Hi Alex
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page
Chicago 1885 cholera epidemic myth has been reverted.
Your edit
here to
Chicago 1885 cholera epidemic myth was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our
external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nhkxD6bD2AY) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a
media file (e.g. a
sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's
copyright policy, as well as other parts of our
external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our
upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original.
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) 17:08, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm CLCStudent. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Hospital-acquired infection have been undone because they 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. Thanks. CLCStudent ( talk) 15:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi Are.u.sure! You created a thread called Archival by
Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by
Muninnbot, both
automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing
|
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Killing of George Floyd, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Please read the article's FAQ ( here) and open a discussion on the article's talk page, seeking a new consensus, if you wish. But unilaterally upending existing consensus is disruptive. Thank you, — MelbourneStar☆ talk 10:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
No-one has yet been found guilty of killing George Floyd. If not, then the word 'killing' should be avoided.
There is good evidence that George Floyd's death will be found to be consequent to a fentanyl overdose. I don't think that the article makes this clear.
My source is the following link
https://www.lawofficer.com/thomas-lanes-attorney-files-to-have-case-dismissed-saying-george-floyd-died-of-an-overdose/ Are.u.sure ( talk) 21:44, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Firestar464. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:EEng that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Firestar464 ( talk) 07:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Koncorde. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Accusing him of not knowing what a secondary source is Firestar464 ( talk) 05:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
O3000 ( talk) 18:52, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
Signatures should be placed at the end, not beginning, of comments. Please fix this. -- Valjean ( talk) 15:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Use of multiple accounts is normally not allowed, at least in the way you seem to be doing it. Since this account is the oldest, I suggest you only use this one. We can then blank User:Liondragon360 and leave it dormant. If you don't respond properly and honestly, we will open an SPI on you and both accounts will get blocked. Note that the IPs (and other personal data) behind each account are visible to those editors with check user status, so lying will have very negative consequences for you. -- Valjean ( talk) 18:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
I really don't know what you are hinting. It may help you to know that I'm in Poland, sometimes on WiFi and 4G and sometimes only on 4G, roaming from the UK. When I saw the word 'sock' I thought it might be something to do with sockets() on Unix? I haven't edited except at the end.
What's an SPI? Are.u.sure ( talk) 19:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
It may help to know that I'm a Three user.
I have added my email, [email protected] and can share my location if you want. I'm in Bukowina Tatrzańska, Southern Poland. Are.u.sure ( talk) 19:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
One comment I'd make about IP address. When I worked in Switzerland over 10 years ago Wikipedia sent me some abuse which they sent to what they claimed was my IP. I had no idea what they were writing about but presumed that it was a result of being on a private network (Nestlé Suisse). Are.u.sure ( talk) 19:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Got a message about my account. My password doesn't work anymore Are.u.sure ( talk) 13:28, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Please read wp:indent. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
I am going to add that you might need to also read wp:bludgeon Given the fact you also do not understand indenting your contributions at the talk page are in fact getting pretty wp:disruptive. I suggest you drop the matter and come back when you are better able to make your case. Slatersteven ( talk) 16:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Take heed now and drop it. Go and edit less controversial pages before the ban hammer is wielded. Slatersteven ( talk) 11:03, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
'I have been asked to summarise the changes I have asked for.
Title change from Killing of George Floyd to Death of George Floyd References employing killed such as was killed changed to suitable alternatives such as died The facts of the autopsy don't support emphasis on Derek Chauvin's knee. Please shift the emphasis towards those suggested by the autopsy findings A summary of the autopsy results to be placed near the topAre.u.sure (talk) 11:34, 11 December 2020 (UTC) The link: https://m.startribune.com/hennepin-county-commissioner-challenges-reappointment-of-medical-examiner/571146502/ strongly points to attempts to politically manage this case. The article should cover this aspect and downplay the other narratives. I look forward to seeing these improvements.Are.u.sure (talk) 11:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)' Are.u.sure (talk) 04:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC) Are.u.sure ( talk) 04:39, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Hey, Are.u.sure, I saw the comment on your user page about getting reverted everywhere except chemistry articles. That is very typical when a brand-new user decides they want to edit one of the most contentious articles on the site. It's a terrible idea. The editors at those articles need to have a firm understanding of both policy and behavioral guidelines; even simple things like not understanding how to indent correctly become disruptive very quickly on high-traffic talk pages, which is part of what's happening with your posts at George Floyd. I would very strongly recommend that you learn to edit somewhere besides George Floyd, and chemistry articles are probably a good place. Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry and its talk are a good place to figure out where help is needed and find other people interested in working on chemistry articles. —valereee ( talk) 12:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
'I have been asked to summarise the changes I have asked for.
The link: https://m.startribune.com/hennepin-county-commissioner-challenges-reappointment-of-medical-examiner/571146502/ strongly points to attempts to politically manage this case. The article should cover this aspect and downplay the other narratives. I look forward to seeing these improvements.Are.u.sure (talk) 11:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)' Are.u.sure (talk) 04:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC) Are.u.sure ( talk) 04:39, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Are.u.sure ( talk) 14:21, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
EvergreenFir
(talk) 16:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)I have no intention to try to edit the Wikipedia until, at least, Saturday next week. I want to give you time to respond to my suggestions. I will however, respond to any notifications. Are.u.sure ( talk) 16:25, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
'I have been asked to summarise the changes I have asked for.
Title change from Killing of George Floyd to Death of George Floyd References employing killed such as was killed changed to suitable alternatives such as died The facts of the autopsy don't support emphasis on Derek Chauvin's knee. Please shift the emphasis towards those suggested by the autopsy findings A summary of the autopsy results to be placed near the topAre.u.sure (talk) 11:34, 11 December 2020 (UTC) The link: https://m.startribune.com/hennepin-county-commissioner-challenges-reappointment-of-medical-examiner/571146502/ strongly points to attempts to politically manage this case. The article should cover this aspect and downplay the other narratives. I look forward to seeing these improvements.Are.u.sure (talk) 11:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)' Are.u.sure (talk) 04:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC) Are.u.sure ( talk) 04:38, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
I see you are continuing your disruptive editing regarding George Floyd by commenting and copy-pasting comments on other users' talk pages. Stop. You were blocked from Talk:Killing of George Floyd for this very behavior and if you continue that behavior across multiple pages I will site-block you. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:20, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
This page is almost impossible to correct. I understand. Are.u.sure ( talk) 06:36, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia pages are certainly under version control. The associated version control number could be tagged onto each article, or hyperlinked to it. The number would give an indication of the number of revisions and editorial conflicts at a glance. Major version numbers would be for 'featured' pages under this system. This would be a good way for a user to evaluate a page's stability and reliability. Can you please look into this? Are.u.sure ( talk) 08:32, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
I have added this suggestion at the Village Pump:
Way to readily see how reliable or controversial a page might be
I have spent a great deal of time recently using a Talk: page to make the case for a basic one word revision and some simple changes to a controversial article. In summary, the page is almost impossible for me to change.
In general, before I place trust in an article or try to edit it I would find it useful to see the revision statistics. In particular, editorial conflicts at a glance. This would be a good way for a me, or a general user, to evaluate a page's stability, and reliability. Are.u.sure ( talk) 18:19, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
If you look again you'll see that my idea stemmed from version control. Are.u.sure ( talk) 01:29, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm writing to lawofficer.com, asking them to do the work for me. Are.u.sure ( talk) 01:51, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
I want a Project Level fork, presuming the George Floyd pages to all be one project. Can one of you please create the fork and let me know when it's done.
Lawofficer.com have about 60 journalists and I imagine that up to 5 will be creating accounts. Please grant them unimpeded access to the project. Are.u.sure ( talk) 03:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the
guide to appealing blocks (specifically
this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}
. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the
arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (
by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
A tag has been placed on User:Are.u.sure, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by
visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with
Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.
Firestar464 (
talk) 02:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Are.u.sure ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I need to use talk:
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information.
Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔ 15:53, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
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.
Are.u.sure ( talk) 15:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Are.u.sure ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
user Headbomb approved my edit Are.u.sure ( talk) 16:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Decline reason:
The reason for the block is given on this page, slightly above. This is an arbitration enforcement block, meaning it cannot be unilaterally lifted by any administrator. Please follow the instructions in the block notice. 331dot ( talk) 16:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
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.
I'll also note that I see no evidence that Headbomb approved of your edit, though they may have done. All I see here is Headbomb pointing out that you can create your own WP:FORK of Wikipedia. It is your responsibility to provide enough specific information to review your block. If you wish to make another unblock request, make sure you do this. -- Yamla ( talk) 16:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
The block came directly after Headbomb approved the fork. I have not been given a reason. Are.u.sure ( talk) 16:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
How can fork an article if I'm blocked? Are.u.sure ( talk) 17:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
This is what I wrote at the time
'I want a Project Level fork, presuming the George Floyd pages to all be one project. Can one of you please create the fork and let me know when it's done.
Lawofficer.com have about 60 journalists and I imagine that up to 5 will be creating account Please grant them unimpeded access to the project. Are u sure (talk) 03:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)'
I received no reply. Are.u.sure ( talk) 17:43, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I have not received a block notice or I would have used it in my unblock request. Did anyone reply to my request for a project level fork in any way?
From my screenshots:
'Agreed. Also everything on this talk page, except the last block notification - Vallean (talk) 02:56, 14 December 2020 (UTC)'
In that screenshot it says that the block would be for being an 'attack page'. Are.u.sure ( talk) 18:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
From that message
'refusing to cease equine carcass abuse, refusal or inability to collaborate, badgering users about the very topic you were partially blocked for, attempting to subvert Wikipedia's editing process through external recruitment (diff), crusading, treating Wikipedia as a battleground (diff) (cf WP:TRUTH), and overall lack of competence, you have been blocked indefinitely from editing.'
The page I wanted to change being already declared a dead horse I take it? Including the autopsy being ruled primary and lawofficer.com a biased source? Are.u.sure ( talk) 19:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
I can't tell if you have refused to read WP:FORK, simply have no idea what that page is talking about, or actively trolling. Whatever is going on here, we've wasted enough time. I'm revoking talk page access. This does in no way prevent you WP:FORK'ing Wikipedia and running a fork on your own site, following your own rules. -- Yamla ( talk) 19:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))