User talk:77.97.74.107: Difference between revisions

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that you made a change to an article, William Terriss, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Hi, thanks for noting the serialisations of the books. Would you be able to add references, please, showing where the information came from? Are you using Roger Lancelyn Green (1952)? I don't know how familiar you are with adding sources, but just leave me a note on my talk page if you need help with formatting. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:06, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to access your Talk page. You can email me at [email protected]

I do not understand yoiur question. The serialisations are in the magazines stated. I have seen them with my own eyes. You cannot expect me to upload photographs!

Roger Lancelyn Green's book doesnt have any details of serialisations. the only way to find them is the hard way - looking through possible magazines until you find them

I have personally seen every single one of the hundreds of magazine and newspaper appearances I have ever entered on wikipedia

What have you removed? If you tell me I will add further details but I dont know what youve removed.

I have now seen that you have removed details of the uncollected short stories. Why on earth did you do that? I stated the title and magazine, exactly as I have done with all of the other material I have added to this - for God's sake I created the Uncollected short fiction section on this and many other pages.

Hi again. I'm sorry to see that some of your additions to the AEW Mason page been reverted. I've put your infomation back in, and it ought to be possible to keep it, BUT until proper citations have been added it will always be at risk of being removed again.

Would you let me help please?

Wikipedia needs to know exactly where things come from, in case anyone challenges the accuracy of information being added, and that's usually done by adding a citation to the statement. Statements that lack a citation are, as you've found, likely to be deleted even if the information is correct.

Creating citations in proper format is a little fiddly at first, but I can help. For each statement to be added, we need to know not only the magazine name, issue date and page number, but also details of exactly what you looked at to obtain the information. For example, do you have the actual physical magazines in your possession, or are you looking at online copies, or an online index? All are in principle OK, but I need to know which. If online, all that's needed is the specific web page where you found the information (ie the full URL).

I'm happy to discuss here, if anything isn't clear, but as you're editing without a username there is a risk that this page (77.97.74.107) won't remain your home page if your ISP switches you over to some other network address - which they could do without warning at any time. It would be better to register a username for yourself, and edit while logged in as you'll then have a permanent home page that won't change. (You don't need to give your real name, and many here edit under a pseudonym).

To make a post on my talk page, simply click the "talk" link that appears after my signature at the end of this paragraph, and edit the page just as you have done here. New posts normally go at the bottom. All the best, and I do hope we can collaborate on improving the AEW Mason article. MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, in case you're interested, I created a new page for The Summons a few days ago. Have a look and see if you can add anything! MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Michael

I'm sorry I still dont understand. If I say that a story was "serialised in Longman's Magazine (1908)', what more is needed?

Because if you don't say where the information came from (ie what you actually read), other editors are not able to gauge how reliable it is. If a statement just says "serialised in Longman's Magazine (1908)" a reader can't tell whether you studied the physical magazine itself or a scanned copy online (reliable), or whether you took the information, without checking, from somebody's personal blog, or another wiki (probably not reliable).

You do need to say what exactly it was you saw - see

WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT. That shouldn't be an issue, surely? Without that level of detail we can't create the citations we need. Regards, MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

I've just seen that you've added a statement "All serialisations have been verified by examination of the publications concerned". That's great, as it means the information will be accurate. Can you give the issue/date and page numbers, please? If you could do that here for one of them, I can let you know how to add citations for each, making it much less likely that editors will come along and revert your work. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:02, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I dont have time for any more of this. If you dont like the information delete it

Oh dear that's a shame. But I'm afraid that your reluctance to engage or to provide any information whatsoever gives me real concerns about the provenance of the statements you have been adding. MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at R. D. Wingfield, you may be blocked from editing.
You have repeatedly been warned about this but keep ignoring it. Since you stated above " If you dont like the information delete it" I have done as you suggested - Arjayay (talk) 13:45, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Anthony Horowitz ‎. - Arjayay (talk) 13:49, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense 77.97.74.107 (talk) 22:46, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some of your recent edits have been rather sloppy—for instance, in the "Bibliography" section of

Hello, I'm AssumeGoodWraith. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Edgar Jepson 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. – AssumeGoodWraith (talk | contribs) 07:20, 3 January 2022 (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 Chimneys (play). What source did you consult for "The copy in the Lord Chamberlain’s copy was discovered in 1990 but at the request of Christie’s daughter it’s existence was not publicised"? And why did you not cite it, as you have repeatedly been asked to do? MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You've already been given far, far more leeway than most editors to continue with your editing after multiple repeated warnings that sources are required. Not only have you not engaged with any warning or with any of the offers to help with citations, you're now – astonishingly – continuing with no change in behaviour whatsover. Entirely ignoring the responses that were made to your "I am a recognised authority" comment at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_1137#Edgar_Jepson makes you appear totally contemptuous of other editors. MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing 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 ~~~~}}.

Hello, I'm Sea Cow. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Ernie (The Fastest Milkman in the West), but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Sea Cow (talk) 18:44, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to List of works by A. E. W. Mason. 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 the sandbox. Addition of a title that does not appear in the stated source, and removal of one that does. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Ghost Stories (play), you may be blocked from editing. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:21, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing 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 ~~~~}}.  Deor (talk) 17:15, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Deor (talk) 22:20, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}.  ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:24, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You’re an idiot and that’s all there is to say 77.97.74.107 (talk) 22:47, 12 May 2022 (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.