User talk:45.232.105.68: Difference between revisions

Line 126: Line 126:

[[File:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Hello, I’m [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]]. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that in one of [[Special:Contributions/45.232.105.68|your recent contributions]] you cited a link to a source that may not be [[WP:RS|reliable]]. Sources considered unreliable should generally not be used to support statements. Information from an unreliable source can be challenged by other editors and removed. Reliable sources are generally those with a reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight. [[WP:SELF|Self-published material]], [[WP:USERG|user-generated content]], and certain other outlets such as blogs, wikis, personal websites, and websites or publications with a poor reputation for fact-checking may not meet these standards. If you are unsure about which sources are appropriate, there is a [[WP:RSP|list of sources]] that are considered generally reliable. Additionally, some WikiProjects have [[:Category:WikiProject lists of reliable sources|their own lists]] of sources that are considered reliable for that particular subtopic. If you are still unsure about a source’s reliability, you can ask at [[WP:RSN|the reliable sources noticeboard]]. ”Note in particular that sportskeeda is a user generated site and not a reliable source.”<!– Template:uw-unreliable –> [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 14:25, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

[[File:Information.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Hello, I’m [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]]. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that in one of [[Special:Contributions/45.232.105.68|your recent contributions]] you cited a link to a source that may not be [[WP:RS|reliable]]. Sources considered unreliable should generally not be used to support statements. Information from an unreliable source can be challenged by other editors and removed. Reliable sources are generally those with a reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight. [[WP:SELF|Self-published material]], [[WP:USERG|user-generated content]], and certain other outlets such as blogs, wikis, personal websites, and websites or publications with a poor reputation for fact-checking may not meet these standards. If you are unsure about which sources are appropriate, there is a [[WP:RSP|list of sources]] that are considered generally reliable. Additionally, some WikiProjects have [[:Category:WikiProject lists of reliable sources|their own lists]] of sources that are considered reliable for that particular subtopic. If you are still unsure about a source’s reliability, you can ask at [[WP:RSN|the reliable sources noticeboard]]. ”Note in particular that sportskeeda is a user generated site and not a reliable source.”<!– Template:uw-unreliable –> [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 14:25, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

:The organizations own website is not any better. We cannot use self promotion as a source, either. [[User:MrOllie|MrOllie]] ([[User talk:MrOllie|talk]]) 14:44, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Welcome! Interested in becoming a regular contributor to Wikipedia? Create an account! Your IP address, 45.232.105.68, is registered to WIN Empresas Peru and may be shared by multiple users, so you might receive messages on this page that were not intended for you. To have your own user pages, keep track of articles you’ve edited in a watchlist, and have access to a few other special features, please consider registering an account! It’s fast and free. If you are autoblocked repeatedly, contact your Internet service provider or network administrator and request it contact Wikimedia’s XFF project about enabling X-Forwarded-For HTTP headers on its proxy servers so that blocks will affect only the intended user. Administrators: review contributions carefully if blocking this IP address or reverting its contributions. If a block is needed, consider a soft block using Template:Anonblock. In response to vandalism from this IP address, abuse reports may be sent to its network administrator for investigation. Network administrators or other parties wishing to monitor this IP address for vandalism can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Hello! I noticed your contributions to Track and field and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
You are welcome to edit anonymously; however, creating an account is free and has several benefits (for example, the ability to create pages, upload media and edit without one’s IP address being visible to the public).

Create an account

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! HiLo48 (talk) 02:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. [1] MrOllie (talk) 14:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’m Lazylaces. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Linguistic purism in Icelandic—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Lazylaces (Talk to me) 17:43, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Académie Française. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Lazylaces (Talk to me) 17:48, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’m BilCat. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, 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. BilCat (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for lending your time to help improve Cricket at the 2028 Summer Olympics! If you are interested in continuing to edit, I suggest you make an account to gain a bunch of privileges. Happy editing! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let’s talk • {C•X})} 18:28, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Thanks for trying to help with Inline Skates. These were your changes. It seems like you are interested in removing author’s prescribed thumbnail pixel specifications, and in rearranging lists. I noted these from your other recent edits on other articles.

While some of your changes may make sense elsewhere, they don’t on the Inline Skates article. For one, have you noted the big warning template at the top saying the article is under active restructuring and that help is welcome, but talk on the Talk page first?

Your edits made it so that carefully chosen sizes for thumbnails are gone. Some images become very big, because they have a portrait orientation. Some others now look odd compared to adjacent images. These are seemingly irrational changes, other than to remove custom thumbnail sizes. And you moved images in one section all to the bottom of the section what some unknown reason.

Please talk on the Talk page before you continue again. I would like people to help. But not this type of help. I need to revert all your changes, including the well-intentioned changes to the See Also list. I am not sure what you intended to achieve, but your changes didn’t achieve what you set out to do.

Cheers. Thanks again for trying. But talk to people first. And perhaps create an account, so this is not just an IP edit. Fred Hsu (talk) 01:23, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for your contributions. I notice your drive-by tagging of several sports-related talkpages with the {{Diagram requested}} template.

What diagrams are we talking about exactly? 162 etc. (talk) 22:22, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Playing fields and goalposts (if applicable) 45.232.105.68 (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I came here to ask the same question. In terms of:

• “Playing fields and goalposts”? You tagged several “high-level” sport articles which don’t have “goalposts” or “playing fields” or similar. And so the generic tag is just confusing and (without opening an actual thread to explain the expectation) is all but pointless.
• “if applicable”? Many of the tags you added are – to use your own term – just simply not “appliable”. (In karate for example, each variant and governing body has varying expectations of requirements for kumite competition areas. Generically tagging the “top-level” article is not useful.)
• governing body articles. Several of the tags you added, for example to Talk:Gaelic Athletic Association, are to governing bodies. The Gaelic Athletic Association oversees multiple sports. Including hurling and Gaelic football and camogie. Each of which already have different diagrams on pitches/positions/posts/etc. Adding a generic (and entirely unexplained) tag to the governing body article is not useful. As there is no single diagram (or even multiple diagrams) that could reasonably be added to the article on the governing body.

If you feel that any of these specific articles can be improved with specific diagrams, then open an actual thread and explain what you think is needed. Other editors cannot reasonably be expected to “guess” as to what random “diagram” is needed – and so your unexplained tags are just noise. That will go unaddressed. (In short: Random unexplained tags are a waste of your own time. If you have specific ideas on how those articles can be improved then take the few seconds needed to actually explain your request/proposal. Drive-by tagging is not useful in the majority of the cases in question.) Guliolopez (talk) 10:05, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Certainly a thread could clarify the request.
• If many organizations govern the sport, the recognized by SportAccord should be prefered.

45.232.105.68 (talk) 14:04, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thank you for lending your time to help improve Baseball cap! If you are interested in continuing to edit, I suggest you make an account to gain a bunch of privileges. Happy editing! Belbury (talk) 15:04, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Boonie hat, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources to see how to add references to an article. Please do not add in unrelated content to this article; additionally please ensure your edits are sourced to a reliable source. Blogs and LLM-generated fansites are not considered reliable sources. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 16:16, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Boonie hat, you may be blocked from editing. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:54, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You’ve already been repeatedly informed about the need to comply with our policies on reliable sourcing. You’ve already been told that the edits you’re seeking to include are not supported by reliable sources. You have not made any attempt whatsoever to seek consensus for these changes as you are required to do per WP:ONUS — and you’re now engaged in an edit war. So the next time you attempt to reinsert contested material to Boonie hat without consensus, you are going to be blocked without further warning. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 18:58, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

Please do not misrepresent the history of what happened here in your unblock request. While you’re correct that the statement about the bucket hat came from another user (it was still highlighted as having been modified by you), in the diff you provided earlier, you provided no sources whatsoever. You added content in that was not supported by the existing source, which was one you had previously added, and which was an unacceptable unreliable blog source — something that you were warned about. You were repeatedly asked to discuss on the talk page and gain consensus for your changes, and you chose not to do so. To date, you have still not addressed *any* of the concerns brought up about the inadequacy of sourcing for the content you were seeking to introduce. This appears to have been a running trend — you had similar problems at Baseball cap so this doesn’t appear to have been an isolated incident. In fact, your edit history appears to be almost entirely the insertion of unsourced original research across a variety of articles. I’d be willing to reduce your block to time served if you are willing to commit to accurately citing sources for content you’re adding, gaining consensus first before reinserting any reverted material in the future and refrain from further reverts. But the way you’ve been doing things up to this point needs to change. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 20:14, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Swatjester, this is pretty clearly a WP:INVOLVED block and I think you should lift it. If the behaviour resumes, which I expect it will, you can take it to a noticeboard and get a block done for you. — asilvering (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll lift it. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 16:02, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline I intended to cite was MOS:IMAGESZ. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want to thank you for adding the image of the Bumble Bee II to the article. Damnits (talk) 03:34, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You’re welcome. The article deserves a suitable image 45.232.105.68 (talk) 14:02, 21 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for trying to enhance Inline skates yet again. But you make edits with no commit comments to help explain why you do things, again. Why would one nest 1 bullet item out of 4 bullet items in the See Also section?

Are you following some popular style guide, or just making changes because you like these bullets to follow some mandatory organizational scheme that govern the four bullets shown? Thanks. Fred Hsu (talk) 06:34, 7 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For a hierarchization reason, as inline skating is a roller sport 45.232.105.68 (talk) 13:17, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That may make sense if there were a dozen items, and most can be organized thus. But there are only four items. So there is no need for such organization, don’t you think? Fred Hsu (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’m MrOllie. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that in one of your recent contributions you cited a link to a source that may not be reliable. Sources considered unreliable should generally not be used to support statements. Information from an unreliable source can be challenged by other editors and removed. Reliable sources are generally those with a reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight. Self-published material, user-generated content, and certain other outlets such as blogs, wikis, personal websites, and websites or publications with a poor reputation for fact-checking may not meet these standards. If you are unsure about which sources are appropriate, there is a list of sources that are considered generally reliable. Additionally, some WikiProjects have their own lists of sources that are considered reliable for that particular subtopic. If you are still unsure about a source’s reliability, you can ask at the reliable sources noticeboard. Note in particular that sportskeeda is a user generated site and not a reliable source. MrOllie (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The organizations own website is not any better. We cannot use self promotion as a source, either. MrOllie (talk) 14:44, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]