User talk:Steven1991 - Wikipedia


1 person in discussion

Article Images

Hello, Steven1991! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking   or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Doug Weller talk 10:35, 7 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

Getting Started

Getting Help

Policies and Guidelines

The Community

Things to do

Miscellaneous

You have uploaded two photographs you have taken onto the St Andrews Cathedral page of Wikipedia. Both feature the Tower of St Rule's along with what you call St Rule's "western turrets". This is not correct. What you call "western turrets" is, in fact, the (remains of) the eastern wall of the (later) sanctuary. The parallax caused by the angle of your photos may have misled you. My source? Cruden, Stuart (1950), St Andrews Cathedral - Official Guide, Edinburgh: Her Majesty's Statioery Office, ISBN 0-11-490696-3. I guess any more recent guidebook with a decent map of the site would do, but Cruden's two maps and photo no. 4 seem definitive. I don't know whether you can correct your errors (if not you, who can?) but if they aren't corrected soon I shall raise the matter on the Talk page of 'St Andrews Cathedral'. ShropshirePilgrim (talk) 09:44, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Would you mind correcting them for me then? Steven1991 (talk) 03:15, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
I have edited the captions as you request. Unfortunately, the actual file title to one of them mentions the supposed "St Rule's Western turrets" and its image shows the deceptive parallax which might lead the viewer to accept the notion that the "turrets" (of the Eastern wall of the later Cathedral are actually in line with the axis of St Rule's Church, when your other picture shows plainly that they are not. I know of no way that the file's title (as opposed to its description or caption) can be altered/edited. If you know of a way, it should be corrected to avoid any further confusion. ShropshirePilgrim (talk) 12:13, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thank you so much for your help. Steven1991 (talk) 10:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Steven. I recently modified some edits you made, and wanted to make sure I explained my reasoning and, if needed, opened up a dialogue. In the Zio article, I noticed some terms (antisemitism, ethnic slur) were linked multiple times, and often times the links were back-to-back. MOS:OVERLINK describes how we usually only want to link a term once per major section. Similarly, WP:SEAOFBLUE describes how we try to avoid hyperlinked terms back-to-back, as in a printed format, it'd be impossible for a reader to tell whether they're searching one big term or many small ones.

Wikipedia has a TON of formatting rules like this in the WP:MOS, and I'm still learning plenty of them. I just wanted to give more than a hyperlinked edit summary to explain and introduce you to the many, many standards of formatting you'll encounter here. For what it's worth, I don't think many bother to read the MOS all the way through; my approach is usually to just edit normally, and if someone cites a guideline while they correct something, then commit it to memory and move on. I just wanted to say that so you didn't think I was telling you to read that dry volume before editing further; that'd be a nightmare! EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:40, 23 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've also noticed you add a lot of block quotes. Per MOS:QUOTE, if we can paraphrase, we should, in order to reduce the risk of copyright violation. EducatedRedneck (talk) 11:50, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
  The Original Barnstar
I've noticed you doing the important work of adding a bunch of sources, and adding wikilinks in compliance with the MOS; you're improving the encyclopedia, and seem to be learning the arcane rules of the MOS quite quickly. Quicker than I did! Well done, and thank you for your help in improving Wikipedia! EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
 

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

It seems that the block Drmies gave you was ineffective. Your behavior must change. Cullen328 (talk) 22:45, 29 September 2024 (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).

Steven1991 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I acknowledge the mistake. I already apologized for the inaccurate editing summaries, explained that it was done solely out of mistake and promised to pay due attention in the future. The apology was polite and humble, while improvements take time and do not happen immediately. :The reason I gave for removing the message of the user who posted on my Talk page an hour ago is based on my impression that the tone did not sound friendly as I seem to have been assumed to have acted in bad faith. It does not imply my rejection of any suggestions being given as disagreements are allowed in editing disputes. Another user also made suggestions on my Talk page few days ago and I did not respond defensively as you can see on my Talk page. This is a proof that I have been trying to make improvements in participating in editing activities. Therefore, I believe that the block should be lifted or shortened but limited to a warning.

Decline reason:

You were already warned, and you immediately resumed the same behavior of misleading summaries. You're welcome to resume editing when the block ends, but the same conduct will just lead to a longer block the next time so I advise using the balance of the block time to think how you'll respond next time to a standard editor warning. Star Mississippi 02:18, 30 September 2024 (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.

 

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

You have been evading your block by editing logged out and by using a sockpuppet account, User: Zerpatidal. Your block has been extended to indefinite. Cullen328 (talk) 06:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
The ban is wrong* Steven1991 (talk) 06:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
This is my IP address: 80.40.90.175.
Please compare it to the accounts’ that made the edits after mine was blocked for the previous mistake. Steven1991 (talk) 06:22, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
The IP address of the anonymous sockpuppet is 50.48.239.234. It is totally different from mine. I swear that I didn’t use any technological means to commit ban evasion. Steven1991 (talk) 06:24, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
This IP address is located in California, while I am based in Scotland. It is totally from mine and I can testify that I haven’t used any VPN or other devices to attempt anything of such nature. Steven1991 (talk) 06:26, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
This is my IP address: 80.40.90.175, while the IP address of the anonymous sockpuppet is 50.48.239.234. That IP address comes from California as I check on geolocation websites, while I am based in Scotland. You can check the IP address logs to show that I am innocent. I did not commit block evasion. The ban is mistaken. Steven1991 (talk) 06:42, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Star Mississippi @Drmies
Would you mind providing assistance on the issue? I have posted the IP evidence above to justify that I did not commit block evasion. I have zero associations with the anonymous IP and the weird account that made edits after my initial temporary block.
The indefinite block on the accusation of sockpuppetry is a mistake and should be lifted. Steven1991 (talk) 07:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
I've only just seen this, and know it's resolved but wanted to acknowledge your request. Glad to see @Zzuuzz able to handle Star Mississippi 01:57, 1 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
  Checkuser note: Connecting IPs to users is not something checkusers normally do, but I can take a lead from the user here. Steven1991 has been consistently editing from one country (not the USA) for the duration. Meanwhile someone has been editing consistently from California on related topics via 50.48.0.0/16 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), perhaps more specifically 50.48.192.0/19 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), for a very long time. There's no other crossover; I'd call that strongly unrelated. I've also taken a look at Zerpatidal, who was editing via proxies. Given the issues we have generally with joe-jobs and PIA trolls, I think the assumption that it's the same user can be at best weak. It could literally be anyone. Firing up a sockpuppet in these circumstances would be an incredibly unintelligent thing to do - I find it hard to consider possible. @Cullen328: -- zzuuzz (talk) 07:22, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks.
The IP user has a consistent record of contributing edits to articles I have never participated in or heard of.
I testify that I have no associations with either the IP user or the unknown account for which I have been accused of having “created”. I also testify that I have never used any VPN services to attempt any form of astroturfing or ban evasion. Steven1991 (talk) 07:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
zzuuzz, if you are confident that this is a Joe job or some kind of troll butting in, then I do not object to the indefinite block being returned to the original 72 hour block duration. Steven1991, I want to warn you that lying in edit summaries is disruptive and counterproductive. Do not ever do that again. Cullen328 (talk) 08:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
OK, thank you for the reminder. Steven1991 (talk) 08:24, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yup, I'm confident. Drmies is scheduled to pass by at some point, so they can double-check me. I'm sure we'll never figure out who Zerpatidal was, but I've explained that above. I've restored the previous block. -- zzuuzz (talk) 08:43, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
No, that's fine: I have faith in zzuuzz's technical expertise. ;) Drmies (talk) 14:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply