User talk:Skivermac16111994

Welcome!

Hi Skivermac16111994! I noticed your contributions to Family tree of English monarchs and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! —GoldRingChip 08:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced

Hello, I'm Canterbury Tail. 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 referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Canterbury Tail talk 01:36, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 29

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Train operating company, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Grand Central and Lumo. 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) 06:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced again

Please do not add or change content 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. Canterbury Tail talk 01:28, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Country

Please stop adding the country name beside some railway station names in articles where it's already very clearly established what country they are in. The country is not part of the name so it shouldn't be added. Thanks. Canterbury Tail talk 20:34, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to List of companies operating trains in the United Kingdom while logged out. Please be mindful not to perform controversial edits while logged out, or your account risks being blocked from editing. Please consider reading up on Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts before editing further. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Jalen Folf (talk) 20:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Family tree of English monarchs

I hated reverting all the work you had done editing Family tree of English monarchs. But if you look back at it, there were some rows left incomplete. And we don't need to say "…of England" for prince/princesses of England, nor do we need obvious or irrelevant titles here. Please keep editing… I don't want to scare you away. Perhaps you can go back and look at some of your edits and reapply parts of them again. Cheers. —GoldRingChip 20:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Please read WP:ES: you have never added an edit summary to any changes you have made, despite being required to do so. Bazza 7 (talk) 19:42, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to service boxes

I and others have noticed you have been making mass edits to service boxes on UK railway station articles. Often this is changing the route= parameter at {{rail line}}. You have not been leaving any edit summaries, so the edits are all unexplained. They may be in good faith and I would like to be able to hear your reasons for these edits. Kind regards JamesVilla44 (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained edits to routeboxes

I have noticed that despite multiple messages on your talk page, you are continuing to make unexplained edits to railway station routeboxes. None of your edits have been explained so no one can be sure of the intent behind them. In addition, many edits are resulting in routeboxes containing incorrect or innacurate information, or breaking consistency across lines. I have had to revert, correct or fix many of your edits as a result.

Please could you either explaining your edits as you are required to do, or stop making these edits.

Kind regards, Aaroncrudge (talk) 09:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! David Biddulph (talk) 12:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Willington railway station, you may be blocked from editing. The route from Cardiff to Birmingham is not via Nottingham, so your edit [with no edit summary] is obviously in error. David Biddulph (talk) 12:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't add middle names to the British royal family tree. I did explain why in the edit summaries. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Family tree of the British royal family. I asked you not to add middle names. It is disruptive to continue with a series of edits after being asked to stop. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024 - United Kingdom

Your recent editing history at United Kingdom 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; read about 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. DeCausa (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April - Commonwealth Realm

Your recent editing history at Commonwealth realm 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; read about 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. DeCausa (talk) 22:23, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning: using edit summaries

It seems you have ignored our pleas and continue to make contentious edits without explaining your reasoning in the edit summary. I am writing this to you as your last warning that your competence in the matter is required. If you can't fulfill our requests to use the edit summary and make edits we have to revert again, we may have to get administration involved for next steps on your continued use of the platform. Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 22:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 2024

Please do not add or change content, as you did at CrossCountry, 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. Danners430 (talk) 18:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at British Rail Class 221, you may be blocked from editing. Danners430 (talk) 17:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jake Wartenberg (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is not using an edit summary, even after multiple requests to do so, a sufficient reason to block a user? Skivermac16111994 is rampantly doing so. Seasider53 (talk) 23:33, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it's time to go to ANI. I'll happily support you if you want to make a report for this and the repeated unsourced contributions. 10mmsocket (talk) 06:45, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Seasider53 indefinite block. No reason he/she can't appeal but then that would mean actually responding people so don't hold your breath! 10mmsocket (talk) 07:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Titanic, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. L'Oiseau Lybre (talk) 22:18, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Station names

Please stop changing London station names. If you want to do this then please come along to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways and discuss your ideas. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:23, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Danners430 (talk) 18:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Skivermac16111994 only 1.4% of edits with an edit summary is simply unacceptable. Danners430 (talk) 18:55, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

....and so soon after being released from a block for disruptive editing. 10mmsocket (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Burton-on-Trent railway station. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm 10mmsocket. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to British Rail Class 221 have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Are we going to start a countdown to getting you blocked again? Unsourced content and no edit summaries? 10mmsocket (talk) 21:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at CrossCountry, you may be blocked from editing. Danners430 (talk) 16:17, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Over linking

See WP:OVERLINK - you do not need to add links to country names. Also, in infoboxes, where brevity is the watch word, you certainly don't need to change "England" to "England, Great Britain, UK". "England" is sufficient. --10mmsocket (talk) 14:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ad Orientem (talk) 22:40, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Skivermac16111994. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Girth Summit _(blether) 17:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]