User talk:SerM12345

October 2017

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to List of terrorist incidents in October 2017 does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! -- DeFacto (talk). 15:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm DeFacto. I noticed that you made a change to an article, List of terrorist incidents in October 2017, 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! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. You need a source or sources that support all the data yo add to an article. So to add the Las Vegas event to the article mentioned, you first need a source that confirms it as terrorism to qualify for the list and additionally to confirm the summary of the event that you give.

The flags - please don't ignore talk page agreement or the discussion at

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons#Flags in location columns of terrorism list articles. Editors need to work together and to learn our guidelines and policies. Doug Weller talk 18:20, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use the Daily Mail as a source

Earlier this year we had a long detailed community discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard and the consensus was that it was not reliable, ie it doesn't have a good enough record for fact checking, and it should always be possible to find another, better source if the information should be used on this encyclopedia. Doug Weller talk 18:24, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 2017

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at List of terrorist incidents in October 2017.

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 notice boards.
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, you may be blocked from editing. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:02, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not use one or more accounts at the same article or edit while logged out to avoid scrutiny or recruit friends, family or coworkers who share your point of view to support you (see the meatpuppet policy for more information). Please review the policy on acceptable alternate accounts. In short, alternate accounts should not be used for the purposes of deceiving others into seeing more support for your position. It is not acceptable to use two accounts or an account and an IP on the same article, or the same topic area, unless they are publicly and plainly disclosed on both your and the other account's userpage.

Your other account(s) have been blocked indefinitely. This is your only warning. If you repeat this behaviour you will be blocked from editing without further notice. Thank you. DrKay (talk) 19:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DrKay, here's the surprise: the Hamza ali 124 account (which fully deserves its block, of course), cannot be linked by CU to this one, though this account has certainly been editing in a logged-out fashion, if you know what I'm saying, and that you didn't block them is very kind of you. I'd like for another CU to look at the Hamza account, just to make sure I'm not missing anything--DoRD? KrakatoaKatie? Drmies (talk) 22:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, only warning. This edit restored material that was not verifiable from the sources given. The sources do not call the attacks terrorism nor do they ascribe the events to ISIL. Do not add events where the sources do not explicitly call it terrorism or say a group like ISIL did it. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:29, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source your edits

The rules require sourcing every edit. Recently you added ISIS as a suspect in two attacks without sources, I have sourced their claim in one attack while also updating it. However, found no source for suspicion or claim of responsibilty in the second attack on a Sunni mosque in Ghor provine. Please do not add suspects by your own self. Sources are needed for edits. Please always source your edits. Thank you. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 19:38, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for Failure to communicate & inappropriate use of sources. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. Doug Weller talk 17:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not understand the reason for the block?

You need to use edit summaries. That would show that you were trying. Doug Weller talk 20:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller: It continues... [1] EvergreenFir (talk) 21:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for refusal to communicate and sourcing problems.

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 ~~~~}}. Doug Weller talk 19:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

what other account

hy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.41.222.31 (talk) 16:16, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]