Jump to content

User talk:Surveyor Mount

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

March 2023

[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Frederic Edwin Church have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 11:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Names for India. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Information icon Hi Surveyor Mount! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Tibet Autonomous Region several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Tibet Autonomous Region, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 11:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Kautilya3 (talk) 14:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Otto von Habsburg, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stateless. 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) 06:05, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

[edit]

You have recently been editing India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, which has been designated a contentious topic. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Kautilya3 (talk) 00:14, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If this article "Names of India" with the unsourced material marked as {{Citation needed}}, it needs reliable sources must not contain original research or to be removed. Surveyor Mount (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I am sure whole of that page and found that this informatioin was absolutely unverifiable, having chanced upon this page for the first time in your life. You are a genius. What can I say? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's okay, just keep it as a secondary source. Surveyor Mount (talk) 00:13, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Darren McGrady (March 14)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Dan arndt were:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Fails WP:ANYBIO - interviews and his restaurant's website are all primary sources and therefore not independent or reliable.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
Dan arndt (talk) 07:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Surveyor Mount! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Dan arndt (talk) 07:54, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Darren McGrady (March 17)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Curbon7 was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
Curbon7 (talk) 12:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

State names in infoboxes

[edit]

Hi - Please be aware that all other infoboxes in New Hampshire and in most of the U.S. use the (Name, State) format. This is consistent with MOS:INFOBOXGEO, which states that infoboxes for geographical items should generally be headed with the article title. Your reason for changing the infobox title to just "Keene" doesn't appear compelling enough to make an exception to that guideline here. Best wishes, Ken Gallager (talk) 13:39, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've also changed the title in Exeter, New Hampshire. Please stop making any further changes until you have explained why they should override the standard format. Ken Gallager (talk) 13:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please also note the standard infobox layout at the beginning of WP:USCITIES. Ken Gallager (talk) 13:51, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, someone following my edit for New Haven, Connecticut, by a stranger for not following WP:USCITIES guideline. Better avoid hounding for this one. Surveyor Mount (talk) 22:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have you edited under other accounts before? You are citing a lot of meta knowledge for such a new user. TylerBurden (talk) 02:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, but I tried to get around in other Wikimedia projects. Back in 2018, here in Wikipedia, then followed to Commons and Meta by sometime in 2020. It's been 6 years I've began editing in Wikimedia Foundation wikis. Surveyor Mount (talk) 03:08, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I self-reverted two articles for Nyack, New York and Antioch, Illinois without prior consensus. Surveyor Mount (talk) 11:54, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Year pages

[edit]

Please do not remove births and deaths from year pages un less and until you have established correct links to the births and deaths. For instance, the link you give to Deaths in 1987 merely gives a circular link back to 1987. These means the resource has been deleted. I suggest you revert the deletions until this is sorted out. Thank youRcb1 (talk) 10:10, 4 April 2023 (UTC)rcb1[reply]

As requested per RfC: split births & deaths from year articles, the consensus is to remove deaths from larger articles. If section are merged with births and deaths and replaced with a {{Main}} template. Surveyor Mount (talk) 11:08, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I have no problem with removing births and deaths from the main page to a separate section, if that is the consensus. I personally wouldn't do it as I think that deaths in particular are often newsworthy and significant (I will remember last year about all for Elizabeth II's death) but I'm not hung up about it. What I AM bothered about is deleting then and replacing them with a link to a non-existent page. That is essentially deleting a resource or, to use another word, vandalism. Please only move births and deaths where a proper link to another page exists - and restore them where that page does not exist.Rcb1 (talk) 11:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC)rcb1[reply]

Wikipedia reliable source/peenial source

[edit]

can you also add wion and first post two unreliable news channels have pro russian,bjp and indocentric views in the list. Cuando de hyiopi (talk) 12:33, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See here in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RfC: WION. Surveyor Mount 04:28, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023

[edit]

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved, as you did to Assassination of Kim Jong-nam, without good reason. They should have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. Wikipedia has some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Please do not move this page, or any other related page until the discussion at Talk:Kim Jong-un#Requested move 6 April 2023 has closed with a consensus in favour of moving. Thank you. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:28, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Page moves

[edit]

Hello, Surveyor Mount,

You've only been editing Wikipedia for a few weeks so I wanted to let you know that it was very premature to move articles under discussion at Talk:Kim Jong-un#Requested_move 6 April 2023. These discussions usually last at least a week unless the opinion is unanimous. Please stick to becoming a better editor by improving articles and not undertaking administrative duties like this. An administrator or experienced editor will eventually close this discussion and can carry out the consensus decision. There should be a very good reason for moving an article to a different title, a move based in policy and a consensus of the editors participating in a move discussion.

If you have questions about policies and practices on Wikipedia, please bring them to the Teahouse. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 04:04, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Britten

[edit]

I have no idea, sorry, what the question is in the RfC you began for Benjamin Britten. Please clarify. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:56, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: The inclusion of honorifics in articles like "Sir Edward Elgar" or "The Lord Britten" can be included in | honorific_prefix = parameter. Surveyor Mount 02:38, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand, but Bejamin Britten has no infobox to include it in. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:13, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
on the day I'll see two of his works ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:13, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

[edit]
Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:SwissArmyGuy per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SwissArmyGuy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
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 ~~~~}}.  Spicy (talk) 23:46, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock attempt

[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).

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

Request reason:

I'm trying not to disrupt my edits as a sockpuppet of SwissArmyGuy and Banana19208, but I stopped both using my old accounts and start a new one per WP:CLEANSTART policy. Currently, my RfCs are ongoing discussion [1][2]. Surveyor Mount 04:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I cannot tell if you are admitting to being SwissArmyGuy. If you are, SwissArmyGuy is indefinitely blocked, so you cannot edit under a new account. If you are not, then a simple denial is insufficient. PhilKnight (talk) 08:05, 14 April 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.

Surveyor Mount 04:34, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not e-mail me, from any account. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:31, 14 April 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).

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

Request reason:

I'm tried to deal with both sockpuppets of my old users, but it's all a lie, I have to try again for better purpose: * Banana19208 is my old account that requested for page protection for Arab-Israeli conflict articles (which I've been interested) then, I'd vandalized TonyBallioni's user page. * SwissArmyGuy harassed with Kingerikthesecond for emailing private information about their social media, so this is why they reported me on WP:ANI. Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SwissArmyGuy as commented by Spicy: * These two accounts have a large amount of overlap on obscure pages despite their relatively low edit counts. See interaction report. Some of this could perhaps be explained by a shared interest in WWII, but other pages such as File:Mary_Gates.jpg, Da_Vinci_Kids_logo.svg, Draft:Christopher Paul Richards, Susie Hargreaves, etc. seem highly unlikely for two different editors to take interest in. Both accounts have very poor English skills, to the point that their posts are almost nonsensical; compare The Hydrophilian [3][4] and SwissArmyGuy's comments here. Note that the master is arbcom blocked and globally locked. :: GeneralNotability noted: :: Oh, I remember this guy. I agree with Spicy, there's enough weirdly specific overlap here that this is probably the same person. Hydrophilian also has a similar distribution of activity on other Wikimedia projects to SwissArmyGuy. Blocked, lock request filed. * Behavioural evidence makes it clear that this user is using IPs in the 122.2.xx.xx range to evade their block. These IPs edit the same extremely specific set of articles that SwissArmyGuy and The Hydrophilian were interested in. Examples: *Changing the name on Dino Jelusick: SwissArmyGuy [5], The Hydrophilian [6], 122.2.99.126 [7][8] * Infobox fiddling at The Eternal Jew: SwissArmyGuy [9], The Hydrophilian [10], 122.2.98.48 [11], 122.2.99.126 [12] *Interest in Hermann Zapf: SwissArmyGuy [13], The Hydrophilian [14], 122.2.99.126 [15] **And his wife: The Hydrophilian [16], 122.2.96.154 [17] *Interest in Pathé News: SwissArmyGuy [18], 122.2.97.13 [19], 122.2.98.48 [20] *Template:Nazi propaganda: The Hydrophilian [21], 122.2.108.148 [22] *File:The Rocking Horse Winner poster.jpg - uploaded by The Hydrophilian, fiddled with by 122.2.97.13 [23] :There are many more overlaps, see here for just one example. A large portion of the recent activity on the 122.2.96.0/20 range seems to be from this user, although it looks like there might be some other users on the range such as one who likes editing Filipino TV shows. * I noticed The Houndsworth a few days ago and have been keeping an eye on their edits. I have a sneaking suspicion that they are actually a sock of SwissArmyGuy (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SwissArmyGuy/Archive). They share the same interests in German history, RSN (esp. relating to COVID) [24][25][26], and non-free file deletions [27][28][29]. As noted by the filer, The Houndsworth also has very poor English skills, which is another hallmark of the SwissArmyGuy socks. I'm not familiar with Serendipodous but a glance at their contributions shows that they have been editing since 2005 and speak English at a native level, so I personally think it's unlikely that The Houndsworth is their sock. Not adhere in this list: * Aesthetic Writer, see User_talk:Aesthetic_Writer#Anthony Eden, also I worried to apologize Thrakkx for doing nothing wrong. Also they reported at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1089#Repeat_hounding_by_editor. And my latest account: * Overlap with past socks on a variety of niche topics, and focus on RSN [30]. Distinctively incoherent communication style, as documented in previous SPIs: compare e.g. [31][32] and [33][34][35]. Interest in file namespace deletions, see [36][37][38][39]. Involvement in infobox disputes, same as previous sock Aesthetic Writer: [40][41][42] Cross-wiki activity in Commons projectspace [43][44]. And so on. Surveyor Mount 09:16, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Blocks apply to the person, not just the account. Until the block on your original account is lifted, you personally are not permitted to edit Wikipedia. Additionally, you are not eligible for a WP:CLEANSTART. Yamla (talk) 11:54, 14 April 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.

@Yamla: But I'm sorry, I cannot just unblock my two original accounts, unless all admins should be compromised. Surveyor Mount 12:25, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, you are not welcome here. --Yamla (talk) 12:28, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Surveyor_Mount&oldid=1149787492"