User:JBW/List
Block notices
[edit]
Your new username will need to meet our username policy. The reason you give will need to make it clear to an administrator that you understand the reason for your block and that you will make the same kind of mistake again. To save wasting time asking for a name that's already been taken, go to Special:CentralAuth, type your name in the box, and click on the button. If the name is already in use you will see details about the account with that name, and if it isn't in use you'll see a message telling you there's no global account with that name.
If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block by first reading guide to appealing blocks and then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} at the bottom of this page, replacing "Your reason here" with appropriate text. ~~~~{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. ~~~~ 
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} at the bottom of the talk page of your original account. ~~~~ 
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} to the bottom of the talk page of your original account. ~~~~
 | This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} at the bottom of the talk page of your original account. |
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} at the bottom of this page. ~~~~ {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} at the bottom of this page. ~~~~ Unblock related
[edit]If you would like contribute to the encyclopaedia, in ways which comply with the requirements mentioned above, you may request to be renamed and unblocked. To do so, first read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks, and then place the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason}} at the bottom of this page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use, and "Your reason" with a brief explanation of why you should be unblocked. Make sure your reason follows the advice in the guide to appealing blocks. In order to avoid wasting time requesting a username which has already been taken, check at Special:CentralAuth. Put your proposed new username in the box and click on "View user information". If the name is already in use, you will see information about the account with that name. If it isn't yet taken you will see a message saying "There is no global account for [whatever name you put in]".
I have not yet changed your username, because once it is changed, if you try to log in under your old username, you will get a message telling you that the username or password is wrong, which might make you think that you have lost access to your account. You can in fact simply log in with the new username, and the same password as before, but I like to warn editors before changing the name, to avoid confusion. When you have read this message, post a message here telling me that you are ready for the name change to go ahead. In that message include both the text {{ping|JBW}} and ~~~~. I will then be automatically notified of your message. Please do not edit anywhere other than this talk page until the username change has taken place.
If you are considering making another unblock request, I suggest first carefully re-reading the block notice, particularly the section beginning "If you intend to make useful contributions about some topic other than your business or organisation..." and also, if you have not already done so, taking the advice in that notice to read the guide to appealing blocks.
There is nothing we can do about an IP block unless you tell us what IP address is blocked. If you still can't edit, post another unblock request, stating what IP address it is, or, if for some reason you don't want to make the IP address public, request an unblock at Wikipedia:Unblock Ticket Request System. (The message telling you that you can't edit will say what IP address it is.)
I'm afraid we can't do anything about a block on an IP address unless you tell us what IP address it is. Please post a new unblock request giving us that information, which will be given in the message you see when you try to edit. Alternatively, if for any reason you prefer not to make your IP address publicly visible, you can request an unblock through the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Web host
[edit]Wikipedia is not a web host for holding personal web pages unrelated to work on building the encyclopaedia. You are, of course, very welcome to start making contributions to the encyclopaedia, in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, if you are interested in doing so, but if you wish to have a personal web page, then there are many web sites which provide that sort of service, but Wikipedia is not one of them.
Wikipedia is not a web host for holding personal web pages unrelated to work on building the encyclopaedia. You are, of course, welcome to make contributions to the encyclopaedia, in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but if you wish to write a personal web page, then there are many web sites which provide that sort of service, but Wikipedia is not one of them. Also please bear in mind that editing for any kind of promotional purpose is not permitted; that includes editing to promote or publicise oneself or one's work.
Wikipedia is not a web host for holding personal web pages unrelated to work on building the encyclopaedia. Also, any kind of editing to promote, publicise, or advertise anything is not permitted; that includes creating pages to promote oneself or one's career. You are, of course, welcome to make contributions to the encyclopaedia, in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but if your purpose is to write a personal web page or to publish an online CV or résumé, then you would be better advised to use one of the many web sites which do provide that sort of service, such as a social network site, a web hosting service, or LinkedIn.
Wikipedia is not a web host for holding personal web pages unrelated to work on building the encyclopaedia. You are, of course, very welcome to start making contributions to the encyclopaedia, in line with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, if you are interested in doing so, but if you wish to have a web space for your personal use, then there are many web sites which provide that sort of service, but Wikipedia is not one of them.
Wikipedia user pages are for editors who are active in working for the project to give a little information about themselves in connection with their work for the encyclopaedia; they are not places to post any other kind of material.
A Wikipedia user page is for someone who is active in working for the project to give a little information about himself or herself in connection with his or her work for the encyclopaedia: it is not a place to post any other kind of material. Also please note that promotional editing of any kind is not permitted by Wikipedia policy.
A Wikipedia talk page is for messages and discussions about work for the encyclopaedia: it is not a place to post material unrelated to work for Wikipedia.
The talk page of a Wikipedia article is for messages and discussions relating to work on editing that article: it is not a place to ask general questions about the subject of the article. However, you may like to ask your question at Wikipedia:Reference desk.
Edit-warring
[edit]Wikipedia's policy on edit warring is, basically, "don't edit war", not "don't edit war unless you are convinced that you are right". Indeed, it would be completely meaningless to have an edit warring policy which exempted any editor who was convinced that they were right, as in most edit wars everybody involved thinks they are right.
Insisting that one or more other editors have been edit warring is completely off the point. An unblock request for you is assessed on the basis of what you have done, not what others have done. It may be that other editors have been edit warring on an article, but if so, that does not mean that repeated reverts by you somehow don't count as edit warring.
Copyright
[edit]It is almost never suitable to copy content from another web site to Wikipedia, for more than one reason, the most important being copyright. When you post anything to Wikipedia you release it for anyone in the world to reuse it, either unchanged or modified in any way whatever, subject to attribution to Wikipedia. It is very rare that the owner of a web site licenses content for such very free reuse, and in those few occasions when they do so, we require proof of the fact. We don't assume that content is freely licensed on the unsubstantiated say so of just anyone who comes along and creates a Wikipedia account.
Certainly we can't accept text previously published on a web site which has a copyright notice saying "all rights reserved", as in the case of material you have posted.
It is almost never suitable to copy content from another web site to Wikipedia, for more than one reason, the most important being copyright. When you post anything to Wikipedia you release it for anyone in the world to reuse it, either unchanged or modified in any way whatever, subject to attribution to Wikipedia. It is very rare that the owner of a web site licenses content for such very free reuse, and in those few occasions when they do so, we require proof of the fact. We don't assume that content is freely licensed on the unsubstantiated say so of just anyone who comes along and creates a Wikipedia account. Certainly we can't accept text previously published on a web site which has a copyright notice saying "all rights reserved", as in the case of material you have posted
It is almost never suitable to copy content from another web site to Wikipedia, for more than one reason, the most important being copyright. When you post anything to Wikipedia you release it for anyone in the world to reuse it, either unchanged or modified in any way whatever, subject to attribution to Wikipedia. It is very rare that the owner of a web site licenses content for such very free reuse, and in those few occasions when they do so, we require proof of the fact. We don't assume that content is freely licensed on the unsubstantiated say so of just anyone who comes along and creates a Wikipedia account, for the simple reason that very often people come to Wikipedia and falsely claim to have copyright rights that in fact they don't have. Also, even on the rare occasions when there is no copyright problem, content from an organisation or business's own website is not usually suitable for a Wikipedia article, as it is almost invariably written in terms designed to promote the organisation and give a good impression of it, rather than presenting it from a neutral point of view, as required for a Wikipedia article. Such promotional editing is not permitted by Wikipedia policy.
UTRS
[edit]==UTRS==
{{UTRS| }} has been declined. ~~~~
==UTRS==
{{UTRS| }} has been declined, with an instruction that any future unblock request should be made on this page. ~~~~
ANON ONLY UNSPECIFIED
[edit]You have not said what block you are referring to, but as far as I can see from the logs there is only one block that it could be, and that one is "anon. only", which means that you should be able to edit provided that you are logged into your account. Please try editing, making sure that you are logged into your account. If you find that you can't, then please post here again, providing the exact text of the message you get telling you that you can't, so that we can identify the block for certain.
Other notices
[edit]Few if any administrators pay any heed to messages which look as though they are written not by a person with an understanding of the issues involved, but by a machine with no understanding whatever of the issues, but with considerable skill at writing grovelling letters in a rather stiff and pompous style.
However, I suffer from attention deficit disorder, and things that I genuinely intend to come back to very often get lost, as my mind uncontrollably jumps off onto other things. If I haven't got back to you on this within a a couple of days please remind me: I will regard it as help, not harassment.
My advice to new editors is that it is best to start by making small improvements to existing articles, rather than creating new articles. That way any mistakes you make will be small ones, and you won't have the discouraging experience of repeatedly seeing hours of work deleted. Gradually, you will get to learn how Wikipedia works, and after a while you will know enough about what is acceptable to be able to write whole new articles without fear that they will be deleted. Over the years I have found that editors who start by making small changes to existing articles and work up from there have a far better chance of having a successful time here than those who jump right into creating new articles from the start.
Creating a new article is actually one of the most difficult tasks for a new editor to perform on Wikipedia, because there are many ways in which the article may fail to satisfy various requirements, which a new editor is unlikely to know about.
Welcome to editing Wikipedia. I see that you have asked a question about creating an article. Creating a new article is actually one of the most difficult tasks on Wikipedia, because it requires considerable skill and understanding of Wikipedia's standards. Consequently, a large proportion of editors who dive straight into creating articles at the start of their time here have a very frustrating time, as their work is repeatedly rejected or deleted. My advice to new editors is that it is best to start by making small improvements to existing articles, rather than creating new articles. That way any mistakes you make will be small ones, and you won't have the discouraging experience of repeatedly seeing hours of work deleted. Gradually, you will get to learn how Wikipedia works, and after a while you will know enough about what is acceptable to be able to write whole new articles without fear that they will be deleted. Over the years I have found that editors who start by making small changes to existing articles and work up from there have a far better chance of having a successful time here than those who jump right into creating new articles from the start. However, below I am providing you with some links to various guidelines, help pages, policies, etc, some of which I hope may be helpful to you, whether in relation to creating articles or any other kind of editing. ~~~~
|
Here's some information about how to get your username changed.
- To save wasting time asking for a name that's alredy been taken, go to Special:CentralAuth, type your name in the box, and click on the button. If the name is already in use you will see some details about the account with that name, and if it isn't in use you'll see a red message telling you there is no global account with that name. When you're found a suitable name come back here and post a message saying what the name is. If in that message you include {{ping|JBW}} and also make sure you finish the message with ~~~~ I will be automatically notified of your message, and will deal with it.
- Unfortunately even if you choose a username which hasn't already been taken, the system may refuse to do the rename if it's very similar to a username which has been taken. To avoid having to waste time coming back to try another name, you may like to suggest some alternatives in case your first choice doesn’t work.
- Once your username is changed, if you try to log in you'll be told you've used the wrong username or password. Just log in with the new username, and the same password as before. JBW (talk) 08:31, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
There is no such word in English as "serie". It is a remarkably common mistake to think it is the singular of "series", but in fact the singular of "series" is "series".
Note: "Genre warring" is given as a reason for reports on this page remarkably often. As far as I can make out from examining cases where that is given as the reason, "genre warring" simply means edit-warring in which the content of the edits happens to be musical genres. I have no idea why that particular kind of edit-warring is reported here far more often than all other kinds of edit-warring, but whatever the reason, this page is for reporting vandalism, and the place to report edit-warring is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. ~~~~
If there is a good reason to rename a page, it should be done by using the "Move" link at the top of the page. (If you can't see the link, hold your mouse button over the little downward pointer labelled "More".) Copying the content of a page and pasting it into a new page is not an acceptable way of moving a page to a new title, because doing so loses the editing history, which must be kept to comply with Wikipedia's copyright licensing terms.
Please don't remove speedy deletion tags from a page you have created yourself, but if you believe you have good reasons to think the speedy deletion nomination was mistaken then explain why on the relevant talk page. This applies whether or not you are logged in to the account you used to create the page.
- The username of this account indicates that it is used to represent an organisation or a company, but Wikipedia policy is that an account is for an individual person, and must not represent any company or other organisation, nor may it be shared by more than one person. You should therefore not continue to edit from this account. An account name like "Anne Smith at Mega Trading Company", indicating the company you work for, but also indicating that the account is for an individual person at that company, would be acceptable, and would have the advantage of transparency.
- Whatever username you use, you should be aware that Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest discourage you from editing articles about subjects you have a personal connection to, such as a business you work for. If there are factual corrections you think should be made to such an article, you may propose them on the article's talk page, putting the tag {{request edit}} there, to ask for a neutral, uninvolved, editor to assess your request and decide whether to make the change to the article. Also, if editing Wikipedia is part of work for which you are paid, you must declare that fact, and state precisely what your position is.
- Finally, please bear in mind that, no matter what username you use and how clearly you declare your interest, editing which appears to be promotional or non-neutral is unacceptable under Wikipedia policy.
If you are connected to someone or something you have written about (a few examples are writing about yourself, your business, your band, a member of your family, your client) then you should be aware that Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline discourages you from writing about that subject. One of the main reasons for that is that experience over the years indicates that editors with such a connection to a subject they are writing about are likely to find it very difficult, or even impossible, to stand back from their writing and see how it will look from the detached perspective of an outsider, so that they are likely to write in ways that look promotional to others, even if they sincerely think they are writing in a neutral way. Also, if your editing forms all or part of work for which you are paid, whether as an employee, as a contractor, or in any other capacity, the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use require you to state who is paying you, and what your connection to them is. (To avoid the possibility of a surprisingly common misunderstanding, editing is part of paid work if it is done as part of normal employment or as part of a work to a contract, whether or not a specific payment earmarked for editing Wikipedia is made.)
Under Wikipedia policy a user account must be for an individual acting in a personal capacity, and must not represent any kind of organisation, as your username indicates your account does. Therefore you should not continue to edit under your current username.
- If you are connected to someone or something you have written about (a few examples are writing about yourself, your business, your band, a member of your family, your client) then you should be aware that Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline discourages you from writing about that subject. The main reason for that is that experience over the years indicates that editors with such a connection to a subject they are writing about are likely to find it very difficult, or even impossible, to stand back from their writing and see how it will look from the detached perspective of an outsider, so that they are likely to write in ways that look promotional to others, even if they sincerely think they are writing in a neutral way. Also, if your editing forms all or part of work for which you are paid, whether as an employee, as a contractor, or in any other capacity, the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use require you to state who is paying you, and what your connection to them is.
- Wikipedia policy is that a user account is for one person acting in their personal capacity, and accounts representing businesses, organisations, groups of people, or web sites, as apparently in your case, are not allowed. A user name such as "International Cabbage Agency" is therefore not permitted, but a name such as "Karen at the International Cabbage Agency" is fine, and has advantage of transparency regarding the affiliation of the editor while also indicating that the account is an individual one.
Almost all of us, when we start editing Wikipedia, know little or nothing about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, so nobody can be blamed for starting out doing things that are contrary to policies and guidelines that they don't know about. However, continuing to do the same things after being told about the relevant policies and guidelines is a different matter.
I don't know what your purpose was in creating more than one copy of the same content on different pages, but doing so serves no useful purpose, and can cause various problems, such as making it difficult for editors to keep track of changes.
Wikipedia does not give preference to any national variety of English over others. In some cases there is a good reason for using one national variety; for example in the article Winston Churchill it makes sense to use British English, while in the article San Fransisco it makes sense to use US English. However, when there is no such specific reason for preferring one version, it is not acceptable to change content of an article to comply with one's own preferences.
Resubmitting a declined draft without making any attempt whatever to address the concerns which led to its being declined serves no useful purpose, and takes reviewers away from more useful work, such as reviewing drafts which have not yet been reviewed, or which have been improved since previously being reviewed.
Removing a drive-by tag from XXXXXX years ago. If its presence over that period has not induced anyone to make the suggested change then it isn't likely to do so now. (The fact that the tag has been here for so long without effect is a typical illustration of how much good these tags usually achieve.)
==Adding links to articles==
I see that some of your edits have added links from one article to another, known as "wikilinks". Wikilinks can be very helpful, but it is a very common mistake among new editors to add too many wikilinks to articles. Generally speaking, a wikilink should be added only if it provides information which is likely to help readers of the article in which the link is placed to understand content of that article, or provide further information closely connected to content of that article. That normally means either a link to an article which explains words or expressions in the article containing the link, or a link to an article which provides background information which is necessary in order to understand content of the article containing the link. Linking to articles in other situations is not just unnecessary, it can actually be harmful, because research has established that the more irrelevant, or only slightly relevant, links there are in a page, the less likely readers are to find the ones which they might find useful. Thus, for example, nobody reading the article [[££££]] is likely to need to consult the article [[&]] in order to understand what "&" means, nor does the article [[&]] contain any information about ££££, so linking the one to the other is not likely to be helpful. ~~~~
There's a very effective way of making talk page access available to innocent non-autoconfirmed editors while shutting out the person who made protection necessary. You just create a second talk page, with some title such as User talk:YourName (Open), and put an edit notice on your normal talk page telling editors who can't edit here to go to the other page. You might expect that it wouldn't work, because the vandal who made the protection necessary can just go to the other talk page too, but in practice they never do. I can only assume that there's no fun in trolling if it isn't likely to be seen by most people; but whatever the reason may be, I've known it to work time and time again.