Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Tribute act have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
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).
"Your reason here" is not a reason to unblock you. Please make a new request where you replace those words with the reason for your request. 331dot (talk) 22:25, 27 June 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 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).
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've issued two warnings to this contributor. In the first case he was being deliberately disuptive and in the second obscene. There is no way that he could not have known that his edits were vandalistic unless he is too arrogant to have read editorial guidelines. Sweetpool50 (talk) 07:59, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
the edit i did on the "One, Two, Buckle My Shoe" page was because i thought the "Roud Folk Song Index" number (11284) was a typo of the year of it's publishing; while the edit i did on the "Tribute act" page was because the band that appears in the picture that shows a "Tribute act to Kiss" it's named "Piss", and i thought it was a good idea to put the name of the band in the text (basically "Tribute act to Kiss named Piss", basically, all of this was my fault, and i accept that it was a mistake. Juanito-Arcoiris-1 (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Juanito-Arcoiris-1, what articles do you intend to edit if unblocked, and what kinds of edits do you intend to make? Please be as specific as possible. Z1720 (talk) 17:39, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i want to edit music and film related articles, for example, if an article has incorrect information or is outdated, i intend on changing / update the information (respectively) Juanito-Arcoiris-1 (talk) 21:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Juanito-Arcoiris-1, can you please describe what reliable sources are, why it is important to use them in Wikipedia articles, and how Wikipedia cites reliable sources in their articles? Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 21:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Both Discogs and IMDB are not considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. (See WP:RSDISCOGS and WP:IMDB for more info). Also, I think you misunderstood the question, so I will rephrase: What criteria does Wikipedia use to determine if a source is a reliable source? Z1720 (talk) 22:56, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
in that case, i could gather the information on official websites of the people involved in the making of the music or the film, or use information on the "Generally Reliable" websites on the "Wikipedia:Reliable sources" page Juanito-Arcoiris-1 (talk) 05:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After asking this question twice, it seems like there is a barrier for the user to give the information that is requested. I specifically asked for the criteria that Wikipedia uses to determine that a source is reliable. Another word for "criteria" might be "aspects" or "characteristics". WP:RS has this information, and outlines the type of sources that are considered more reliable than others. WP:RS also explains why Wikipedia tries not to rely upon official websites of the people involved as sources. In your response below, please describe the criteria Wikipedia uses to determine if a source is a reliable source. Z1720 (talk) 13:42, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey I was just reading Tribute act and I feel this user's edits made sense and were made in good faith; earlier in the article it talks about tribute bands may be puns on the names, I believe the edit to the article was just trying (and missing a closed tag the first time) to improve the quality of the article through having a clearer image caption to explain a bit better. Just to clarify the caption was below the below image which definitely contextualises the edit a lot better. Just putting my two cents in because I thought that was a sick edit. Hope old mate gets sorted out eventually. Cheers.It says PISSTheRasIsBack!15:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Sweetpool50. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Sweetpool50 (talk) 00:29, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Your second edit to the same article has been noted. Sweetpool50 (talk) 10:16, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
