User talk:Quenreerer

Welcome!

Hello, Quenreerer, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Stipe Miocic. 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! Mattythewhite (talk) 23:09, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

August 2019

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Pat Miletich, 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. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 09:46, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

his ring name is the Croatian sensation and the main page states he was born to croatian parent, therefore he's croatian american. simple. Quenreerer (talk) 10:01, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quenreerer, You need to provide source for that. For how to add reference/source (inline citation), pls go to WP:REFB for info and instruction. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:18, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

it's in the article and accepted, which i didn't write btw. you need to check that, because as far as i know, the lead should be the reflection of the article. no need for a separate source in lead. Quenreerer (talk) 11:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, lead should be the summary of the important part of the article body. In the "early life" section, there is the "Croatian parent" mentioned. And if you look at the 2 sources (at the end of the section - ref 3 4), there is no mentioned about the Croation parents. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:32, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

i just edited based on the main page and the croatian american page. which also, mentions him. i'm not the one who put him in either category. Quenreerer (talk) 15:30, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quenreerer, What I meant was if you add/change info, then you need to support the info with source. If the existing info was not sourced, then it should not place in the lead section. Do note that "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly support the contribution." - See - WP:PROVEIT. And since you know on Pat Miletich the source does not support the claimed and you did not provide a source, you should remove your own edit. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:16, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

added a source. hope it's enough. Quenreerer (talk) 07:00, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quenreerer, Thank you. I saw. I have readd 2 sources. For web source, you could use Template:Cite Web "horizontal" template - this will link the webpage, if the page is relocated to different path. A few things, you need to WP:Ping the editor you send the message to so they will receive a notification. You talk page is on my WP:Watchlist so I know you write to me. Do pop to my talk page if you need further assistance. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 07:49, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

i will. thank you :). Quenreerer (talk) 08:08, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Biased editing?

Hey there. In your recent edit on the see also section of US Navy SEALs, you selectively removed MARCOS. This is despite the fact that MARCOS is deeply related to the SEALs, more than others listed in the section. Please explain.-Vaibhavafro Talk 03:58, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Quenreerer, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to Christian McCaffrey have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:16, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the records are very bare bones. i'm not sure how to edit it to make it not exaxtly the same. it's not like a very colorfull opinion piece, just stats.Quenreerer (talk) 15:57, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of commando units

Please stop edit warring on List of commando units, and instead abide by WP:BRD and gain consensus on the talk page for the article. (Hohum ^@) 15:11, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

apparently you don't even know what the list requires. Quenreerer (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Belal Muhammad (fighter)

Hi Quenereerer, Greetings. Pls provide source to support your claimed and if you have sourced then place the info on the personal life section and not the lead section as this has nothing to do of him being a mma fighter. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:21, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

added source. case closed. Quenreerer (talk) 10:40, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thunberg, FRSGS

Please do not remove again. Please take any issue you may have to Thumberg's "talk" page where, if memory serves me correctly, this was already discussed and consensus was reached--but don't hold to that. Nevertheless, her talk page for issues. I Replaced honorific_suffix. "This is an Honorary Fellowship, first awarded in 1888 (in 133 years only 82 have been bestowed) and is awarded in recognition of services to the Society and to the wider discipline of geography. Honorary Fellows may use the post-nominal designation FRSGS after their names.^[1]" See Royal Scottish Geographical Society -- Honorary Fellows

References

^ "FRSGS". Royal Scottish Geographical Society. Wikipedia.

Jermaine Whitehead

If the Nick Bosa tweets controversy happened today, would you add an entire section devoted to it in his article? Both of these things are receiving similar coverage in the media, and neither deserve their own section. Additionally, you keep adding back spelling and grammar issues and well as excess URL code, which is now bordering on disruptive editing. Eagles 24/7 (C) 13:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

false equivalency. nich bosa didn't threathen anyone. or post racist tweets. he like an instagram post, not even a tweet, that had hastags that could be viewed as racist or homophobic, or just made out to be because of the political climate. by contrast, JW posted threats and racial slurs to the point that his twitter got suspended. his conduct is similar to riley cooper, than to to nick bosa. and riley has a section devoted to the event. i'm not the one disrupting here. i added properly sourced content within the parameters of wiki. racims controversy and threats do not belong on the season section like football stats. Quenreerer (talk) 14:07, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The posts Bosa liked included the N-word as a hashtag so your stance that these "could be viewed" as racist is incorrect. You've now reverted the edits for a third time, close to violating the three-revert rule on Wikipedia. You restored spelling and grammar issues, excess URL HTML, and now deleted sourced information about his release from the Browns. This is disruptive editing. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:17, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

grammar issues, html, etc have been used as excuses to remove sourced content. anything that was source and removed was a mistake and you can re add them. but don't use nonsense to try to justify erasing content, just because you don't like it. it's coming off as very POV. Quenreerer (talk) 14:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I made an edit just for the grammar, spelling, and HTML issues and you still reverted all of my edits entirely. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:23, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

you made multiple edits. if it were only the grammar and html i wouldn't have touched it, but youd didn't stop there. it's obvious you want to use it as a distraction to make your page altering edits.

removed exces HTML, fixing grammar. Quenreerer (talk) 14:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019

Hello, I'm BeenAroundAWhile. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to 92nd Infantry Division (United States) 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. Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 02:02, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of records

Please see WP:PRESERVE. Many of these records are easily verifiable with a quick Google search, and none of the information is contentious, so it would be more beneficial to look for sources yourself or add maintenance templates to those sections. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:54, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And again. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

YES! Absolutely! Those edits were added 20 months ago. That's almost 2 years without reference. It's time to remove them. Putting a maintenance tag is just delaying what no one will do and that's leaving up un sourced sections.Quenreerer (talk) 15:14, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:PRESERVE for guidance on removing content from articles. If you see unreferenced information in an article without maintenance tags, it is better to add one than remove the content completely (or, better yet, spend 5 minutes finding sources yourself). This information is not contentious and easily verifiable, so removing it completely without trying to improve it is lazy and detrimental. I will note, however, that this edit to Josh Allen (quarterback) was justified, as a quick Google search showed he was at least the fourth QB to accomplish this. Thanks! Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:26, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

there's also an issue of CANTFIX. some of those records are so specific it's almost impossible to find sources. Quenreerer (talk) 15:29, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that some of the Murray records might be more difficult to find references for, but removing them all wholesale is still not the correct approach. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:46, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Comments like this demonstrate that you need to back away from a subject or editor or both. Tiderolls 17:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Special Forces of Ukraine into Spetsnaz. 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. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kobe

Please discuss his height at Talk:Kobe Bryant. This is not a good time to edit war over something like this. Zagalejo^^^ 14:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DS alerts

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2020

Your recent editing history at Nina Dobrev 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Learn the difference between citizenship and ethnicity first. Nina Dobrev isn't only a Bulgarian by ethnicity, she's a citizen of Bulgaria. MOS:ETHNICITY doesn't cover citizenship, therefore can't be used as an excuse to erase her Bulgarian citizenship from lead.Quenreerer (talk) 03:49, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020

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 White supremacy, you may be blocked from editing. Grayfell (talk) 01:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wont touch the page again. to many of you neutral agenda driven racists hanging around to dogpile and claim harassment. Racism will never win, no matter how much you racist try to weasel it into our lives. Quenreerer (talk) 01:50, 16 April 2020 (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 ~~~~}}.

Acroterion (talk) 02:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Doug Weller talk 04:26, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "FRSGS". Royal Scottish Geographical Society. Wikipedia.

[1]