User talk:Gca.345

Welcome!

Hello, Gca.345, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits to the page Jamaicans did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask a question on your talk page. Again, welcome. BilCat (talk) 06:45, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Jamaicans, 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. BilCat (talk) 19:34, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I got it from a reliable source, the Economics and Statistics Office of the Government of the Cayman Islands. Gca.345 (talk) 19:37, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gca.345: You need to cite a reliable source, not just get the information from one. See here for how to create a footnote citation. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:58, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cayman Islands, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jamaican (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

Hello, I'm Donald Albury. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Providenciales, 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 the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. - Donald Albury 00:42, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that you have made a lot of changes with references to more recent census data, but without properly updating the references (e.g. here). Please change the actual references (title, url, links, etc.) if you are going to change any data. Thanks. — MarkH₂₁^talk 07:47, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop changing figures without adding or changing reliable source citations. This is your fourth warning. — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:45, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' noticeboard

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — MarkH₂₁^talk 21:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know how to cite information. I make these edits to provide up to date information about Cayman and I don’t want them to be removed, so please let me know how I can cite information. Gca.345 (talk) 22:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As was pointed out by a few other editors and myself above, see the guide here or this tutorial. — MarkH₂₁^talk 22:04, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours 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 ~~~~}}. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have been unblocked and have made a valuable edit and I hope it is not taken down, because this time I followed the rule by putting a citation. Gca.345 (talk) 02:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gca.345: You’ll need to provide a more precise reference. This site itself doesn’t state the statistics you gave in this edit. — MarkH₂₁^talk 03:24, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, will do! Gca.345 (talk) 09:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gca.345: Please give a full citation, rather than just a bare URL. For instance, you should use Template:Cite web between the <ref> tags if it is a website (examples). — MarkH₂₁^talk 09:58, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since the websites you are citing easily change, you need to add a |access-date= parameter as well. Usually try to fill in as many of the applicable parameters as possibly (e.g. date, publisher) — MarkH₂₁^talk 10:11, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks 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 ~~~~}}. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:09, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Once the above block expires, I would strongly encourage you to read through WP:Citing sources and ask for help at the teahouse before making any further contributions. Further failures to comply with Wikipedia's verifiability policies or failures to communicate with editors working on articles with you will likely result in losing your editing privileges indefinitely. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gca.345. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Bbb23 (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Gca.345 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I know that I have made some mistakes while editing and I apologize to the fullest extent, I hope my account can be unblocked, I just want to make up-to-date edits, that’s all. Gca.345 (talk) 17:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No grounds for lifting the block. Follow the instructions below. Yamla (talk) 11:58, 16 January 2020 (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.

As this is a checkuser block, only a checkuser can consent to its removal, but please describe the mistakes you have made, and what topics or articles you intend to edit. 331dot (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) @331dot: It's also worth mentioning that this user seemed to use what appears to be a very WP:DUCKy sockpuppet to continue to POV push the same unsourced stats to Cayman Islands, as shown in the most recent SPI case that I filed earlier today. Gca.345, if you truly wish to get unblocked and constructively contribute to the encyclopedia, I strongly urge you to stop creating additional accounts, address the persistent sockpuppetry and disruptive editing as a part of your unblock request, and promise not to disruptively edit again. No guarantees that a CheckUser will be willing to unblock, but in my opinion, it's most likely your best bet to move forward. You may also want to read WP:GAB over to get an idea of what the community typically expects for effective unblock requests. OhKayeSierra (talk) 10:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]