User talk:Lord julyan of Srp

Welcome!

Hello, Lord julyan of Srp, 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! Meszzy² (talk) 09:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 2019

Hello, I'm Susmuffin. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Adélie penguin have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 00:29, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019

Hello, I'm Everedux. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Brooklyn, Illinois— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. Everedux ^(talk) 01:14, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

July 2019

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Youtab, 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. noq (talk) 07:27, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Neotrogla, 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. noq (talk) 10:13, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

Hello. I've reverted several of your recent edits, because, although they seemed to be well-intentioned, they were unsourced and didn't match the formal tone required for article text on Wikipedia. If you need guidance on how to provide sources for your additions to articles, you can read Help:Referencing for beginners. If you have other questions about how to edit, you can read the pages linked in the introduction message you received when you signed up, or you can ask me on my talk page. Thank you. A. Parrot (talk) 01:07, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lord julyan of Srp, please see message at User talk:Mr kindheart#July 2020. Please reply there or here before making any further edits. Thanks! HLHJ (talk) 00:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The verifiability policy (FINAL WARNING)

Hello, julyan.

User:HLHJ and I have gone through your editing history and basically had to undo everything you've done. This is because you have consistently inserted text without providing a source for it.

This may be very frustrating for you, but the English Wikipedia has a strict policy of verifiability, which says that everything has to come from reliable sources, and those sources need to be identified so readers can verify the information.

There are basically no exceptions to this rule. The arguments you sometimes give in your edit summaries, such as most recently "Read about these acts in a book of history and mythology so her page should have it", do not mean you can ignore the verifiability policy.

Please, in the future, do not insert information that does not come from a reliable source, and cite that source (if you are using the text editor, write <ref> and </ref> around the source; if you are using the visual editor, click on the "Cite" button).

If you continue to insert unsourced information, I will eventually report you to an administrator and the administrator may decide to block you from editing.

You can reply to this, or ask me questions. Just put some text under this comment, I will see it. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 20:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then how about help me rather than taking everything down it'd be easier then what were during now Lord julyan of Srp (talk) 22:54, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could start by writing a summary here of the things you have learned so far (from the links here and at User talk:Mr kindheart, and from advice in edit comments)? Or you could complete the WP:Wikipedia Adventure, an automated tutorial. This will show that you are willing to put effort into learning, and encourage others to put effort into teaching. I've put a lot of time into fixing your edits, and I haven't yet seen you doing work to figure out why your edits are being reverted. I'm willing to spend time teaching someone who wants to learn.

After you have done this, we can help with specific problems. If you have some information you wish to add, and a source that you got the information from, we can help you assemble it into something that will not get reverted. It gets easy fast with a bit of practice.

Just so you know, if someone reverts you, you may discuss the content with them on the article talk page, which you reach from the "talk" tab at the top of the article page, but you may not just re-add the edit, even if you've re-written it a bit; it's not allowed. Please also avoid this sort of edit; it's not likely to improve the encyclopedia. And it's considerate to format your edits carefully, with capitals at the beginnings of sentences, and so on. Could you please also say how are you related to Mr kindheart? HLHJ (talk) 00:01, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a friend of mine Also that's really helpful feedback thankz Lord julyan of Srp (talk) 00:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you and Mr kindheart know one another off-wiki. Like what I said about re-adding above, if one of you adds an edit, and it gets reverted, the other one shouldn't re-add it unless the reverter agrees. If you are both taking part in the same discussion, it might also be wise to immediately mention that you are off-wiki friends, so that no-one gets upset when they find out. Glad you found the feedback helpful.

HLHJ (talk) 00:36, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Julyan.

Thanks for talking back to us. That's a great start.
When you've heard a rumour but don't know where it comes from, it is not acceptable to put it into the article itself, but it IS acceptable to make a request for sources on the talk page of the article, like I have done for you at the talk page of the article of Saint Senara (link)
If you show yourself as willing to learn, I too would be glad to help.
I agree with HLHJ's advice that you should complete the Wikipedia Adventure tutorial, you will learn a lot from that.

Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 10:59, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks yet again for the feedback ipl get on it Lord julyan of Srp (talk) 16:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You just did it again at Columba of Sens. You've been told enough times now that you shouldn't make edits like that. One more and I will report you to an administrator. Disappointed regards from PJvanMill)talk( 12:13, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And then you did this: [1], yet again sourceless, and also rather incoherent. I guess I should really report you to someone now. PJvanMill)talk( 14:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

... and have done: link. PJvanMill)talk( 14:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So what do u think of my minor edits? Lord julyan of Srp (talk) 18:13, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't made any minor edits. Your recent edits are of the sort you have been asked not to do, and have all been reverted. Please do not edit in the article space again until you have done one of the learning exercises suggested, so you can learn what you are doing wrong. HLHJ (talk) 18:23, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the ages at death? I'll give you the same advice as I gave mr kindheart:

I am currently going through your additions of ages at death of various people. In the future, please make sure you ONLY add the age of death when there is a precise date of death and a precise date of birth, make sure the age you give is not one too high (as was often the case in the ages that you added), and please only insert the age after the death date in the infobox (between parentheses, like currently in this article). ~~If there is no infobox yet, you can create it.~~

PJvanMill)talk( 18:25, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, Julyan, do you ever click on "History" when you're on a page? It shows you all the edits with edit summaries. You should probably read my edit summaries on the pages where you tried to add the age at death. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 18:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with almost everything PJvanMill said, but in infoboxes it is much better to use a template to calculate the age, like {{death date and age}}, which I've done at the above-linked example. I would be extremely careful about adding infoboxes as a new editor; in some areas of Wikipedia, they are not always welcome, most notoriously in classical music. But even in parts of Wikipedia where they are OK, they should be filled in by more experienced editors who have read an infobox's documentation carefully. I think it's worth emphasising though that you are indeed skating on very thin ice here ... if you make any more disruptive edits, you will most likely be blocked. Graham87 07:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, Julyan, but your latest edit to the article mainspace is still unsourced and unusable. You have been given a lot of good advice, and if you took it, you could learn how to edit Wikipedia constructively. As it is, your unproductive use of your time is wasting other people's time. Pinging Masem as requested. HLHJ (talk) 23:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is said you have many fans

Contemporary oral tradition says that you're doing a cool thing with your edits. I hear that you died standing up after many stab wounds and still edited many wikipedia articles.

Various books say your work is appreciated. Seriously, your edits are very funny and they show an infectious enthusiasm for mythology and history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uncommercial Spacetraveller (talk • contribs) 06:51, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing unreferenced edits

Lord julyan of Srp, I reverted your 29 December edit at Jörð. I see you had inserted much the same material on 6 September, both times inappropriately in the "Scholarly reception" section, and that you have made several other unsourced edits, including other instances of you reinserting essentially the same material in an article without adding a source, since receiving a final warning above in August from PJvanMill and discussing the matter with them and HLHJ. You have been informed many times of our verifiability policy, that is, that you are required to cite a reliable source for everything you add, especially after it has been challenged. Adding material in front of an existing source, as you did on 2 December at History of tea doesn't count; in fact it's worse, unless you actually got the information from that source, because it misleads the reader as well as other editors. The problem can't be fixed by pleading with us in edit summaries, "I keep looking and I'm still coming up blank on the references that say that but couldn't u say it's disputable or something like that", "The information I found on her ain't free and it's thru a modern retlling as well so? Can her page keep them?", —it doesn't matter whether the source is free, what is it?!—, or by vague allusions in the edit summary like this from your friend Mr kindheart, "its from modern litterature and ancient poets and i felt her page needed them". We need to know where you both got the information in order to help you at all, such as evaluating the source for reliability or helping you to cite it in the style the article uses. I was thinking you had read some of the unreliable mythology websites and/or books that I know are out there, but frankly, after looking at your recent edits and searching for sources for the Jörð and tea statements, I suspect that whatever you read or saw in a video, you didn't understand it very well. In both articles, your edit clumsily repeats information that is already in the article, and how could you think that material about "gentle giants" was "scholarly reception"?

If you want to discuss things you read about mythology, I'm afraid Wikipedia isn't a good place, although you might consider asking questions at the Humanities Reference Desk. If you wonder whether something would be useful in an article, I suggest you post to the talk page, such as Talk:Jörð or Talk:History of tea; but you would still need to say where you found the information, such as which work of modern literature or which video. (A URL is not necessary, if that's the problem; but at least an accurate title is.) But first, I think you need to carefully read the relevant parts of the article itself, and see whether you weren't just confused by something like a different spelling; that's one of the reasons we require sources, so that people can find out more.

I'm afraid, though, that you've continued to break one of our most important rules, and even though you and your friend don't edit very often, you've potentially confused readers (in looking for a source for your Jörð addition, I found a site that had picked up your version of the article) and, less importantly, made a lot of work for other editors. Pinging admins Graham87, who posted above, and Masem, who I gather asked to be kept informed about how you were doing. Yngvadottir (talk) 02:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agreed ... and treat this as your absolutely final warning (and ditto for Mr kindheart) ... consider yourselves incredibly lucky that you are not blocked yet. I also reviewed your recent edits and in this one to The Great Raid, you incorrectly moved a citation needed tag so its position didn't make sense ... please do not do that. In that particular case and only that case, the movie itself is probably acceptable as a source there. Graham87 04:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

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 ~~~~}}.

Graham87 10:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After a message on my talk page alerted me to editing activity by you and Mr kindheart that was made after my above message, I have blocked you both for disruptive editing and inadequate referencing. Your enthusiasm is commendable but you two are not suited to editing Wikipedia. Graham87 10:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]