User talk:RogerNiceEyes

Welcome!

Hello, RogerNiceEyes! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 22:19, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Introduction • Contributing to Wikipedia • Your first article The five pillars of Wikipedia • Simplified ruleset How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Get help at the Teahouse Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions Department directory Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Verifiability • No original research Reliable sources • Citing sources • Content guidelines What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style (Simplified) • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sockpuppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists The Signpost (Wikipedia's newspaper)
Things to do
Task Center • Be bold in editing Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Copy editing • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguation • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Eyes Roger, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Dam222 🌋 (talk) 13:18, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Block

You have been blocked following an investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Allknowingroger for sockpuppetry. It was determined that you have used another undisclosed account at the same time as using this account. As you have been recently blocked on commons for issues surrounding sockpuppetry, I can't reasonably see that you are unaware about the policy around using multiple accounts. As it can be seen that you created new accounts after forgetting the password to it, I have only blocked you for 2 weeks for the use of WikilovesAsia (talk · contribs) while editing using this account. If you evade this block using any of your previous accounts, a new account or editing while logged out, those accounts or IPs will be blocked and this block will be extended. I suggest you thoroughly read the sockpuppetry policy before you make edits after this 2 week block expires. You may appeal this block using {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 00:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021

Hello, I'm HurricaneEdgar. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. HurricaneEdgar 15:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Dam222 🌋 (talk) 20:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Caricature

No, we don't contemplate using caricatures in ou8r encyclopedia articles, unless they have become iconic and are free for use. Please stop wasting our time with non-actionable suggestions. Acroterion (talk) 21:48, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes

Hi, just to note that it might be better to use {{Infobox museum/wikidata}} rather than {{Wikidata Infobox}}. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding images to taxoboxes

Good to see missing images added to taxoboxes. A couple of points:

If the image is not of a species that is the title of the article, then please add a caption with a wikilink (e.g. as I did at Dipentodontaceae)
Please check the talk page, and remove "|needs-photo=yes" or the equivalent if present.

Peter coxhead (talk) 11:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taxoboxes

Articles about historically recognized taxa that are not accepted now do not have taxoboxes, so please don't add them. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:19, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

infobox images

All the images you have added recently are formatted incorrectly. See WP:INFOBOXIMAGE. They all need to be fixed MB 17:28, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect I am here about the same thing. Your additions are appreciated, BUT they need to be correctly formatted. You have been inserting images into infoboxes using the "file:" syntax used for images in the text body, like so:

image=[[File:Bathyeliasona mariaae (10.1093-zoolinnean-zly063) Figure 7A.png|thumb|]]

This produces incorrect double frames and shrunken images in the box. Use the following instead:

image=Bathyeliasona mariaae (10.1093-zoolinnean-zly063) Figure 7A.png

- i.e., no brackets, no "file:" leader, no thumb parameter.

It would be appreciated if you could work backwards through your additions and clean that up, otherwise it's a big job for someone else... Cheers --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Number sandwich

Hello. I see you're adding images to number articles, opposite the infobox. Please beware of making a WP:SANDWICH, which might make the page harder to read on some devices. Certes (talk) 11:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom of panorama

Would you please familiarize yourself with the notion of Freedom of panorama. All photographs you have added today to the articles on my watchlist are non-free, and I have reverted the edits.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:49, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Captions and accuracy

Please make sure to add informative captions to your images, especially when the relevance may not be obvious to the casual observer. You are creating a great deal of work for other people. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:04, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, please take care that the images you are adding are actually applicable to the article. Here, you added an image that isn't verifiably of the topic of the article. Here, you added an image of the wrong car entirely. this image depicts Porta Nuova, Gate of Milan, and isn't really representative of Porta Nuova, a similarly-named business district also in Milan. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:16, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Roger, since I posted these comments, you have accrued another warning for adding inaccurate/inapplicable images, and you have made at least another hundred image edits with either no explanatory captions or the poorest attempt at one ([1]). I believe you are acting in good faith, but your edits are causing work for other editors to the point of being disruptive. You must slow down what you're doing. If you don't, I will block you from mainspace for wasting other editors' time. I would prefer not to do this to a good-faith editor, but if you can't stop inserting inaccurate images and images without useful captions, I will. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:16, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid we need to mass-rollback.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think that's the best option. The vast majority of the images are in fact applicable and useful. The problem is the lack of explanatory captions, and the occasional careless placement of a wrong image. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I randomly checked 5 edits among the last, two of them had problems. I am willing to wait though.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:54, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but are we talking problems like "no captions but image is helpful and applicable" or problems like "totally wrong image"? The first is annoying but the images should be salvaged, the second is the real problem. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We are talking of the "totally wrong image" problem, one I reverted, and another one I though I reverted but in fact you reverted it yourself (I also reverted another one which was not a good idea, and you have corrected me).--Ymblanter (talk) 15:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah fuck it I've just come across a couple of other blatantly wrong ones and I'm not even 20 hits down his current contribs page. I'm hopping on board the mass rollback train - five thousand edits is just way too many to check manually. Should we seek wider approval at AN first? It's a lot to auto-revert. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:25, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it is safer to check with AN or ANI (and may be recruit a bot there).--Ymblanter (talk) 15:29, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm writing up an AN post seeking input. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have made (or found) a list of images used on Wikipedia in other languages but not in English, and to be adding them at remarkable speed. Although some additions have been correctly reverted, many of your edits improve the articles and seem like a commendable effort: almost a one-man WikiProject. However, I must agree with the comments above that it needs to be done carefully to ensure that the added image is relevant, correctly positioned and properly captioned. Wikipedia is a collaboration rather than a solo effort, and it would help if you could explain what you are doing and indicate that you have understood our concerns, ideally by replying to these messages. Certes (talk) 15:39, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021

Please do not add inappropriate images to Wikipedia, as you did to St. Gregory the Illuminator Cathedral, Athens; it is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. No-one likes being 'templated', but you added a photo which the image title stated the cathedral's address and denomination to an article that stated a different address and denomination. I cannot help but think that it was deliberate. Pjposullivan (talk) 11:47, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Have you considered using an edit summary to explain what you are doing? 99% of your edits are just marked "Added" which, although true, is obvious from the increase in page size. Certes (talk) 15:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

March 2021

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Disruptively ignoring community concerns voiced on this page here.

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 ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]