User talk:Summerfell1978

January 2025

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to JJ Redick have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• If you need help, please see the Introduction to Wikipedia, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, place {{Help me}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: JJ Redick was changed by Summerfell1978 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.909509 on 2025-01-04T08:51:53+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 08:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Bagumba. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Byron Scott, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. —Bagumba (talk) 11:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added a citation. Thank you for reminding me! Summerfell1978 (talk) 12:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the NBC and Seattle Times sources. I removed BR, as it's generally not been considered reliable (Wikipedia:WikiProject National Basketball Association/References#Generally unreliable). Apologies if "unsourced" in the edit summary was misleading to you. Implicitly it refers to reliable sources, which is consistent with the verifiability policy:

In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means that people are able to check that information comes from a reliable source.

Today I learned that even borderline All-Stars are considered by some to be "role players". Thanks again. —Bagumba (talk) 02:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hi Summerfell1978! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! —Bagumba (talk) 11:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

National varieties of English

Hello. In a recent edit to the page Oregano, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

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 first 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"For an international topic, use the form of English that the first author of the article used." But if you go back to 2001 it was never clarified. Furthermore Josh Grosse the user is a Canadian mathmatician. Why can't we use 'flavor' instead of 'flavour'? British English is dying. American English is standard now. Summerfell1978 (talk) 12:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

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.
Again, you changed wikt:flavours to wikt:flavors - see those Wikitionary definitions. Thank you Adakiko (talk) 11:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 2025

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Friedrich Wegener have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• If you need help, please see the Introduction to Wikipedia, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, place {{Help me}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Friedrich Wegener was changed by Summerfell1978 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.869098 on 2025-01-10T17:50:16+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 17:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Sam Chachoua. Your edits continue to appear to constitute vandalism and have been automatically reverted.

• If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• If you need help, please see the Introduction to Wikipedia, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, place {{Help me}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
• The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Sam Chachoua was changed by Summerfell1978 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.891558 on 2025-01-12T00:41:04+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 00:41, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at LeBron James, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. —Bagumba (talk) 13:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The Medicine Barnstar
		Thank you for your contributions to WikiProject Medicine-related articles, especially your recent edits to Long-term effects of alcohol. Keep up the good work! You are making a difference here! Anupam^Talk 17:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Summerfell1978, I am very honoured to receive a barnstar from you as well. Indeed, I try to be welcoming. This award has made my day and I pray for God's blessings on you and your family. With warm regards, Anupam^Talk 19:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on The Real Anthony Fauci

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

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter 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) 19:10, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 2025

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Project 2025. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

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. Please do not add an excessive amount of citations to support a claim, as you did here. 💽 🌙Eclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ (she/they) ^talk/edits 16:28, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I provided evidence why and how the anti-democratic Project 2025 outline is being implemented by Trump's administration. Could you please explain why you think I was making unconstructive edits by simply citing valid sources? Summerfell1978 (talk) 16:33, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with your edit was your addition of an excessive amount of citations (i.e. "refbombing") to the article. This is not a reliability issue and rather an issue with how you cite your sources. I should also note that you are repeatedly adding vague and extraordinary claims to the article, which have been challenged twice (here and here). — 💽 🌙Eclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ (she/they) ^talk/edits 16:52, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe this falls under refbombing per the criteria. Every single citation supports the argument. If I had posted one or two sources, the other editor would have challenged it as not being enough evidence. It's sort of a catch-22. What would you prefer I do, should I add two of the strongest sources out of all of the citations? Summerfell1978 (talk) 16:55, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should discuss the addition on the talk page before re-adding the info to the article. — 💽 🌙Eclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ (she/they) ^talk/edits 16:58, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How long are we supposed to discuss the addition of something before taking action to edit the Wikipedia article page? It's going nowhere. Summerfell1978 (talk) 12:17, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Curtis Yarvin. 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. 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. FMSky (talk) 06:31, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 2025: Edit Warring Warning

Your recent editing history at Kevin Roberts and Project 2025 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Just10A (talk) 18:05, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you start the reverting? Summerfell1978 (talk) 18:11, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not. You were reverted by separate editors on both pages, multiple times. Just10A (talk) 18:18, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Just10A (talk) 18:36, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Kevin Roberts (political strategist)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}.

Per a complaint at the noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: User is back to edit warring immediately after the block expired https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kevin_Roberts_(political_strategist)&action=history --FMSky (talk) 06:32, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a sentence one time after a block is considered edit-warring? I posted in the Talk page to raise a discussion. So let's discuss there what your issues are with that extremely valid sentence I am adding with citations. Then we can come to an agreement.

@FMSky Give me some time to learn the basics. Some of us, like me, contribute to society as a surgeon. Not all of us have time at home to make 220,000 edits on Wikipedia in a span of few years. Summerfell1978 (talk) 11:53, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to American politics and personalities post-1992, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Doug Weller talk 14:19, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I see you are pretty new to wikipedia. I've been here awhile (since 2004) so happy to help provide any information that may be helpful. Cheers. Remember (talk) 19:05, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}.  Daniel Case (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Summerfell1978 (talk) 19:16, 5 February 2025 (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).

Summerfell1978 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

You should explain why I was blocked. I've done nothing wrong.

Decline reason:

This is explained above, and in your block notice. Yamla (talk) 19:26, 5 February 2025 (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.

The user's second block was also for warring at Kevin Roberts (political strategist) and was per a new complaint at the edit warring noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 21:19, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]