User talk:Alexandria1749

January 2018[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Xenia, Ohio has 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.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Xenia, Ohio was changed by Alexandria1749 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.867396 on 2018-01-01T19:54:09+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 19:54, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone explain why my edits always go away?!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandria1749 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This edit was undone because you didn't cite a reliable source. —C.Fred (talk) 03:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Cuyahoga County Board of Elections isnt a credible source?

I wasn't aware that the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections handled radio station licenses. —C.Fred (talk) 03:54, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talking about my Parma, Ohio page edit, not Xenia. But please explain also how my radio station edit is not credible when I cited their website w/ address (and it is down the street from where I am sitting now)?

The article on the radio station mentioned a potential move but did not make clear that the move ever took place. —C.Fred (talk) 04:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which article? If you look at the station website, you'll notice the address is Xenia. Did you re-admit the Parma politics source? Again, why are you wiki editors so pretentious to think you know what is and isn't true? I wrote a simple "notable person" on the list using three sources and my personal knowledge, which clearly you don't. You only hurt information sharing by deleting valuable info.

ANI[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. ChiveFungi (talk) 20:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018[edit]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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. See BRD for 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:38, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring, disruptive editing, and a bad case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:40, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Xenia, Ohio[edit]

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).

Alexandria1749 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

@NeilN I would like to be readmitted to contribute to the Xenia page. I noticed that there are many incorrect and unfinished info sections. It is frustrating that the good info gets deleted and I want to know why.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information.
The problem is, these were not good edits. Before anyone can even think of unblocking you, you need to address the issues brought up at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Alexandria1749_using_racist_language_on_Xenia,_Ohio. Your edits were perceived as "racist". Your response to the warning concerning this was who cares. You also added unsourced information to the article. If you wish to correct info, please cite the source for the information. Before making further changes, you should discuss them on the article talk page, as you have been WP:edit warring. Thanks. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 03:52, 2 January 2018 (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.

@NeilN I would like to be readmitted to contribute to the Xenia page. I noticed that there are many incorrect and unfinished info sections. It is frustrating that the good info gets deleted and I want to know why.

It's very frustrating for other editors when someone unthinking plows ahead doing the same edits over and over again and responds with a who cares? when using language which may be considered offensive today. Also, what's up with this: [1], [2] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:48, 2 January 2018 (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).

Alexandria1749 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

@NeilN, I understand your concern and can assure you, you have nothing to worry about now. As for the real information on the page (ie "Politics") and industry history and the real names of streets etc, I would suggest you trust me to edit that correctly, because whatever information got changed after you reverted most of my stuff is incomplete and lacking (not to mention the spelling error on a double sourced name). Trust the locals, really. Anyway, again I will not put anything on there offensive or wrong (which I knowingly did to get your attention to the page). All I ask is that the info I amend is added to the record. Thanks.

Decline reason:

So you plan to carry on edit warring to get the article the way you prefer it? That's not going to fly as an unblock request, sorry. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:38, 3 January 2018 (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.

@Alexandria1749: Please stop putting new comments at the top of the page. Your posts must go at the bottom so that the record of the discussion flows in the correct chronological order. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 04:32, 3 January 2018 (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).

Alexandria1749 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It would be beneficial that you unblock me so that I can get Xeni info correct. After I made a scene on the page, someone "official" made the amends that I already inputted. (With a typo, no doubt) Again, you should really trust people to edit who really know what's correct. I am new at editing, so some instruction perhaps would be nice. спасибо Alexandria1749 (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your continued unblock rationale appears to be "I know what I'm doing, unblock me". You will not be unblocked early without a clear demonstration that you understand why you were blocked and providing assurances that such disruption won't continue if unblocked. See WP:GAB.Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:41, 3 January 2018 (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.

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).

Alexandria1749 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

What do you need me to concede to be unblocked? It seems like you folks are dodging my contention. And can you please fix the mayor's name since you clearly dont trust me to! Get it straight, people. Alexandria1749 (talk) 00:52, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 11:59, 4 January 2018 (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.

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).

Alexandria1749 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

You all are very peculiar. But I do appreciate your correction of the mayor's name after i told you about it (after you deleted my correct information twice). very efficient you are. Alexandria1749 (talk) 9:58 pm, Yesterday (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

I see nothing in this unblock request that is an actual request for unblock. It's just a comment on the others who have declined so far and a comment on an edit action taken by others. only (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2018 (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.

Xenia, Ohio[edit]

Hello. Your recent edit to Xenia, Ohio appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person, organization or product added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018[edit]

Hello. Your recent edit to Xenia, Ohio appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person, organization or product added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you. General Ization ^Talk 00:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Since we don't seem to be getting through to you, how about we call it persistent vandalism instead. General Ization ^Talk 00:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You dont make sense. Im not vandalizing, you're wrong.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Xenia, Ohio. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources must explicitly back the text & should not simply be links[edit]

They must comply with WP:RS. If they are a book, you can't just use a Google Books link. Among other things they can't all be viewed in all countries, and we need the full information including page number to be able to verify the text and whether it is a reliable source. References need to follow the citation style already used in the article. Please watch the videos at Wikipedia:Meetup/UMassAmherst/Intro to Wikipedia. Doug Weller talk 13:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]