User talk:3MRB1

Hello, 3MRB1, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! - wolf 05:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started

Finding your way around

Editing articles

Getting help

Frequently asked questions
Cheatsheet
Our help forum for new editors, the Teahouse
The Help Desk, for more advanced questions
Help pages
Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles

How you can help

Community Portal
Join a WikiProject
Follow Wikipedia etiquette
Practice civility
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

reply button doesn't work

but edit whole page does for android app 3MRB1 (talk) 06:13, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

reply works on my user talk page but not elsewhere 3MRB1 (talk) 06:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot create my own user page , using android app ! 3MRB1 (talk) 06:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

reply button doesn't work

(edit conflict)

Moved from my tp

but edit whole page does for android app 3MRB1 (talk) 06:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just quick note, we like to keep discussions on one page, in the same thread, hence the move here. If you reply, even by editing the whole page, I will see it on my watchlist.

As for your comment, it would appear to be a technical issue, so WP:VP/T would probably be the best place to start. Post a commemt there with your issue, and someone (more than one, likely) will reply with some advice to try and assist you. Good luck and Welcome to Wikipedia - wolf 06:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Test edits

Hi, please don't use my talk page for test edits. Again, if you're having technical issues, WP:VP/T is the place to seek help. - wolf 06:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Private Eye, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Turnover. 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) 06:04, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DPL bot

fixed 3MRB1 (talk) 12:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References for Niklaus Wirth

Hi, it seems to me that there are two issues with your recent edits on Niklaus Wirth:

1194041223: Newly added references are not related to the preceding sentence. All references point to Kathleen Jensen (her research profile, etc.) and are irrelevant to the content (The Pascal User Manual and Report).
1194040847: You mention Wirth as editor, whereas the Book's TOC explicitly mentions Wirth as joint author for the first chapter and sole author for the second one.

Please consider Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. رهبرمعظم (talk) 08:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@رهبرمعظم oral statement by J&W; lady in red... 3MRB1 (talk) 08:50, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I couldn't find the statement that you are referring to in the youtube video. Are you suggesting that the information in the printed book are wrong? رهبرمعظم (talk) 09:09, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are misunderstanding the statement: she explains the procedure of writing the documentation which was edited by Wirth. But as the book states the Reports chapter is by Wirth (See this publication). I will update the article now. رهبرمعظم (talk) 09:29, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@رهبرمعظم citing the works of a person mentioned in an article is Neccessary to identify who they are 3MRB1 (talk) 15:18, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scholarly works does not reveal much about a person except their field of research. Why not create a Wikipedia page for Jensen? رهبرمعظم (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Byt the way, you removed my notes and left the "Notes" section empty. Ignoring what the book says in favor of a misunderstanding (on your side) is no help. Please stop this edit war. رهبرمعظم (talk) 20:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@رهبرمعظم I moved your note into open text 3MRB1 (talk) 20:45, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am reverting it back. The current state is just a mess:

There is no closing parenthesis after "(also ..."
Notes section is just empty
The reference to the online book on Archive is removed

It should be noted that even in the video you reference, Jensen explicitly mentions that she could not write only her name in good conscious after the work that Wirth did. Stating that Wirth edited the chapter doesn't mean that he fixed grammatical and structural errors (what a Copy_editing copy editor would do)!

I can understand that you might have strong feelings that Jensen work might be understated here, but we cannot change the objective facts. رهبرمعظم (talk) 20:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@رهبرمعظم looks like youare edit warring 3MRB1 (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No I am not. I am informing you on every change that I make, justify it, and explain why I deem it correct. I would have appreciated it, if you did the same. I have also opened a dispute page to solve this issue.رهبرمعظم (talk) 21:04, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@رهبرمعظم what you have said is not the why you have acted 3MRB1 (talk) 21:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if I follow. رهبرمعظم (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bare URLs

Hello, I wanted to let you know that I reverted your edit to Borscht Belt regarding the Lansman's Bungalow Colony because they were all what we call WP:SPAMLINKS. Though it wasn't your intention all three were advertising links: one was for vacation rentals and two were for Jayne Currry performances. If you can provide a reliable source that refers to the Colony than by all means restore it! The old links are preserved in the page history.

Your edits employ WP:BAREURLS. This becomes a problem due to WP:LINKROT. When web pages get moved or sites restructured the link no longer works. When an editor includes information on where is was first published than it makes it easier for another editor to look for the new URL or find an archived page. Please take a look at WP:BAREURLS as it will provide you with guidance on how to cite. There is also a simplified page Referencing for beginners at WP:REFBEGIN.Blue Riband► 17:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Blue Riband wp app doesnt do citoid. Jayne Currry cites prove landsman is still in business 3MRB1 (talk) 12:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 3MRB1, I restored the Lansman's Bungalow Colony after finding a better source.

There are two problems with using Jayne Curry's performance schedule to show that it is hiring entertainers and therefore still business. One, the links are about her and not abaout -=the colony. For something to have sufficient notability to be included in Wikipedia in needs broad independent coverage by sources completely independent from them. Generally speaking, if someone has difficulty finding sources to support inclusion, then that person, place, or thing isn't notable. Second, a link to a performer's schedule is going to rot very quickly. Past gigs will roll off their web pages and be replaced with new bookings.

The Brownstoner citation that you had used was advertising. It's a paid insertion and not independent. Now if a Brownstoner staff writer had written an article on how Lansman's is still going strong that's independent. Reliable sources employ fact checking and editorial oversight. Take a look at WP:RS to learn what is considered a Reliable source. Blue Riband► 21:02, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also noticed the bare URLs in your edits. Have you tried https://citer.toolforge.org/? Just paste in the url and it formats the citation for you. (I used it to fill in the refs you just added to Marie Osmond.) Schazjmd (talk) 17:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Info on tagging and references

Hi. I reverted some of your edits to the Russ Kunkel and E. Jean Carroll articles. If you think an article is promotional -- and the promotion isn't obvious -- the best practices are to edit the article accordingly and/or post on the talk page with your specific concerns. You will find more information at constructive tagging.

Only one citation is needed for individual assertions in an article. See citation overkill. Rather than adding multiple cn tags, if you find that an article needs more or better citations, consider adding the template that indicates more references are needed. (See citation needed.) Also, see Blue Riband's comment above regarding bare URLs as well as the guidance on reliable sourcing.

I see that you are editing on an android. I find it difficult to use my phone to do anything other than correct the basics (typos, etc) but there are people who edit extensively on mobile platforms! See the essay by Cullen328 on smartphone editing.

If you have a question, you can add {{help me}} to your talk page, and other editors will be happy to assist you. I know that you are editing to improve Wikipedia -- that Russ Kunkel article is very poorly referenced! -- and your efforts are appreciated. Thanks, JSFarman (talk) 17:15, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Craig Ferguson

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Craig Ferguson, 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) 01:31, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Suspense (1913 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Biograph.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Andrea Savage, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hiatus.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 22

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Bigfoot

added a link pointing to Humboldt County

French fries

added a link pointing to Helical

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2024

Your recent editing history at Wallis Simpson shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, as you did at Wallis Simpson, you may be blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Celia Homeford stop blocking refs for Herman Livingston Rogers & Katherine L Moore 3MRB1 (talk) 08:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's already cited, as I told you at least twice already. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Celia Homeford not there also section order is not wp:mos 3MRB1 (talk) 08:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Wallis Simpson, you may be blocked from editing. Please stop adding bare links and do not continue a series of edits after being asked to stop and while a talk page discussion is in process. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Celia Homeford there was no discussion your undos were based on false claims 3MRB1 (talk) 09:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Wallis Simpson#Additional bad citations and Talk:Wallis Simpson#Picture of the Rogerses and Brownlow in 1936. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:22, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Celia Homeford 3MRB1 (talk) 09:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Edward VIII. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Edward VIII to Fulton Oursler. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. This is copying text from another page, and therefore requires attribution. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:38, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Celia Homeford oh yeah forgot thanks for stalking 3MRB1 (talk) 09:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Celia Homeford cant find it 3MRB1 (talk) 10:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The section link is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#3MRB1: Competency issues. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:04, 25 March 2024 (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 review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:18, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Blade of the Northern Lights

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).

3MRB1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

it was edits on one page and the notice was unfindable and the reverter was unclear and the reverter refused to discuss 3MRB1 (talk) 02:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This does not address the reason for the block; I agree with the blocking admin that it actually demonstrates why you should remain blocked. 331dot (talk) 08:52, 26 March 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.

I'm not going to handle this unblock request myself, but I will say that writing an unblock request in E. E. Cummings style only bolsters my conclusions about your lack of competence to edit an encyclopedia. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:34, 26 March 2024 UT visit to YouTube

On appealing a block

Hello, I've followed you from a post on WP:VPT and found you have been blocked. Please read WP:3RR and WP:DE (and WP:CIR if possible), which maybe the direct reasons for your block. If you want to appeal your block, the appeal reason above is not so plausible. Good Luck. -Lemonaka‎ 03:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]