User talk:Cornucopiaa

August 2023

Hello, I'm ItsCheck. An edit that you recently made to Bryan Cranston seemed to be a test and has been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! ItsCheck (talk) 23:21, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Burial (musician), 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. Waxworker (talk) 04:51, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, 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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Bryan Cranston, you may be blocked from editing. Date of birth isn't extremely important for a short description. ItsCheck (talk) 02:00, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Culture of England, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Articles that are "sufficiently detailed that an additional short description would not be helpful" do not need shortdescs repeating them in equivalent words, per WP:SDNONE. Belbury (talk) 14:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 14:03, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Ne-Yo, you may be blocked from editing. Again, we don't need to add things like birthplace in short descriptions unless there's really a reasonable likelihood the article might be confused with someone else with the same name and occupation. Please heed these warnings. ZimZalaBim ^talk 13:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ZimZalaBim thanks for advising. Cornucopiaa (talk) 14:07, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Short Descriptions

As has been noted in the warnings above, you seem to be adding lengthy, trivial, and often unnecessary details to short descriptions (ie, [1]. Please stop, and instead use the article's talk page if you want to build consensus for these changes that seem to go contrary to guidelines. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:34, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We certainly don't need to add ownership details to every single short description you encounter. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 21:32, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Length of short descriptions

Read WP:SDLENGTH please --FMSky (talk) 16:17, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Please note there is a conversation at the Administrators Noticeboard Incidents that you are involved in. Here is a direct link. Canterbury Tail talk 14:23, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Canterbury Tail Thanks, apologies since I'm still new to Wikipedia. I confirm that I will be following Wikipedia's rules moving forward. Cornucopiaa (talk) 07:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Short description disruption - final warning

Since you seem to be ignoring all the warnings above, and you're outright refusing to participate in the ANI thread about your actions, I'm giving you a final warning. If you continue to make disruptive edits to the Short Descriptions against WP:SHORTDESC, or continue to make disruptive and incorrect edits to it as you have been doing, you will be blocked from editing. You don't appear to understand the purpose of the short description field nor are you paying enough attention to the articles to continuously write even accurate short descriptions. Canterbury Tail talk 01:25, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think 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 ~~~~}}.

You have refused to follow what is required for short descriptions, after several warnings. You can be unblocked if you display a deep understanding of short descriptions and why they should be "short". Cullen328 (talk) 06:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cullen328 Hi, thanks for the update. I have read the short description page fully and understand that short description field should remain below 60 characters. Cornucopiaa (talk) 07:00, 21 August 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have read the short description page fully and understand that short description field should remain below 60 characters

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. UtherSRG (talk) 17:49, 12 October 2023 (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.

OK. Do you understand why? Can you say that for us in your own words? Daniel Case (talk) 04:01, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Case I acknowledge that I was acting in error with my title description lengths. It was not my intention to be disruptive, but I regret not being more cognizant of the rules and standards. I am now well aware of the title limit of 60 characters, as stated in your message. I assure you I will comply fully in the future. Thanks for your time. Cornucopiaa (talk) 12:38, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]