192.54.243.244

October 2023

Hello, I'm Discospinster. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Jack Bogdanski, 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. ... discospinster _talk 23:06, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Jack Bogdanski, you may be blocked from editing. An oral source is not a reliable source. If that's the only available source for some information, it probably shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Please also see below notice about conflict of interest. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:11, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Except I am providing sources, and an oral source should be considered reliable if the source is the subject of the article. 192.54.243.244 (talk) 23:13, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

If you'd like to try to change Wikipedia's reliable source policy (which, by the way, actively tries to avoid reliance on primary sources where possible) you are welcome to start a discussion on the relevant page. But until it changes, that's the policy, and continuing to re-add removed content is considered disruptive editing. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:15, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

avoid primary sources? what a joke. 192.54.243.244 (talk) 23:16, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Again, if you'd like to try to change the policy you are welcome to begin that discussion, but there is (decades worth of) very solid reasoning behind it. If you clicked through to the reliable source policy, you'd be able to read some of it. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:17, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

We don't know who you are, and we don't know where you are getting your information. You have been told not to add a nickname without a reliable source. Furthermore, his nickname is not encyclopedic information unless he is commonly known by it outside of his immediate circle. ... discospinster _talk 23:18, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

The main (though not only) problem with an oral source is that it's not verifiable. People trust Wikipedia because it's transparent about where info comes from, and in many cases it's possible for readers to click through and view the sources of info for themselves. "He told me" is pretty far from that. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:17, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I've read it. It's idiotic. People don't trust wikipedia. It's why it's not allowed as a source for academic papers lol. 192.54.243.244 (talk) 23:18, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay. No one is forcing you to stay here. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:19, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

And clearly no one is forcing you to be a reputable source. 192.54.243.244 (talk) 23:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Actually, they do; that's what's happening right now. Anyway, if no one trusts Wikipedia, you shouldn't care what's on it. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:22, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

And you believe Wikipedia would be more trustworthy if it permitted anonymous editors to post biographical information without a reliable source? ... discospinster _talk 23:26, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

considering that sometimes the only source is oral, then yes, I do. Someone seems to have a grudge against anons, and it isn't me. What a joke. 192.54.243.244 (talk) 23:33, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Considering we don't know you (or any other editor) from Adam, there is no way to verify what you are claiming. ... discospinster _talk 23:48, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

This is before we get to the conflict of interest policy. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:19, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, 192.54.243.244. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:07, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

November 2023

Hello, I'm Yoshi24517. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to MacRumors—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Very Busy) 00:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at MacRumors. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. JohnLaurensAnthonyRamos333 (talk) 00:04, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to MacRumors, you may be blocked from editing. Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Very Busy) 00:06, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to MacRumors. Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Very Busy) 00:08, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Not vandalism if its the truth. 192.54.243.244 (talk) 00:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Last edit was not in bad faith.

Decline reason:

But the edits the filters blocked.were. 331dot (talk) 01:51, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

---

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.

I was deleting an unsourced assertion. 192.54.243.244 (talk) 00:39, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

April 2024

Hello, I'm Classicwiki. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Oregon Ballot Measure 114 seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Classicwiki (talk) If you reply here, please ping me. 02:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Oregon Ballot Measure 114. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Joyous! Noise! 22:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Oregon Ballot Measure 114. Joyous! Noise! 22:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours to prevent further vandalism.

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 ~~~~}}.  Joyous! Noise! 22:44, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

---