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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
This block is due to persistent addition of unsourced content, refusal to explain disputed changes via edit summary, and now a personal attack above at Special:Permalink/1039084594#August 2021 3 because people are complaining. Admin responding to an unblock request should read the several August 2021 threads here and the ANI. —valereee (talk) 15:58, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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).
I understood and accept the reasons for blocking me indefinitely. I'm truly sorry for my personal attack – I loathe, and have taken exception to, being pestered or nagged about my contributions or so-called "problem" edits. In all my Wikipedia editing years I've never attempted to disrupt this website or damage its credibility through my recent or past edits. It's unconscionable for me to be sidelined from editing for an unknown length of time, and an effective ban is beneath me. So, I pledge to desist adding unsourced content, to ensure sources support everything in my next edits, not just parts of them, and to explain disputed changes via the edit summary. Santiago Claudio (talk) 00:05, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
Editing Wikipedia requires you to collaborate with other users. Describing their concerns as "nagging" makes it seem to me that you're going to have trouble collaborating except on your own terms. Please make a new unblock request that describes how you will interact with your fellow editors when they have a problem with your edits. Please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution for suggestions. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:41, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
In interacting with fellow editors when there are problems with my edits, I pledge to heed their concerns, desist adding unsourced content, ensure sources support everything in my next edits, not just parts of them, and explain disputed changes via the edit summary. Otherwise, I also pledge to either add a new section to the relevant article's or articles' talk page(s) that explains my rationale, discuss with the other party/parties, focus on content, or even disengage. Santiago Claudio (talk) 14:50, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since you were blocked for 49 days, I'm going to alert @Sundayclose: because I have doubts about your reinstatement in Wikipedia. I hope you take this matter seriously & reply to the previous messages before you make any further revisions on the articles. I hope you start using the Edit Summary & never leave a blank on that section. If you leave a blank, users have the right to revert it & don't ever bring that matter again in the future. Also, don't post anything that's already been checked & verified before. That's disruptive editing & assumption in good faith is no longer applicable to you anymore. If you think that information belongs in the article, cite your sources, i.e, the ISBN of a book & not an internet blog. I only have 824 total edits to my name compared to 24,838 live edits to your name. I'm not here for attention, credibility, notoriety, popularity, recognition & reputation. I'm here to bring information that wasn't brought to this site's attention before. You must be here for attention, credibility, notoriety, popularity, recognition & reputation. You update articles that haven't been updated for a while. Just because an article hasn't been updated for a while doesn't mean it's inactive. Perhaps, users are trying to find & research useful information that's pertinent to the subject. It takes a very long time to check/verify information & sources. Don't take this as an attack, it's a reminder of what you must or mustn't do in Wikipedia. NKM1974 (talk) 23:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's sad that it came to this because you've made some good edits. But those good edits don't justify the many bad edits or refusal to respect other editors and work collaboratively with them. I'm not opposed to the unblock, but I will be watching all of your edits closely, and I'm sure others will also. That's not stalking or harassment; it's us taking care of Wikipedia based on your editing history. You're on thin ice right now. I strongly suggest editing conservatively for a while and never reverting anyone (other than obvious vandals) more than once without discussion. Always, always respond to warnings or other attempts at communication. Good luck. Sundayclose (talk) 20:30, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'll let Valereee handle this, but I'll remind you of your promise when you requested that your latest block be lifted: "In interacting with fellow editors when there are problems with my edits, I pledge to heed their concerns, desist adding unsourced content, ensure sources support everything in my next edits, not just parts of them, and explain disputed changes via the edit summary." (bold added) Sundayclose (talk) 01:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SC, because you said you would not do that any longer. Maybe I shouldn't have assumed you meant that even if you saw other people doing it, you now knew it wasn't okay. Do you now understand that you should not be adding unsourced content even if you see that others are doing that?valereee (talk) 14:26, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. FTR, the reason I didn't indef you after your initial response was because I felt it was unlikely an admin responding to an unblock request would find any promise you made credible since you just broke your last promise. I didn't want this to amount to a permanent ban. But honestly, SC, this really is your final chance. Your next addition of unsourced content will likely be your last edit for a very long time, possibly forever. valereee (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.
In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. LizRead!Talk!01:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Santiago Claudio,
Please do not cut & paste content from a draft article to a main space page. If you disagree with a page move, then move it back. But don't create two pages on the same subject. It's disruptive. Ideally, you'd work on the draft version until it was ready to be submitted for review but if you are too impatient for that, then move the page back. Please do not cut & paste again in the future. LizRead!Talk!01:35, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally, for Greek Letter Organizations, there should be one table including both active and inactive chapters with a column for status. When I have a chance, I'd like to extend the existing table by adding that column and restoring the ones that where removed and mark them inactive. A complete list including all inactives hopefully can be found.Naraht (talk) 15:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Editing archived pages is a complete nono and should never be done. Beside that, the page move created a redirect, what solved any perceived issue. The Bannertalk03:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
