User talk:Speakfor23

November 2023

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Killing of Larry Payne, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 04:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Justice Department article and PBS article are most certainly reliable. I am under the impression you don't want to accept them as fact. [1][2]Speakfor23 (talk) 06:41, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Eric Cartman. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 08:00, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is based from a comparison between the two characters. I referenced things Cartman did in previous South Park episodes.Speakfor23 (talk) 08:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Sean Combs

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

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a 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) 01:08, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your additions to Sean Combs

Hello Speakfor23. Almost all of the legal issues you added were already covered elsewhere in the article. There's no need to cover the same ground again in a "legal issues" section. Thanks, — Diannaa (talk) 02:27, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Polo G, you may be blocked from editing. Patient Zero^talk 23:13, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to ASAP Rocky. Patient Zero^talk 23:14, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may not like information about their arrests and trial, but the fact is they are reliable sourced encyclopedic facts. Referring to the information as "vandalism" isn't at all helpful.Speakfor23 (talk) 23:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You were politely warned above by Diannaa to stop giving undue weight to certain legal issues, yet you have continued to do so. It has nothing to do with me "disliking" the information (and, given that some of the edits you've made are about alleged incidents, they're not really "facts" in the eyes of the law, as they could be found to not be guilty). Patient Zero^talk 23:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are not helping yourself.

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, 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 special powers 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 practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

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.

The page which you recently edited and which comes under this rule is Susan Sarandon. Burrobert (talk) 03:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Rubiales affair

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

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a 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) 16:37, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Albert Luque

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

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a 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) 17:02, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Speakfor23! Your additions to Operation Condor have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 13:30, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This edit also appears to be a copyvio of this CBS source. @Diannaa: can you do something about that? Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:50, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And this edit also appears to be a copyvio from this CBS source. User seems to be adding copyvio to contentious topics. I'll leave it to your discretion. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're not making sense. CBS News is among the reliable sources in the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. That edit I made about the Students for Trump founder's arrest also has nothing to do with Operation Condor. I have also erased that typo you brought up. It was a simple typo. CBS News Boston also wasn't included in my recent Marilyn Manson edit. Please don't lie about how I do my editing.Speakfor23 (talk) 02:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The source is a reliable source, but if you copy what they've written it's a violation of our copyright policy. — Diannaa (talk) 10:45, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Young Thug

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

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a 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) 17:07, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Von Miller

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

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a 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) 18:45, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 2023

Your recent editing history at Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute 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.

Please don't think switching from an IP to a named account fools anyone. Suggested reading WP:BRD. W C M_email 17:46, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try on that "don't think you're fooling anyone" claim. I never did try to fool anyone so don't make the argument I did. Wikipedia signs you out if you forget to click on the "sign me in for a year" tab. I'm not making the edits now, so don't go further.Speakfor23 (talk) 17:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Marine Le Pen

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

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a 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) 01:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Argentina's First Lady

I didn't know Karina was actually the First Lady. In my edit I put her as a quick placeholder for people to fill with the correct information. M4rtin238 (talk) 01:53, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Understood

CS1 error on National Rally

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

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a 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) 02:04, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Dolly Parton

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

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a 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) 20:02, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Dani Alves

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

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a 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) 17:12, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 2023

It is not a good look to, rather than read an article to find where information already is, insist you have your way until you are shown where. I have pointed you in the right direction, but even just Ctrl+F keywords is an option that is much less hostile towards fellow editors.

Furthermore, and as I have seen you have already been warned about several times here, you really need to understand due weight. Both in terms of when it is appropriate to create an independent section for something, and what kind of 'extracurricular' elements are appropriate in a footballer BLP career section.

Specifically, adding a new paragraph to a career section to say (effectively) "it was reported that someone else behaved inappropriately towards them", particularly when the revelations have not gone further than existing and the brief media reaction was just 'this has been said', is far too much prominence. And there would be reason to discuss if it should go in a public image section or similar since it's not effected their careers, if it is significant enough to include in the first place. Kingsif (talk) 23:59, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Look, you clearly want to be a productive editor. But you seem to have a recurring problem with wanting to document every new element of legal issues in a way that Wikipedia does not consider encyclopedic coverage. If you slow down and learn, I'm sure you can do well. I've had to do it, every editor has. Kingsif (talk) 00:05, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not the first time the user has done this. See here, where the user added content already incorporated in another section. User then reverted with a bad-faith accusation, before self-reverting. Also this, re-adding content already included elsewhere in that article. Seems to me the user is adding potentially problematic content to BLPs, some of which could be described as copyvio (see above). Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 01:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't invoke the Operation Condor edits or my Marilyn Manson page edits you didn't like. You were not showing a NPOV in the way you erased those sexual assault-related edits to BLP articles like Manson and Russell Brand, as you also erased reliable information. It is enlightening to include Manson settled a lawsuit before his civil trial, as it raises more questions as to the abuse allegations; for example, he now doesn't have to potentially damaging court proceedings where people testify under oath. Brand's interview with Saville was also enlightening, but you erased that information when you invoking shorter sentences in the section related to Saville's unrelated sex abuse conviction; Saville's case may not be related to Brand, but his interview is. Manson and Brand have talent, but this an encyclopedia and not a celebrity fan page. I also corrected those mistakes and asked you in the edit summary why you erased some more relevant information when you did wide reverting? I still want answer to that question.Speakfor23 (talk) 02:05, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What? I didn't "invoke" any of your edits to Operation Condor, but see now that you've also been problematic on that page too (copyvio). This is not about you creating edits that I "didn't like", but about you rushing to an article and adding content, despite that content already being on the article. Remember that Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, NOT NEWS. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:07, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But you did invoke the Marilyn Manson and Russell Brand you didn't like. You erased information about his Savile interview. That wasn't related to Savile's sex abuse case though. This is not a celebrity fanpage. Please also read the WP:NOTNEWS article better too. I sure didn't include "routine news."Speakfor23 (talk) 02:13, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you creating edits that I "didn't like" is not the issue: you were adding duplicate information without bothering to check if the same information was already included in the article. Add more bad-faith accusations that I will not respond to. I really don't know what you think you're doing, but your overall attitude and demeanor now strikes me as someone who is WP:NOTHERE. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I not intimidated by your claims. You are also not mentioning how you erased the Savile interview that Brand took part in under the excuse that Savile's sex abuse case was included in the article and also briefly erased the People Magazine source I added that was not "already included in the article." Your claim of me having an "overall attitude" doesn't affect me. You erased reliable edits to the Marilyn Manson and Russell Brand pages. I also told you not to mention the Operation Condor. Now I mention that it was only one sentence that erased for the copyvio claim. I am trying to contribute to building an encyclopedia and didn't even come to your talk page, so please don't invoke WP:NOTHERE. It makes me think that you are WP:NOTHERE when you erase the good edits and come to my talk page to make accusations against me.Speakfor23 (talk) 02:27, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I did not "erase" any information from Russell Brand or Marilyn Manson. The only details I removed from the Brand article were details of Saville's life and criminal activity that are irrelevant to Brand's WP:BLP. The only details I removed from the Manson article were details you added that – for the third time – were already included elsewhere in the article. It should also be noted that you followed me to both articles following my revert of your edit to Jonathan Majors, where you again added details sourced to WP:ROLLINGSTONEPOLITICS. That you are so argumentative and defensive when multiple people have said you are clearly in the wrong is not indicative of a user who is genuinely here to build the encyclopedia. Homeostasis07 (talk/contributions) 02:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"You are so argumentative and defensive when multiple people have said you are clearly in the wrong is not indicative of a user who is genuinely here to build the encyclopedia." That is what I call opinionated and a very uncool assumption. Please stop denying that you included the removal of reliable information when erase the edits. "Multiple people" have most certainly not criticized me for the Brand and Manson edits.Speakfor23 (talk) 02:40, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this reply with the It is enlightening to include etc, I would also urge you to read WP:SYNTH. I would find it best for you to read and understand that before editing any more BLPs. That you think other, tangential or potentially unrelated, information should be included just because you think it raises more questions is very concerning, especially when we are talking about BLPs and legal cases. If there are reliable sources that connect different legal cases, you can include them but have to adhere to how the source connects them. While I am pleased that you've later in this thread said you want to contribute to the encyclopedia, you must know that this means you should not be trying to influence how readers interpret things by bringing up other things. Kingsif (talk) 03:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have read it, and no SYNTH original research, opposing claims data was in the other edits which the other user is criticizing. Data was published by what was written in the articles. The policy relates to including information not written in sources and off-topic trivia, which I like to stay clear of. Savile had an interview with Brand that was later used against Brand in a documentary which investigated his sex abuse allegations. This Guardian article even described it as being among "so many red flags ignored for so long."[3]Speakfor23 (talk) 08:13, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This People Magazine noted how a Jane Doe case against Marilyn Mansion was settled through the Superior Court of Los Angeles a week before he was scheduled to face trial.[4] It certainly was not tangible original research or "unrelated" to his allegations of sexual abuse. I thank you for including the SYNTH information and not directly referring to the other edits. I am aware of the problems of POV editing. I like to edit Wikipedia as a hobby and am well aware of the need to include information through reliable sources and neutral editing. I also removed the sources to the Jonathan Majors article when I was able find more reliable sources when the trial began and described them as "preliminary sources." They were added on the day of trial and were never intended to be permanent when I found out about the Rolling Stone policy and the mixed interpretation of Newsweek as a reliable/unreliable source. [5] Speakfor23 (talk) 08:31, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, if the Guardian article is used as a source for the interview's relevance, that's fine, and you're right, it's not SYNTH. Kingsif (talk) 23:47, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on T.I.

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page T.I., may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a 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) 21:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Someone erased information about a Disney lawsuit under the BLP:CRIME policy that did not justify its removal

It is clear that "living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures—that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures—editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.

If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory outcomes that do not overrule each other,[e] include sufficient explanatory information."

The edit relates to a lawsuit involving Disney executives who are public figures and there is no conclusive suggestion of guilt.Speakfor23 (talk) 07:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Lauren Boebert. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. VQuakr (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Elvis 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. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article mentioned criticism Paul McCartney gave and not how he credited Elvis' gold-plated cadallic as an inspiration for even the Sgt. Peppers Lonely Hearts Band record and called him the second coolest person he ever met. It needs to neutral, not one-sided and not include just criticism.Speakfor23 (talk) 19:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elvis

Please discuss this change on the talk page and stop editwarring on other pages. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:06, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:SYNTH. If the cited sources don't talk about the topic at hand, you are in danger of violating the policy. You added text and sources to the page FBI files on Elvis Presley, but the material did not mention the FBI. You were making connections on your own. Binksternet (talk) 20:03, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edit to Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. There were some sources that did mention the FBI, but I didn't include them because of the blog policy. This here would be a better source if Wikipedia were more tolerant towards blogs and commentary. It was one reason why I noted Paul McCarthy and George Harrison in name too, as The Elvis Blog believed the memo mainly was meant to target John Lennon.[6]Speakfor23 (talk) 20:08, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Margrethe II

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

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a 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) 00:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CTOP alert

You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:09, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a 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) 18:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dwayne Johnson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Endeavor. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 05:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Irma Anderson

Thank you for your update to Irma Anderson. I notice you tried to add year of birth as 1930. Do you have a published source for this? For now, I have applied {{Birth based on age at death}} and {{Death date and given age}}. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I also didn't see cause of death in the supporting citation. • Gene93k (talk) 03:30, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mercury News source claimed "Anderson died peacefully at home Sunday at the age of 93 of complications related to pancreatic cancer, according to her eldest son, Ahmad Anderson."Speakfor23 (talk) 16:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the nonsense excuses that are being used to remove sources from the Priscilla article related to what it needs to succeed at the box office

I have even included a Movie Web source backing what Screen Rant claimed. Try denying that source too.[7].Speakfor23 (talk) 13:44, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any opinion on the content, but both sources are actually the same source, Valnet, which is a fairly unreliable content farm. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:53, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are are two different sources with different wording.Speakfor23 (talk) 13:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources#Valnet links to a number of discussions on Valnet properties. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:55, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See the difference for yourself.[8].Speakfor23 (talk) 13:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm saying is it's the same marginally reliable source. They're both part of the same content farm that has been repeatedly found to be marginally reliable in discussions across Wikipedia. Just trying to give you a bit of advice so you'll back away from edit warring and arguing with multiple editors about the reliability of the sourcing on the talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:14, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop edit warring or you will be reported. This has gone on long enough. You have ignored the talk page consensus to not include these sites as sources for this claim. Both sites are owned by the same company. Mike Allen 15:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024

Your recent editing history at Priscilla (film) 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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:55, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Super Bowl LVIII

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

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a 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) 21:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Too much Eagles trial in Ed Sanders

Wow, you added a lot of material that barely touches on Ed Sanders to the article about him. Your addition to the paragraph introduces six new characters (Azoff, Henley, Frey, Horowitz, Inciardi and Kosinski), mentioning them 13 times while quadrupling its length, while mentioning Sanders four times. This does not seem like an appropriate edit to an encyclopedia article. Larry Koenigsberg (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then shorten it. Just include that Sanders is reported to had possession of Hotel California lyric sheets.Speakfor23 (talk) 00:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Larry Koenigsberg (talk) 17:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Run-DMC

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

A bare URL and missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a 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) 20:31, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Mark Pitts

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Mark Pitts, 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) 13:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Karen Yarbrough

On 13 April 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Karen Yarbrough, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 15:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on David Pecker

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

A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a 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) 22:26, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on 2004 USC Trojans football team

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page 2004 USC Trojans football team, 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) 16:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on 2004 USC Trojans football team

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page 2004 USC Trojans football team, 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) 16:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New York Times

When you cite the New York Times with {{cite news}}, The New York Times is the newspaper, not the publisher. Skyerise (talk) 17:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your efforts

		The Original Barnstar
		I saw your edits on Prosecution of Donald Trump in New York and to express my thanks for your efforts. It looks like you had a bumpy learning curve here on Wikipedia over the past 6 months, but (from what I can see) you are making good faith efforts to add well-sourced information in a neutral manner. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

Thank you for your contributions. One of your recent contributions to Ebrahim Raisi has been reverted or removed, because it contains speculative or unconfirmed information about a future event. Please only add material about future events if it is verifiable, based on a reliable source. Please see the talk page discussion on the topic at Talk:Ebrahim Raisi#Numerous violations of WP:NOTNEWS SKAG123 (talk) 20:01, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history 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. Jeppiz (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Michael Lovell

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

A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a 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) 19:56, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for Paul Pressler (politician)

On 19 June 2024, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Paul Pressler (politician), which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Schwede 66 20:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]