User talk:EJY257

November 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, you may be blocked from editing. ElKevbo (talk) 06:04, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Gemological Institute of America 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
This follows multiple reverts from an IP address. You have also reintroduced unsourced and poorly sourced content into other articles after being asked not to, and have failed to justify your reverts in the edit summaries. Verbcatcher (talk) 10:10, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Mastercard, 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. David J Johnson (talk) 11:47, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Visa Inc., without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. David J Johnson (talk) 12:06, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I want to even add 18 with September 1958. Please.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Namecheap, you may be blocked from editing. You are edit warring and not supplying any sources, which are required. You are making exactly the same unsourced changes you were warned about when using IP:95.175.85.38. You will face a block if you continue. Thank you. David J Johnson (talk) 12:39, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is a valid source. The Namecheap agents told me. Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.140.129.37 (talk) 12:49, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As you have been told multiple times, you need to quote a valid, reliable, secondary source. Anything you have been "told" is only WP:OR and is not acceptable. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 13:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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 ~~~~}}.

Materialscientist (talk) 15:14, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Template:Z190 Largoplazo (talk) 11:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, they're all valid information.

We've been through this before. You have been found supplying false or unsupported dates in the past. You have been told of the need to supply sources. You continue to supply date after date after date claiming they're true without indicating a single source to verify any of them. "Because I said so" is not a reliable source. Largoplazo (talk) 11:53, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, but they're all 100% valid. Don't remove them and don't block me. These information are not from me. They're from on-line pages.

You need to cite the sources (not just say "I found them in sources"). See WP:Citing sources. Largoplazo (talk) 11:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I already did many times and they were all valid. Not from my own information.

Not a single one of your edits in the last few days has cited a source. You will probably be blocked the next time you make one of these edits. Largoplazo (talk) 11:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But, like I said they're true, not false. So, don't block me at all and leave them all the way they are now.

Like I said, no. Largoplazo (talk) 12:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I'm done arguing this because you simply aren't listening. Largoplazo (talk) 12:01, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wasn't arguing. These are all valid information. So, don't remove them.

As it has become apparent that your account will be used solely for unconstructive editing, you have been indefinitely blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest it by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} to this page.

Kuru (talk) 12:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear this behavior of edit warring over unsourced edits is not going to change. Your edits across your previous ten IPs show the same pattern. I've locked this account. Kuru (talk) 12:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS decline

I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you at this time. Please describe in greater detail how your editing was unconstructive and how you would edit constructively if unblocked. ( Please read Wikipedia's Guide to appealing blocks for more information. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks) As you still have access to your talk page, please post your unblock request to your user talk page, omitting any off-Wiki personally identifying information. If you have not already done so, please place the following at the bottom of your talk page, filling in "Your reason here "

 {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Thank you for your attention to these matters. Please see UTRS appeal #37833 --Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:32, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS decline

I'm sorry, but I cannot unblock you at this time. Please describe in greater detail how your editing was unconstructive and how you would edit constructively if unblocked. ( Please read Wikipedia's Guide to appealing blocks for more information. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks) As you still have access to your talk page, please post your unblock request to your user talk page, omitting any off-Wiki personally identifying information. If you have not already done so, please place the following at the bottom of your talk page, filling in "Your reason here "

 {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Thank you for your attention to these matters.'Please see UTRS appeal #37483. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 19:34, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'

My suggestions for you to implement are that anyone can provide the valid details to any Wikipedia pages. As long as their true and correct. Secondly, my second feed-back is that all Wikipedia pages will have "Edit" button and will no longer have "View Source" buttons at all anymore. So, can you accept then implement them both? Please.

I beg you to unblock me again and let me add these information to these Wikipedia pages which are Eleanor Parker, List Of Oldest Banks In Continuous Operation, Gemological Institute Of America, Namecheap, Godaddy, Network Solutions, Jcb Card, Visa Inc, Mastercard, Credit Card, Universal Air Travel Plan, Bambi, HSBC Trinkaus, iPhone and History of iPhone? Because, all the edits and added information were valid. I beg you to let me do them all. Please reply.

People have been begging you not to add information without citing sources demonstrating its validity. You've repeatedly refused. Why would you expect your begging to be any more successful than ours has been? Largoplazo (talk) 17:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because, they're all valid. From all the sources that I've found. Please.

Can you please unblock me and allow me to add these editings to the Wikipedia pages? Because, they're not violating, valid and not against the rules of Wikipedia. Please reply.

Can you please remove the block? Because, all of the information that I've added were all valid. Please.

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/EJY257, 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.

Largoplazo (talk) 05:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please unblock me? Even, put back February 15, 1931 in the gemological institute of america page? Please.

Because, it's 100% valid. That was when it was launched. Please.