User talk:Hello11292000

October 2022

Hello, I'm Donald Albury. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Hurricane Charley, 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 referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Donald Albury 23:09, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Hurricane Jeanne, 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. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contribs)} 23:11, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Effects of Hurricane Irma in Florida, you may be blocked from editing. Donald Albury 23:28, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Effects of Hurricane Irma in Florida, you may be blocked from editing. Twitter is not a reliable source. Do not change numbers unless you have a reliable source to support the change. Donald Albury 01:02, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Stop changing the reported wind speeds unless you provide citations to reliable sources that support the changes. Please read the reliable sources guideline, and pay attention to what can be used as a source, and what cannot. Twitter does not qualify as a source for Wikipedia because it is a user generated source. If you continue to add unsourced or improperly sourced material to Wikipedia, you could be blocked from editing. ` Donald Albury 01:10, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

OK--this needs to stop. I agree with User:Donald Albury. Not only are you changing information without giving proper sources, you are also introducing very unencyclopedic language, incorrect phrasing and punctuation, and bare URLs. Nor are you providing proper edit summaries, or responding to messages here. All of this together makes me think that you are not a net positive for our beautiful project. Please give me a good reason to think otherwise. Drmies (talk) 01:28, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, new to this wiki thing and didnt even know this talking board as a thing. I though my edits were just vanishing so I kept adding it again. Didnt know it was someone taking them out. Thanks. Hello11292000 (talk) 01:51, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. 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 ~~~~}}.  Donald Albury 01:39, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Didn't know this talking board thing was even here, im new to this wiki thing. Wont happen again. Thanks. Hello11292000 (talk) 01:48, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Im new so I didnt know

Well, I have my doubts about that, and you should have studied the rules before you started edit warring. You now have 31 hours to read up on those rules. Perhaps the most important one is to consider what encyclopedic writing is, and how we just can't have some of the adjectives and phrases that you used, since they are not neutral. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 02:01, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Its weird because the information I was putting up on the wiki pages were accurate such as the hotel, I literally put a link for a news article that supported my statement. Thats what I don't understand so if you could explain that for me that could be helpful. Thanks Hello11292000 (talk) 02:05, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Please note the indentation. I don't know exactly which edit you are talking about. There was one in which you changed to numbers and added some text, but the cited article didn't verify the text. In all cases you didn't properly cite references but simply stick a bare URL in the reference; we can't have that either. But again, it was the language that got me: simply not neutral enough, or not good.

Compare your language with the rest of the article in that Good Article you edited, Hurricane Charley. "Orlando was hit hard by Charley and is still to this day one of the most powerful hurricanes to make its way through Central Florida." -- well, "hit hard" is a bot colloquial, "still to this day" likewise, and the subject of "is still to this day" is "Orlando", but it should be "Charley". "Damages were scattered" is simply incorrect, the comma after "such as" is incorrect, the spacing is incorrect (you added a space before the link but not one after), and it's a bare URL. I could go on, but you get the point--and this is a WP:Good Article, where the writing and sourcing should be just about perfect. Donald Albury took more issue with the sourcing than with the writing, but that also is a thing. You might ask them--but be specific and include the WP:DIFF. Editing Wikipedia is not the hardest thing in the world, but there is a bit of a learning curve, and working on that makes everything easier. Drmies (talk) 02:47, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Hurricane Charley Orlando.jpeg

Thanks for uploading File:Hurricane Charley Orlando.jpeg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 06:31, 17 October 2022 (UTC)