User talk:2TigerBW

Welcome!

Hello, 2TigerBW, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! --Johnsoniensis (talk) 08:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

August 2019

Hello, I'm Railfan23. I noticed that you recently removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Railfan23 (talk) 03:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities in the United Kingdom

I have reverted your removal of the images from List of cities in the United Kingdom. I have no idea what "Images out of day" means. I checked a sample of the images and every one of them was correct. If there are one or two that are wrong, please remove those specific images. But removing them all is disruptive editing. If you want to discuss the use of images on that page, please do so at the talk page, but do not continue to remove the images. You clearly have no consensus for that change. Thanks, Railfan23 (talk) 03:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 2019

Hello, I'm Chiswick Chap. I noticed that you recently removed content from English cuisine without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Febuary 2020

I have noticed a lot of editing done by this user providing reverse of the information already in place without providing accurate citations.

I suspect this user is deliberately vandalising content for own benefit, please use caution.

- Concerned Wikiuser. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.72.46 (talk) 01:27, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've just reverted a lot of it - please slow down and split potentially controversial changes from non-controversal ones

Disambiguation link notification for February 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.)

Culture of England (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Enlightenment

Culture of the United Kingdom (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Wimbledon

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2020

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Doug Weller talk 13:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are still marking your contributions as minor, and are failing to leave an edit summary. You are also ignoring self-explanatory style changes, such as the use of images, and deleting text without explanation. If you continue editing in this way, you may find your edits reverted more and more often, which is very frustrating for everyone. Thanks, Tony Holkham (Talk) 14:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to White British, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}. Doug Weller talk 08:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea if you are even aware of this talk page, but you certainly have not responded in any way to the messages above. You have continued to mark every edit as minor, blanked large amounts of sourced material without explanation, etc. If you want to get unblocked you need to assure other editors that you understand their concerns and what you are going to do going forward. Doug Weller talk 08:28, 25 February 2020 (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).

2TigerBW (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

In 2019 and 2020, I made several contributions that may have appeared as problematic because I didn't check my talk page nor listen to help and guidelines others were issuing me. I was rightly banned for this. Since then, I understand it is important to check warnings and discuss any major changes in the article's talk page with other editors; and most importantly, always check my talk page to discuss any changes I've made that some do not agree with. I understand now that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and I must respect what others are suggesting. 2TigerBW (talk) 09:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Homework assignment was graded; student failed miserably. SPI found: new accounts added to category of blocked sockpuppets, and I will update this block to a CU block, which could/should have been done earlier. Drmies (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2024 (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.

@User:Doug Weller

You are blocked, not banned, there is a difference. What contributions do you want to make? 331dot (talk) 14:05, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware there was a difference between being blocked and banned. I would personally focus on improving pages I have an interest in, in areas of geography and culture, and ensuring pages I have an interest in are well sourced and kept in order, while discussing any important changes made on the page's respected talk page, and engaging in a civil manner, throughout the site in general.

If a user has a concern about an edit I have made, and they message me on my talk page, I would promptly reply. Likewise, if there is an issue I had with someone's respected edits, I would raise it on their talk pages. 2TigerBW (talk) 14:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Weller I would tend to think another chance is called for here, but what do you think? 331dot (talk) 14:48, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to see a commitment that you wouldn't delete sections of articles without explanation, like you did here; I'm still none the wiser why you tried to remove that content. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:13, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh absolutely, I would never remove sections again without a valid reason why. I would note it on the article's page to gather views from fellow editors. To be honest with you, as this edit is from early 2020, I can't exactly remember the reason why I removed the section. I was still in sixth form college then and was busy with my studies, so a lot was going on in my life. Please do excuse me for not having a valid reason why. However, I know not to do that now without a valid reason why. Also, I understand to note any changes I've made. 2TigerBW (talk) 15:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot@Cordless Larry I'd like to see answers first. And maybe some assurance this editor understands our sourcing policy. Ah, they posted while I was writing this. Still want to see more about sources including what sorts of sources are likely to be unreliable. If the two of you are satisfied after that, go ahead. Doug Weller talk 15:26, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would always follow Wikipedia:Reliable sources; academic sources from books, journals, and newspapers along with reliable news media (not blogs). I would personallly spend a lot of time searching online for a source from an academic site or book journal, for any topic I'm writing about. If I can't find that, I would look for news content from reliable websites. 2TigerBW (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK Tiger, much of what you've done has been blanking. Look at this edit you made. There are three sources in there, and here is your homework: identify which is/are the best, and why, and which is/are the worst (or, the not-so-best), and why. Ping me and 331dot when you're done. Good luck! Drmies (talk) 23:18, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Best sources are the following:

· The Times Educational Supplement

PDF document, strong connection with the topic, and still active.

· [1]https://www.theguardian.com/education/2007/nov/30/schools.uk

Reliable website, strong connection to the topic, and like above, still alive.

The other two sources are not the strongest. One is a dead link and the other appears to be a blog. 2TigerBW (talk) 06:15, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies: I've just realised that User:2TigerBW has a sockpuppetry tag on it. Shouldn't 2TigerBW be making this request from their original account? It also appears that the sockpuppetry is ongoing. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cordless Larry, that's the second time in 24 hours that there's a user page with a tag like that, but nothing showing up in the log or on the talk page. Grrr. Drmies (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why I'm tagged there and only know sockpuppetry is when you use another account after you've been blocked or banned. I believe I have been mistaken. I scrolled up the page on the investigations of Lam312321321 and my account is stated as likely, not confirmed. I never even knew about that tag on my talk page until now as I haven't logged into this account nor used this website since 2020. I'm honestly not sure what to do at this stage. 2TigerBW (talk) 09:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I can't show any evidence that I am not Lam312321321, I may have to cancel this ban appeal, as I had no knowledge of the tag on my user page before this. Thank you for taking your time to look at my appeal. It's appreciated. I was thinking about making a new account and starting fresh before I made the appeal. However, I do understand that is against the rules of this website and I would be evading my block. 2TigerBW (talk) 09:54, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But I can show evidence that you are. No, this was not a ban appeal; it was a block appeal. After all this time, and all these accounts, I'm surprised you don't know even the most basic things. As for the homework assignment, yes the Times article was the best, and the Guardian the second best (or it was a tie, maybe), but the reasons you gave were absolutely lousy and have nothing to do with how one should judge sources. I advise you to not take hydroxychloroquine or go looking for the Nephilim. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Culture of England, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Parkin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]