Hello, I'm Uranium Site. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Montero (album), 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. Uranium Site (talk) 06:50, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Montero (album). Pachu Kannan (talk) 07:02, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Bhad Bhabie has been reverted.
Your edit here to Bhad Bhabie was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links in references which are discouraged per our reliable sources guideline. The reference(s) you added or changed (https://www.celebritynetworth.com/richest-celebrities/models/danielle-bregoli-net-worth/) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 08:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Law enforcement response to the 2021 United States Capitol attack, 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. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:15, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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 Black supremacy, you may be blocked from editing. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 10:36, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Bree Runway. Muhandes (talk) 19:10, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hennesy Carolina is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hennesy Carolina until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

DGG ( talk ) 08:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours 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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Neutrality^talk 14:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to John Parke Custis. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use your sandbox. The source you cited for the statement you added to the article did not back up your statement. Shearonink (talk) 14:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Martha Washington. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use your sandbox. The text & source failed verification - the source did not say what you *said* it did. Shearonink (talk) 14:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at John Payne Todd, you may be blocked from editing. The National Archives - https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/04-03-02-0659 - clearly state Todd was not married - direct quote - "He never married". Unable to find any reliable published sources stating Todd married a "Greta Bunce". Geni.com source failed verification. Shearonink (talk) 15:21, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content.

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 ~~~~}}.  Seddon ^talk 15:59, 14 November 2021 (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).

EleonorA125 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

your reason here: I used information available for John Park Custis and Martha Washington available. I was unaware that information was disproven. I apologise for my ignorance and wish to be unblocked for the sake of editorial freedom.

Decline reason:

I'm not sure what "editorial freedom" has to do with this. This request does not convice me that your behavior will not repeat in the future. 331dot (talk) 09:37, 16 November 2021 (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.

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).

EleonorA125 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

your reason here: In my early days as a Wikipedia editor, I did make a few false edits that earned me some strikes. I regret those decisions and I apologise. As for the final blow, that wasn't intentionally false. I used information from Quora (not the best source, I am aware) to write a piece on John Parke Custis and Martha Washington. I was stupid to cite sources without the correct information, as I was going off Quora and hadn't read the source. I apologise for any incipience it may have caused to both the sit and the respective pages. I will be better.

Decline reason:

This is almost incoherent and gives me concern you lack sufficient understanding of English to edit here. From what I can make out, you seem to be saying Quora isn't the best source. That's putting it mildly. You cannot use Quora as a source for anything you say here and I'm not at all convinced you understand this, or what a reliable source looks like. Yamla (talk) 11:38, 18 November 2021 (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.

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).

EleonorA125 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Insert your reason to be unblocked here: In my early days as an editor, I made a few false and unsourced edits that earn me a few strikes. I was immature with my edits at the time and have made an effort to make clear and proper edits. As for the articles relating to Martha Washington, John Parke Custis and John Payne Todd, those weren't intentional slander. I merely used poor sources, that were both outdated and as for the case for John Payne Todd, false. I was not aware of the falsehoods and I deeply regret my decision to not use a reliable source. For example, on Google (directly, e.g.: search John Payne Todd) and Ancestry.com, it lists Greta Bunce as the wife of John Payne Todd. I hope you understand why I edited it to include a supposed marriage to Bunce. As for Custis and Washington, I used outdated information (that has been debunked by the Mount Vernon estate) as a source. I didn't understand it was outdated, but I again, apologise for not making an effort to validate my sources. I apologise for any inconvenience this may have caused for both the site and their respective pages. I have read reliable source, as suggested, and I have learned how to manage and factually source pages. I hope I can have forgiveness and continue to edit. Also, if approved, can you please provide the basic rundown of a post-ban era as an editor (example: is there a stricter vandalism policy, etc).

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 14:08, 12 December 2021 (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.

{unblock|1=Insert your reason to be unblocked here: In my early days as an editor, I made a few false and unsourced edits that earn me a few strikes. I was immature with my edits at the time and have made an effort to make clear and proper edits. As for the articles relating to Martha Washington, John Parke Custis and John Payne Todd, those weren't intentional slander. I merely used poor sources, that were both outdated and as for the case for John Payne Todd, false. I was not aware of the falsehoods and I deeply regret my decision to not use a reliable source. For example, on Google (directly, e.g.: search John Payne Todd) and Ancestry.com, it lists Greta Bunce as the wife of John Payne Todd. I hope you understand why I edited it to include a supposed marriage to Bunce. As for Custis and Washington, I used outdated information (that has been debunked by the Mount Vernon estate) as a source. I didn't understand it was outdated, but I again, apologise for not making an effort to validate my sources. I apologise for any inconvenience this may have caused for both the site and their respective pages. I have read reliable source, as suggested, and I have learned how to manage and factually source pages. I hope I can have forgiveness and continue to edit. Also, if approved, can you please provide the basic rundown of a post-ban era as an editor (example: is there a stricter vandalism policy, etc).}