User talk:Palow s coba11

May 2022[edit]

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 African-American culture, 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. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 13:16, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please:

Maintenance templates shouldn't be removed without fixing the problem.

Please read the guidelines on citing sources

Please don't copy material and then paste it elsewhere in an article without good reason.

Please use a valid and informative wp:edit summary for your edits. Reusing the same summary for every edit is not helpful. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 13:24, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please only use reliable sources. Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source to use in Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Citing Wikipedia. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 14:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Princess of Ara. I noticed that you recently removed content from Nigerian Civil War without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Princess of Ara 15:16, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia as a source for itself[edit]

One Wikipedia article cannot be used as a citation for another, please stop adding cites like that. Please read WP:RS thoroughly, that will explain the requirements for sourcing on Wikipedia. - MrOllie (talk) 16:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 18:02, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources, so please do not include them. ... discospinster _talk 20:40, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 2022[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. 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 ~~~~}}. ... discospinster _talk 20:51, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst you are blocked[edit]

I see that you are now blocked. That is unfortunate, and I am somewhat disappointed that you didn't heed the advice of other editors. Nevertheless, I recommend that you take some time to familiarise yourself with the Five pillars of Wikipedia, the simplified ruleset, and the content policies if you would like to avoid having this happen again. It is also recommended that you communicate with other editors, and provide meaningful, informative edit summaries, instead of using the same one over and over again, even when it doesn't describe what you are doing. If English is not your first language, you may want to see the list of Wikipedias in different languages. If you need any help after you are unblocked, just click here to leave a message on my talkpage or visit the Teahouse. I appreciate that you are trying to cover topics which often get overlooked, and thanks for that. Cheerio, and happy editing (once your block expires). 🙂 Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 02:35, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently adding unsuitable references to articles. It is unfortunate that this block is necessary, but since neither messages to you nor a short time-limited block have had any effect, this seems to be the only thing that stands any chance of getting a message to you. If you think you can persuade an administrator that you now understand what the problems are, and that you will avoid making the same mistakes again, then you can make a request to be unblocked. I hope that you will do that, so that you can return to editing without further 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 ~~~~}}. JBW (talk) 07:34, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Palow s coba11 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm so sorry for not replying to those messages, I'm a new user here. I never knew I had messages. I have gone through the guidelines and i promise not to add unreliable sources on Wikipedia in future Palow s coba11 (talk) 13:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It would help us if you told us what makes a source reliable and gave us an example of a source that fulfills Wikipedia's requisites for being reliable. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:46, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Palow s coba11 (talk) 13:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC)}}[reply]

In addition to what you have been told in messages above, here are some notes to help you avoid repeating some mistakes that I have noticed:

A reference needs to support the statement to which it is attached. For example, if you add a reference to a statement that someone "is known for consistently placing close to the top three in each Diamond League competition" then that reference must refer to a source which says that he is known for consistently placing close to the top three; a link to a web page which doesn't say that is not a reference for that fact.
Wikipedia has a method of formatting references which provides a small number in the article text to direct readers to the correct reference in a list near the bottom of the page. Putting bare web links in the middle of the text of an article is obtrusive and unhelpful.
A reference must be to a source which can reasonably be expected to be reliable. A website where anyone can post anything, such as Wikipedia, is not a reliable source, and therefore not acceptable as a reference.

I advise you to look at the guide to reliable sources and Help:Referencing for beginners for more information on how to add references. JBW (talk) 08:04, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @JBW: Thank you for all you do. I am sorry for all the inconveniences Palow s coba11 have caused you. Due to the constant warnings and blocks, we have decided to withdraw from editing Wikipedia for #1Lib1Ref editathon because if our members/users are yet to understand what Wikipedia's reliable source is all about, then there's no need to edit/add citations now or in the future. Please kindly reconsider unblocking him. Thanks! Olugold (talk) 17:13, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]