User talk:Manfromnewmexico
Manfromnewmexico, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi Manfromnewmexico! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC) |
Welcome
[edit]
|
Nomination of Katie Ascough for deletion
[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Katie Ascough 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/Katie Ascough 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. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:50, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
June 2020
[edit]Hello. Again. Couple of things. Escalation thereafter.
- Do not use Wikipedia to promote your own self-published works. As you did on several articles. The "repeated insertion of a particular citation or reference in multiple articles by a single contributor" is covered under the WP:REFSPAM guidelines. Repeated spamming is likely to result in a block.
- Do not use self-published works (whether yours or anyone-else's) as "references" in Wikipedia. As you did on several articles. That "self-published material such as [self-published] books [..] are largely not acceptable as sources" is covered in the WP:SELFPUB policy. Repeated breach of any policy may result in a block.
- Do not add content to Wikipedia which is just "copy and pasted" from other sources. As you did on Katie Ascough (and elsewhere for all I know). The addition of plagraised and copyrighted text is covered under the WP:COPYVIO policy. Copyright violations are taken very seriously and repeated abuse will result in a block.
- Do not edit Wikipedia from multiple accounts. As you continue to do. Despite repeated advisories to stop. I do not know who you think you are fooling with this "Manfromnewmexico" nonsense, but you'd want to cop yourself on. The use of multiple accounts to mislead, to create the illusion of greater support for a position, or to circumvent a previous sanction will result in a block.
- Do not edit Wikipedia in your own interests. Just don't. Stop doing it. Just stop.
Patience is gone. Escalation next. Bye. Guliolopez (talk) 00:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
Refbombing
[edit]Hello. Me again. Again. In this edit you have:
- Added six additional references which are entirely unnecessary. There is absolutely no reason to pepper an article with every last newspaper column, cutting, letter or small ad that mentions a subject. Often entirely tangentially or in a way that doesn't support the text. Especially when there are already existing references supporting the same text. It does not improve the article. And is just distracting noise. Stop doing this.
- Added a number of small and insigificant details which are not necessary. There is absolutely no reason for the reader to know or care where someone's election office was or whether he/she acted as their own election agent or not. This is distracting trivia. Stop adding this.
- Reminded me why the COI template was added. In recent weeks and months we'd managed to address most of the issues with the content (much of which was only relevant or of interest to you and other family members) and tone (similar to that found in the other articles you created about yourself and your family members). And, just when I thought these issues were addressed, and you'd finally heeded the policy about avoiding articles on subjects with which you have an association, we're right back to where we were. And I'm reminded of why we have the COI policy. And why that policy remains highlighted on that article. Stop doing this.
If there are particular things that you feel are missing, or could be improved in the article, then happy to discuss. But continuing to edit in a way which is contrary to COI, content, referencing and other guidelines is not constructive. Thanks. Guliolopez (talk) 16:11, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
COI
[edit]Hi. If you create or edit one more article relating to a family member of yours, then I'll be moving for a project ban or a topic ban. Enough is enough. Guliolopez (talk) 20:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
- Hello. Again. For the umpteenth time:
- You need to please limit the number of edits (and the number of articles you create) which relate to topics with which you have an association.
- You need to please stop adding content to these types of articles where that content may be of limited interest to you and your family, but which are of little relevance or improvement to the project as a whole. (It may be of interest to you that a family member attended an unveiling event, or campaigned from a van with a loudhailer, etc. But these things are NOT encyclopedically notable events in the context of the life of a politician. Politicians campaign. Politicians attend unveilings. That's what they do. Its not relevant)
- You please you should really consider stopping this practice where you search for every last mention of your ancestor in every newspaper ever. And then republish what you find as if it is all equally notable or relevant. If you are having difficulty recognising why this is a problem, then you should please take yet another look at the WP:COI guidelines. In particular those sections which deal with how a COI might make it difficult for an editor to distinguish their own goals from those of the project.
- You need to please stop adding content that is not supported by references. In your recent series of edits, you added text about Labour's "strong Catholic" ethos. Or that the subject's position as a "theologian" and "Christian Socialist" were linked to any alleged anti-semitic statements. None of the links you offered supported these claims. This webpage for example mentions the subject twice. In neither case is the subject described as a "theologian" or "Christian Socialist". And so it cannot possibly be used to support the text which you changed to read "it is clear that Timothy Quill, as a theologian and Christian Socialist held strong anti-Soviet views as possibly anti-Semitic views". It just doesn't support this text. It doesn't.
- I've said it before, and haven't followed through, but I'm at my wits end now. If you continue with this blatant disregard for the most basic goals and mores of this project, then I'll be taking it to WP:ANI. I really am done trying to help you now. Done. Guliolopez (talk) 13:50, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 25
[edit]Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Labour Party (Ireland), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tipperary. 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) 08:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
September 2020
[edit]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Guliolopez (talk) 20:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi Manfromnewmexico! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:36, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
- Please stop marking all your edits as minor. You should only mark very small uncontroversial edits as minor.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)Orphaned non-free image File:Irish Labour logo 2020.jpg
[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:Irish Labour logo 2020.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:27, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Concern regarding Draft:Katie Ascough
[edit] Hello, Manfromnewmexico. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Katie Ascough, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.
Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 12:02, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Rena Manley Evening Echo 1959.png
[edit]Thanks for uploading File:Rena Manley Evening Echo 1959.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:56, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
