User talk:EducationThruLists

EducationThruLists, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi EducationThruLists! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Nick Moyes (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, I would like to join! EducationThruLists (talk) 16:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Glynn Thompson moved to draftspace (no sources on a WP:BLP)

An article you recently created, Glynn Thompson, is not suitable as written to remain published. A biography of a living person must have at least one reference from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. JW 1961^Talk 20:46, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021

Your edit to Rubén Darío Paredes has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:47, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, EducationThruLists. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Joseph2302 (talk) 15:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are adding clearly false material to multiple articles.

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 ~~~~}}. Number 5 7 17:01, 17 September 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).

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

Request reason:

I am very sorry for the false info, I have been meaning to make test edits because I am a fan of alternate history as well, as well as adding informative pages, whenever I do false info I always write test edit in the description and usually revert it. Whenever I do that again, I will remember to use the sandbox next time (I haven’t heard of it until now), and I am deeply sorry for that. EducationThruLists (talk) 22:49, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This unblock request has been declined due to your history of vandalism and/or disruption to this encyclopedia. However, we are willing to give you another chance provided that you can earn back the trust of the Wikipedia community. To be unblocked you need to demonstrate that you are willing and able to contribute positively to Wikipedia. You can do this by:

Familiarizing yourself with our basic rules.
Read our guide to improving articles.
Pick any pre-existing article you wish to improve.
If you have trouble choosing an article to improve, see this index of articles needing improvement for ideas. Once you have decided on the article you will propose improvements to:
1. Click the Edit tab at the top of that article;
2. Copy the portion of the prose from that article that you will be proposing changes to. However:
  - do not copy the "infobox" from the start of the article (i.e., markup like this: {{infobox name|...}});
  - do not copy any image placement code (i.e., markup like this: [[File:Name.jpg|thumb|caption]]);
  - do not copy the page's categories from the bottom of the page (i.e., markup like this: [[Category:Name]]);
  - do not copy the stub tag (if there) from the bottom of the page (i.e., markup like this: {{Foo stub}});
3. Click edit at your talk page, and paste at the bottom under a new section header (like this: == [[Article title]] ==) the copied content but do not save yet;
4. Place your cursor in the edit summary box and paste there an edit summary in the following form which specifies the name of the article you copied from and links to it (this is required for mandatory copyright attribution): "Copied content from [[exact Name of Article]]; see that article's history for attribution."
5. You can now save the page. However, if your edits will include citations to reliable sources (which they should), add the following template to the end of your prose: {{reflist-talk}}. Once you have added the template, click Publish changes.
Now, edit that content. Propose significant and well researched improvements by editing the selected portion of the article. Please note that we are not looking for basic typo corrections, or small unreferenced additions; your edits should be substantial, and reflect relevant policies.
When you are done with your work, re-request unblocking and an administrator will review your proposed edits.
- If we (including the original blocking admin) are convinced that your proposed edits will improve Wikipedia as an encyclopedia, you will be unblocked.

If you need help while working with your proposed edits, you may add "{{Help me|your question here ~~~~}}" to your talk page. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 00:32, 18 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.

What contributions do you want to make, as we won't unblock you to just edit your sandbox? 331dot (talk) 23:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would correct typos, correct inaccuracies with references, and add things to articles almost always with permission (if not revert it). Thanks! EducationThruLists (talk) 23:40, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would very strongly oppose unblocking. I've been through (and reverted) almost all of their edits. They have a track record of adding patently false or dubious material. There were numerous cases of adding dates to officeholders articles that looked made up,[1] plus cases of changing sourced dates.[2] If they were unblocked, someone would need to check literally every edit they made. Number 5 7 10:01, 18 September 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).

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

Request reason:

Well, I guess if you are so opposed to unblocking (I promised I wouldn’t do it again), I would allow you to check all of my edits. If you still opposed it I guess you could look up websites that are just made for test edits/alternate history articles. Thank you for replying EducationThruLists (talk) 13:39, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I suggest you take the standard offer and apply for an unblock in 6 months time with no socking. PhilKnight (talk) 14:00, 18 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.

Fine I’ll take that I just want to know if there are websites just for sandboxes and alt history lists as well. EducationThruLists (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, don't know about other websites. PhilKnight (talk) 05:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I guess I’ll take the standard offer then. EducationThruLists (talk) 12:02, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Socking

Just to note, since being blocked EducationThruLists has been socking through the following IPs:

@PhilKnight: Do you know anything about rangeblocks and whether one could be applied here? Cheers, Number 5 7 15:52, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, a range block would cause too much collateral damage. PhilKnight (talk) 02:31, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More socking, this time via both IPs and a new account (Olivia Bowie (talk · contribs)). Number 5 7 01:32, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And again through 2001:D08:1830:EF38:9154:25B3:7032:67D (talk · contribs). Number 5 7 17:06, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two more: 2001:D08:1012:E678:45A9:C5B0:B9F5:AB1C (talk · contribs) and 2001:D08:1012:E678:4956:8880:90BD:96AE (talk · contribs). Number 5 7 19:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I've just realised this is Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Date-changing vandal from Malaysia. Number 5 7 19:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Glynn Thompson

Hello, EducationThruLists. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Glynn Thompson, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 21:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Glynn Thompson

Hello, EducationThruLists. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Glynn Thompson".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:05, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]