User talk:122.106.8.27

CS1 error on Roger Whittaker

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Roger Whittaker, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 10:28, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 2023

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Jean-Marie Robine, 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. General Ization ^Talk 00:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 Jean-Marie Robine, you may be blocked from editing. General Ization ^Talk 00:50, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Jean-Marie Robine. General Ization ^Talk 00:55, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I added a source, i cannot understand what is being referred to, because the page in linked to the reference

I have reviewed the sources you provided; they do not support the content you are adding, which is also rife with grammatical and syntactical errors. You also seem to be unsure whether the subject is male or female. Please stop, or you will be blocked from editing. General Ization ^Talk 01:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

no, the subject is a male, the source gives his year of birth (no date) 122.106.8.27 (talk) 01:02, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed he is, which is why your content "she is most likely best known" was not accurate. General Ization ^Talk 01:05, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i have fixed it and said an apology to this editor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.8.27 (talk) 01:09, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have addressed one aspect of General Ization's concerns, it seems. Now would be a good time to open Talk:Jean-Marie Robine and to create a section requesting your proposed edits. Then, a discussion can happen and perhaps your changes are added to the article as a result. The block won't prevent you from discussing there. Please go ahead. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:13, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Biographies and edit warring

Hi 122.106.8.27, you may not restore content others have objected to in good faith to a biography of a living person without first having found a consensus (on the article's talk page, ideally). See WP:BLPRESTORE for details; standardized advice not specific to biographies follows.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. 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.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:06, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing articles (not their talk pages) for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:08, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|it was a confusion, yes i thought the subject was female from the last revision, i have apologize for the mistake}}

You have not started a discussion at Talk:Jean-Marie Robine yet. See my message from 01:13, 8 October 2023 (UTC) above. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:15, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I send you message — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.8.27 (talk) 01:18, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have now invited General Ization to the discussion at Talk:Jean-Marie Robine § Jean Marie Robine. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:27, 8 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i am sorry, i didnt make the mistake on purpose, it was not to upset anybody.

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).

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

Request reason:

i am sorry that i made a mistake, as i said it was not my intention, to upset anyone

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 10:21, 8 October 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.

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.