User talk:Cryptothecary341

Welcome!

Hello, Cryptothecary341, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Your first article
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Atlantic306 (talk) 00:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Roach (actor)

Wikipedia works on "verifiability, not truth" as a guiding principle. This policy states that “Wikipedia's content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. That we have rules for the inclusion of material does not mean that Wikipedians have no respect for truth and accuracy, just as a court's reliance on rules of evidence does not mean the court does not respect truth. Wikipedia values accuracy, but it requires verifiability.

According to Wikipedia’s verifiability policy, "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable".

Wikipedia sets policies for very good reasons. If articles aren't fully referenced, they will lose their accuracy, reliability, and usefulness. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 02:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Iñaki Godoy moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Iñaki Godoy. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it needs more sources to establish notability and Twitter is not a reliable source. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 12:54, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Amos Crawley for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Amos Crawley is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amos Crawley (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Oaktree b (talk) 22:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

March 2023

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Joe Pingue, you may be blocked from editing. I may have to revert a slew of your edits. Drmies (talk) 14:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging IJBall. Drmies (talk) 14:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- IJBall, never mind--just another sock, and a lousy one at that. Drmies (talk) 14:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  @Drmies: Yeah, I thought my only interaction with this editor was at Martin Roach yesterday, so I wasn't sure why I was pinged! But from the interaction report, it looks like we've edited about 2 dozen articles in common, though with only meaningful interactions at Martin Roach and Danielle Savre. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:45, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that one or more recent edit(s) you made did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary, and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 14:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

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 why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Drmies (talk) 14:40, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]