice of the community regarding such simple question as does contact information at articles (at least, as of your example at references) really inappropriate or not. (talk) 18:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 – (talk) 04:58, 9 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at The Spitting Image. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Beccaynr (talk) 03:46, 9 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
@Beccaynr: Don't you see a WP:YELLOW link there as explanation? If that explanation is not enough, you can read more detailed why emails have to be deleted from articles, i.e. here. (talk) 03:54, 9 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did, and it does not appear to be a sufficient explanation, as I explained in my edit summary. At this point, it seems better to further discuss this at the article Talk page, instead of continuing to remove the material. In the very long user Talk page you have linked as further support for your repeated removal, it appears Tamzin has discussed a related issue, as well as the issue of disruptive editing. I encourage you to discuss the content issue on the Talk page of the article, because WP:YELLOW does not appear to be a sufficient basis for removing the quote, and it would be nice to have further input from other editors. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 04:23, 9 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Beccaynr:WP:NOT (a WP:policy you have to follow with no doubt) clearly denies emails at articles - that's exactly what I commented here. If you want to discuss - I agree - but only after removing WP:NOT violation and not before. (talk) 04:58, 9 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do be a touch more careful with your removals; this is the actual name of the website and this one either needs its grammar fixed or as I've initially started from, a simple reversion as the email was published in the source attached to the address. (You could sell me on removal of the second one but not without some actual rationale.) --Izno (talk) 04:27, 9 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Izno:WP:NOT have highest priority over any of local consensuses. Until there's such policy violation - there's nothing to discuss. However I'm ready to discuss any changes right AFTER violation will be removed. Please don't interfere me make articles' content to follow the WP:NOT. (talk) 05:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please explain how you believe the edits of mine that you have reverted satisfy WP:NOT. Izno (talk) 05:14, 9 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will right after you will stop reverting it. (talk) 05:18, 9 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm waiting. Izno (talk) 05:22, 9 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • Nor should listings such as the white or yellow pages be replicated
    • Neither articles nor their associated talk pages are for conducting the business of the topic of the article. Listings to be avoided include, but are not limited to:... contact information...
  2. WP:NOTGUIDE: ...but not the telephone number or street address...
  3. WP:PROMOTION: Wikipedia is not...a vehicle for...advertising...
and emails are clearly both contact information and advertising (news cited author, website owner, citation orator etc.) In that particular case having real email at article's cite template content which is a part of article's content is clear email and contact data of VK (service), which publishing it advertises a company. When publishing email at second article you mentioned, you advertise "CBI officer AGL Kaul". Am I clear enough? (talk) 05:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
These are not advertising nor contact information. The website name is the website name, and you don't get to decide it's something else. It's a fundamental failure of WP:V and a bizarre reading of WP:NOT. I am clearly not the first perturbed by your edits, so I strongly recommend you cease until you verify your reading of the policies of interest are correct. Izno (talk) 05:42, 9 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Izno: thank you, but I will just ignore you recomendation same way you ignore WP:NOT as one as claiming email is NOT a contact information... (talk) 05:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Valjean:you can join discussion instead of wowing somewhere. (talk) 05:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What words at WP:NOT forbid this specific and relevant inclusion of an email address in article text? This is not about citation templates. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 06:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Valjean:I think you have to read recent discussion above or just look here at to get what I mean. (talk) 07:19, 9 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have and don't find an explanation for this situation. That's why I'm asking for verification of your interpretation of PAG. Please provide the wording in the PAG that justifies that edit. It's a very simple request. If you can't back up what you're doing, then you should stop doing it and stop edit-warring over it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm curious[edit]

You're going through the edits of User:Cutlass, and reversing them all. Why are you doing that? BlueNoise (talk) 12:53, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@BlueNoise:, First, not all, but certain. Second, because he's just a faulty sword-wielding idiot, who doesn't follow the Wikimedia/Wikipedia rules. (talk) 13:06, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I reverted these edits as they were disruptive as you decided that removing emails but then replacing them with "By" was a good idea, which it was not. It was obvious disruptive editing as you did not heed other warnings said by other editors, and although it may have been in good intention, your disruptive behavior was not helping convince me you were acting in any kind of good faith, especially now with the personal attacks by calling me a "sword-wielding idiot." If you had read the warnings and actually paid attention to what others were suggesting, I would not have done so in the way I acted, but this just proves that reverting those edits was a good idea. CutlassCiera 23:27, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cutlass:So... You decided to join current conversation where your name appeared, but ignored User talk: one had place half an year ago BEFORE you did all these reverts... Placing "By" to the "last" field was a consensus of discussion where was clearly told that exactly leaving "last" field empty (that was my initial activity) is not a good idea and my such activity was exactly one that other editors literally recommended me to act like, but who I tell it to? One who do not read connected discussions and just revert edits?.. I see. That way you are great.. As Alexander Macedonian. Sword-wielding one for sure. Continue acting same way if that makes you happy. (talk) 12:28, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Pontchartrain Hotel, you may be blocked from editing. BlueNoise (talk) 12:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@BlueNoise:, no way, it's not disruptive at all. Detailed here: User talk:, so - I obviously WILL contunue (talk) 13:06, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@BlueNoise:, forgot to write your name, please read above. (talk) 13:09, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. BlueNoise (talk) 13:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC) @BlueNoise:, if your same way blind as above mentioned one, - be my guest ) (talk) 13:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A suggestion[edit]

Hi, IP 85. I've looked through the edits you've been making, and I see that a lot of what you're doing is constructive, but it's also bringing you into conflict with other users. It struck me that perhaps some of that could be avoided if you did a bit more than just removing the email addresses. You're citing "NOTYELLOW", but that's not really the issue here; I doubt any of these e-mail addresses were intentionally added by editors trying to disseminate journalists' contact information. Rather, these are all likely cases of various scripts and tools treating an email address in the author field as a surname rather than an unrelated piece of metadata. So, have you considered with, say, an edit like Special:Diff/1113846380, instead of just removing that email address, also correcting the |first= and |last= fields? In this case that would be just removing them or setting |author=<!--not stated-->. Or in a case like Special:Diff/1113840575 it would mean changing it to |last1=Thierry-Mieg|first1=Danielle|last2=Thierry-Mieg|first2=Jean. Changes like that, which show more involvement in improving the individual article and a greater understanding of the issue at hand, are much less likely to cause conflict in my experience. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 17:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See also this IP talk page and discussions above. This disruptive editor is having a hard time learning how to edit citations properly, despite advice from multiple editors. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The IP editor seems to make a habit of missing the point, as exemplified in not understanding how their edits are creating more issues.[1] As well as in their continual insistance that their IP ban has anything to do but the fact that their IP range is under a p2p proxy. I'm not sure if it's a competency issue, or if they are doing this to illustrate some point that everyone else isn't understanding. BlueNoise (talk) 17:51, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jonesey95 and BlueNoise:What a nonsense comments you both have at current topic... BlueNoise, Wikipedia is public project - "avoiding an issues" is not it's point, but point is public editing - meaning by many authors, in detail you can read above at my answer to Ira Leviton, as of p2p and other - I replied to you above also (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia's purpose is to benefit readers by acting as a widely accessible and free encyclopedia that contains information on all branches of knowledge. This is from Wikipedia:About. When you introduce or reintroduce inaccurate citation data and, in the process, hide error messages that draw helpful editors to fix such inaccurate data, that detracts from our mission to provide verifiable information to the world. Please stop. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jonesey95:Did you come up with that phrase yourself or it's written at some Wikipedia policies that WP:About not? Please show me where at the policies you see such phrase to be clear first. But if you really insist on this, in fact, essay to be followed, then you have to know such phrase written there: To remain, the content... must conform with Wikipedia's policies, one of which where told what Wikipedia is NOT clearly tell us i.e. "Nor should listings such as the white or yellow pages be replicated.", "not the telephone number or street address", "Listings to be avoided include, but are not limited to: information" which usually means at least both phone numbers and emails, however sometimes even street addresses to NOT REMAIN at articles of Wikipedia at any case. And that's the POLICY that is result of WHOLE community consensus that obviously overrides consensus some alone editor's opinion or consensus of couple of ones (that, in fact just your policy-groundless complaints). Sure, you can complain to Wikipedia:Arbitration who really can override community consensus however until there's no such arbtrary decision was taken that's YOU who violates Wikipedia policies by reverting my edits and not me doing it. So please, YOU stop. As of 'benefiting readers' (and not editors) - overwhelming majority of them are not interested much what order have information published a citation, will it be i.e. "By, John Grass" ("last"=By, first="John Grass") or "Grass, John" (last="Grass", first="John"), but if you are perefctonist who want to fix this - you are free to, however who I telling it ti? Guy who DIDN'T FIX ANY OF complained articles or more then half an year... So maybe you really just don't care about 'reader's benefits" and just won't pretend to be an expression of concern justifying your inappropriate activity by "just reverting everything" you don't even care about?? Does my idea clear enough for you now? (talk) 12:28, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What you wrote above makes no sense. In lieu of attempting to explain Wikipedia's mission and basic policies to someone who clearly does not have a full grasp of the English language, here is an example edit that shows a good way to fix the kind of errors that you are finding. Here is another, and here is another. These fixes take very little time, and they leave the articles' citations in a valid state. If you continue to remove e-mail addresses from citation author parameters, please actually fix the parameters instead of adding invalid values like "-" and "By". – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jonesey95:Eh? Do you try to harass me intolerating my native language? Please don't. As of examples you provided it looks like you not even familiar with problem that was raised by those editors who really cared about what my edits raised (so called perfectionists - who want all cite template fields to be filled exacly correctly, who even invented filters for filling numerous appropriate categories, when something wrongfully filled, i.e. that one) - it was about WP:CITEWEB, that still just recomendations and not even require to fill anything "exactly right according to template", but just to use the <ref></ref> tags that quite enough initially for article citations according to these recomendations my edits never any way violated (which still not stop you from daring of massive revert of changes to what you don't really care about). However, let me tell what I mean telling what exactly you are not familiar with. If digging deeper, we can see you (numbered by your examples' mention order above:
  1. as BlueNoise said below (rephrased partially) "you caused one MoS violation while fixing another", because "last" field is only for "The surname of the author" (according to description), but what you placed there is obviously not, so your edit is not perfect and, according to your half-year-ago logic - only I have to... repeatedly revert your such edit and repeat your are just "piece of sh*t" (and when you are not agreed you are - just block your edits for half-an-year with no any legal reason) until you'll ever guess to also change "last" field name to "author" field name that is not descripted but obviously covers not only surname but much wider category: any of last name, first name, museum's name, or it's web team, meant there. So what I do? I just fixng error you've done. That's it! Such activity's exactly what is called the collaboration! What prevented you and another power users or just concerned editors from acting that way instead of unprovoked aggression? Result is perfect and took 1 day only instead of half an year you forced it to be earlier. Isn't it a wonder(ful)?
  2. It's almost perfect but spaces... And (just to be perfect) deleting 2 more bytes by denumbering (as unneded) 2 fields. So what I do? I just FIX what hurts my eyes... Again - collaboration!
  3. Almost perfect but spaces again. My initial edit + your fix + my fix = total collaboration perfect result. What's a problem here? Does it worth agression? (talk) 23:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jonesey95:Probably that was question to you. Did you ever tried to answer it or still thinking your massive reverts was legal or at least justified enough? (talk) 23:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tamzin:WP:YELLOW clearly denies publishing any contact data regardless it was intentionally published or not, so doubts of deleting or not it is not a question. I'm sorry, but what exactly had I write at "last" field at your first example: Victoria? Albert? Museum or Digital Media? How much time would I spend to find information for "last" field by myself having no idea what is it all about? Sure I did it earlier: i.e. here or here, but it still was taking too much time taking in view there's thousands of pages with same-issued violation waiting to be fixed. Also, after i.e. such a shit (or you see here some solution about what to be moved to the 'last' field instead?) there's no much intention anymore to spend my own time to make someone extraordinary and, in fact, quite lazy as for person who mostly worried about 'issues', feel comfortable. If there's issues - there's many editors to resolve it. It's public editing place and not some issue-free "safe zone" for lazy perfectionists. Other main reason to still edit such pages - other way such violations being undetected for decades or just being buried as "why not" and therefore just multiplied with time. In detail - why I don't see a sense of acting such a hard editing way you can read above at my answer to Ira Leviton. (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's no Wikipedia without collaberation. That, and the fact that your editing is causing another problem as you fix a specific problem is what you're not understanding. If the process is causing you too much of a headache due to a lack of automation, you could always try suggesting the implementation or creation of a bot to help with these sorts of issues. Or find a different way to contribute to the encyclopedia, and stop taking your frustrations out on people who are trying to help you. BlueNoise (talk) 19:28, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@BlueNoise:Did you read my answer to Ira Leviton ('cause I feel you are not)? I don't think duplicating it is a good idea... As one as much earlier answer, in fact, to you personally, where I pointed to Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 83#Category:CS1_errors: missing name where I exactly asked to do it with bot... SO please don't try to pour from empty to empty repeating to tell you trying to help me. Just READ my answers before writing a reply... Try to start from reading my answer to you above where I still asking for help about essays you didn't respond but fast-replied here instead... (talk) 19:41, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@BlueNoise:And, sure, thank you for helping (where it's really have place). (talk) 19:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Regardless of how you may feel, I've been following the conversation from top to bottom. You're making a mess as you're going along trying to clean another mess up, and then complaining about the mess you have to clean up and that in can't be done in a quicker manner. On top of claiming that there is no problem that you're causing one MoS violation while fixing another, ultimately accomplishing nothing. On top of complaining about a non-existence witch hunt. On top of continually pointing to the five pillars (namely 3 and 4) as the basis behind the continually growing disinterest in attempting to collaberate with you, not the tendentious manner in which you work with other editors, I don't know what to tell you. I can't word it in any simpler terms. BlueNoise (talk) 20:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Dear @BlueNoise:on the one hand, I appreciate your seemingly sincere concern (that's why I'll try to tell most simple as you do), however obvious you are clearly messing up WP:MOS which si just guideline meaning not strictly necessary to be followed and WP:NOT which is policy that all users should normally follow. Don't you see the difference? Activity I do sometimes really leads to, as you said, "MoS violation", however that also clears policy violation, that have much higher prority, so then my activity nor have to be perceived as disruptive (word power users like to write so much, one of written clearly on the next string) nor be reverted any way. Other fact - for the last half an year NONE of power users, who reverted hundreds of my edits, fixed MAIN WIKIPEDIA POLICY, which WP:Not is, violation they returned to the articles, which means their concern is at least, clearly not sincere, at most, they just don't care about project's content to be followed tp Wikipedia policies, when I clearly do. As of reading whole page - there's no need much, you know, I meant my question you didn't respond ending with "Any links with helping suggestions?" Can you respond that question there, or here or wherever. Thanks. (talk) 12:28, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • What this comes down to, 85, is that a number of editors in good standing have told you that your edits are disruptive, and when that happens, you really have two options:
    1. Stop.
    2. Change your editing behavior such that people no longer complain.
  • That's how it works for you. That's how it works for any of the editors complaining, if they're criticized. That's how it works for me as an administrator. This is a collaborative project, and so we collaborate. If you want to continue making these edits, you can go to a venue of suitable scope—perhaps Wikipedia talk:Citing sources or Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)—and start a section titled something like, I dunno, "Are edits removing email addresses from citation templates while leaving other errors net-positive?" But you can't keep making these edits, now that they've been challenged without at least a rough consensus in your favor.
    You may also want to read Wikipedia:The parable of the wildflowers. Not all of it applies here, but let's use a similar analogy: You've gone to the side of the highway, where there's lots of litter, and you've spray-painted a bunch of discarded soda cans green. You think this is an improvement, as the litter is marginally less of an eyesore now. Others complain, because you've made it harder to spot those soda cans for people who actually want to dispose of them, and since you've ignored all other trash, the roadside doesn't actually look any better. You cite some municipal policy against branded logos on the side of the highway, which may or may not technically apply, but largely misses the point. Who's right? You both make reasonable cases. But if you keep spray-painting those cans after others have asked you to stop, the other side is going to win the argument by default when someone compels you to stop. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 23:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Tamzin:I think it's time to write essay what can be called "disruptive editing" and what can't any way. You telling "users telling it's disruptive" but WP:Not tells vice versa and even more - it tells these users activity vs me is dsruptive editing - so who/what I should i listen to: WP:Not which is consensus of WHOLE community or a couple of editors who are obvious minority despite having some power at project they misuse? Hmm... Hard choice, but I prefer to follow policies instead of lazy editors who do nothing to fix arrticles policy violation for decades even then already acknowledged about it have place and even returned violation there by themselves. Thank you for your opinion and recommendation to stop, however I probably won't. If my activity is lathers the eye to that perfectionists, then that's really a good way to both fix policy violation I know how to detect and fix and MoS "violation" that they can detect easily after I fix policy violation there. AS you told "This is a collaborative project", however you obviously forget about no editor owns an article (and, 'm sure, a whole project), you telling "at least a rough consensus in my favor", but forget I have already WHOLE COMMUNITY ONE, why is it not enough for you when it strictly have to be? Don't you have to know and strictly follow Wikipedia policies first and only when it's followed - to WISHES of some limited groups of editors which obviously і much narrower consensus o whole community one? As it told "any contributions can and may be mercilessly edited, so please do not agonize over making mistakes, just fix it after I will remove policy violation, if you or anyone else can't do it nor manually nor with bot for decades and have no any other recomendations except "Stop". Thank you! However I always opened for suggestions how to FIX such POLICY VIOLATION IN COLLABORATION with you all concerned instead of leaving it intact for next decades and/or centuries. (talk) 12:28, 4 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]