User talk:Agnes George shauri

I Agnes George shauri I'm Tanzanian librarian welcome to #Aflia #1lib1ref

Library

Library suppose to be a place for entertainment, dissemination of information not only place for reading and studying. Agnes George shauri (talk) 06:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agnes George shauri, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Agnes George shauri! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Rosiestep (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:12, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

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/Omorodion1, 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.

--Stay safe, ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 17:05, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Agnes George shauri (talk) 17:18, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Prahlad balaji: It's quite certain this isn't an instance of sockpuppetry. This edithon is running from 24–30 May 2020, and has already generated 2,840 edits to 550 articles so far. You can see a list of editors registered at the dashboard.

Welcome Agnes, we're really pleased to meet you! --RexxS (talk) 01:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Agnes George shauri. Please disregard the message above, which misidentified your edits as potentially disruptive. I sincerely apologize for this error, and please rest assured that there has been no negative finding against you above. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me on my talk page. Respectfully, Mz7 (talk) 23:20, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding citations

I have had to revert many of the citations you are adding because they have nothing at all to do with the articles you are editing. For example, at Long-term experiment you added a citation for the Oxford Electric Bell that was mention of a musician named Bell. At Neurosurgery you added a reference to "A revision of the fern genus Oleandra (Oleandraceae) in Asia." Same article, you added "Instrumentation in Functional Endoscopy Sinus Surgery", which had nothing to do with doing neurosurgery accessed via the nasal cavity. Your reference to Steve Kerr was for an different person with the same name. Your citation at David Jason was about real stars, not TV stars. I believe your intentions are good, as part of the Librarian project, but you are making so errors at so many articles that all you are doing is damaging Wikipedia. David notMD (talk) 14:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agnes, at the moment a significant proportion of the sources that are adding don't support the content in the article. I can see how keen you are to edit, but your edits are being checked by other volunteers, and if you make too many mistakes, it causes a burden for them to check. Please slow down and double check that the sources that you are adding actually relate properly to the article. If you are at all unsure, then instead of adding a source, please make a post on the article talk page suggesting the source you want to use and wait for other editors to confirm them. I hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 16:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Im sorry i will never repeate the mistake again Agnes George shauri (talk) 17:04, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Really, please stop. I just had to revert your two most recent citations added to Bass guitar. Example: the second request for a citation was for this sentence: "The Fender VI, a 6 string bass, was tuned one octave lower than standard guitar tuning. It was released in 1961, and was briefly favored by Jack Bruce of Cream." What is desired is a citation that confirms that Jack Bruce played a Fender VI, a six-string bass. What you added was a reference about the Fender Precision Bass Guitar, which is a four-string instrument. I also reverted the citations you added to Telenor, as the first was about Telenor hiring immigrants, and the second had no mention of Telenor. David notMD (talk) 18:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than adding citations directly to articles, RexxS suggested that you go to the Talk pages of those articles, create a New section, and propose your citation there, including where it should be inserted into the article. An editor will review your suggestion and either act on it or decline. The alternative, if you persist in adding invalid citations, is that you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. David notMD (talk) 18:58, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. This is your final warning. Your addition of citations is consistently wrong, and thus considered vandalism. Any more editing in this pattern and you will be blocked. Stop adding citations to existing articles. David notMD (talk) 19:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

May 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 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 ~~~~}}. 331dot (talk) 11:55, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Information sources

From this digital age we have been move on in new technologies in now days we have many information sources example e journal, e-book,e.t.c A. George (talk) 14:04, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing.

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 noticeboards.
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, as you did at Pressure cooker, you may be blocked from editing.

One of your first edits after your block was lifted was this, which repeats exactly the same problem you were blocked for. The information that needed a citation had to do with filling a pressure cooker: "...no more than one-third full for pulses (e.g., lentils)." You added a source called "Group Model Building in a Pressure Cooker: A Field Experiment with Public Policy", which does not even mention actual pressure cookers – the term is used as an idiomatic expression in the title of the article, but the article itself is about group behaviour.

Other editors (including myself) will now have to go through every single edit you have made to check if there are other such nonsense additions. Please stop adding references to articles until you understand what the reference is meant to do. Thank you. bonadea contributions talk 14:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A check of some of the other recent edits from this account revealed this, this, this, and this, all of which were additions of sources that had nothing to do with the information they were supposed to verify. Agnes George shauri, you are editing fairly quickly, adding sources to articles within very different areas with only a minute or two between each edit. A "citation needed" tag is not a request for just any random source that seems to be vaguely related to the topic – it is a request for a verification in a reliable source of the specific information in the article! The sources you add are generally from peer reviewed journals or scholarly publications – but that doesn't matter, when they don't verify the information. --bonadea contributions talk 15:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use books aimed at schoolchildren as sources

Your citation at Lost City was a book written for older pre-teens or young teenagers. Doug Weller talk 17:54, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop!

You just addded a statistical publication about rail transport in Britain as a source to Transport in Nigeria. Please stop adding citations to Wikipedia articles – I don't think a single one of the citations you have added is actually possible to use to verify the content where you have added them. If you don't stop adding sources that are unrelated to the articles, you may be blocked from editing again. --bonadea contributions talk 17:59, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

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 ~~~~}}. DrKay (talk) 18:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]