User talk:Steven a91

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on Waitrose. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please stop adding unsourced detail now. David J Johnson (talk) 15:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how I can source uniform updates? The current section is completely unsourced....

Firstly sign any "contribution" you may make in the usual way. What you have written needs confirmed sources and not your own thoughts/views. You are correct the whole section needs references, but that is no excuse for adding further unsourced changes. David J Johnson (talk) 15:15, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Uniform guidelines have been updated. This is not my personal thoughts/views its fact. Steven a91 (talk) 15:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then source it..... David J Johnson (talk) 15:36, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Waitrose shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. David J Johnson (talk) 16:28, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop moving articles without wp:consensus otherwise I will have you blocked. –Davey2010^Talk 23:35, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Steven a91. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (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).

Steven a91 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Caught by a web host block but this host or IP is not a web host. My IP address is 10.102.65.26

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. That IP address is not blocked. If you still cannot edit, please copy and paste the exact message that appears when you attempt to edit. 331dot (talk) 21:21, 11 March 2019 (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.

Hello, I'm ViperSnake151. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Super Bowl LVI, 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. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Do you have a citation for that alleged date change? ViperSnake151  Talk  17:30, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your changes, they broke pages which transcluded that roster. Tarl N. (discuss) 15:52, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created,

An article you recently created,

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied text from 2019 Rugby World Cup to 2023 Rugby World Cup (your addition has since been removed). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. If you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:38, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:2023 NFL Draft, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at

Thank you for your attention.

Please do not add or change content, as you did at The Call of the Wild (2020 film), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Geraldo Perez (talk) 23:59, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Steven a91. It has been over six months since you last edited the

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 17:14, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at The Falcon and the Winter Soldier shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between "suspending operations" and "ceasing operations". At the moment, it appears the XFL has only "suspended" operations, meaning there is still a chance they will resume at some point. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove players from the squad listing until they are confirmed. Currently there is press speculation but no confirmation. noq (talk) 16:52, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still unsourced - remember

Hello. Your wording implies that Coventry's use of St Andrew's is continuing. Do you have any reliable, i.e. official club, source for that? because if not, we'd do better just recording the facts as they've happened so far rather than guessing what's going to happen next season. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:56, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please note that the scorecard is only updated at the end of each session and/or innings, and not for each rain delay. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing the name "Redskins" from articles associated with them. As of now, they are still the Redskins. only (talk) 15:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit to this article. You changed the opening sentence of the section to indicate that it now reflected the 2020-21 divisional line-ups, but then only changed the name of one team's home stadium. As there will clearly be teams moving between divisions, this rendered the opening sentence inaccurate. Please update the entire divisional constitution if it is now available, otherwise please wait until it is. Thanks! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Maks van Dyk, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page English.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:13, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of 2020–21 Premiership Rugby transfers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brendan Macken.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:31, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Steven a91. It has been over six months since you last edited the

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 09:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You use four twiddles on the end, ~~~~ that will add your nickname, date, time. It's very helpful really! Cheers. Govvy (talk) 09:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I see in a recent addition to British government response to the COVID-19 pandemic you included material from a webpage that is available under a compatible Creative Commons Licence. That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying from compatibly-licensed material in the future. Also please remember to include a supporting citation with all content that you add. Thank you,— Diannaa (talk) 21:52, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We do not report a limited number for attendance. We report the whole source after matches are played.--Island92 (talk) 23:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you getting the tier 4 rules from? The regulations haven't been published yet, so far as I can tell. And it can't be assumed that the guidelines will be the same as the legally-enforceable regs. There are usually significant differences. I'm concerned that you are making sweeping changes to the text thereby invalidating many of the existing citations which you seem to be leaving untouched. I would recommend that you stop until the new regs are published and can be cited correctly. MichaelMaggs (talk) 00:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE STOP! You are making large numbers of unsourced edits, and where you have included sources they are cut and pasted from earlier regulations, and are simply wrong. I need to get some sleep now, but have to say that most of your edits will most likely need to be reverted in the morning. MichaelMaggs (talk) 00:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Can I also iterate the same comments. Please don't update the tables on this article until the regulations have been published and please stop uploading unsourced information. Where an announcement has been made but the law has not yet been published a sentence in the 'Current local authority areas within each tier' to state the proposed changes is all that should be included until the regulations have actually been published and the information can be properly sourced.Tracland (talk) 15:58, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions 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. Thank you.

How many times and in how many ways do you have to be told that Gibraltar has not acceded to the Schengen Agreement. It is not a member yet. It has not even applied yet. There is not even a draft treaty yet. There is not even de-facto provisional operation, as per the cite in the article, passports are required at the border. Please stop this

Hi Steven, please stop reverting here. Feel free to start a discussion on the talk page of the article to see where we can find consensus. But this is not the way forward. L.tak (talk) 15:16, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please 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, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.,

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Just stop. --

The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (All Tiers) (England) Regulations 2020. The editor has been around for a long time, and this behaviour appears deliberate, and not due to inexperience. A report to ANI or similar seems called for. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Apologies. All my edits have since been cited. I will be more careful in the future about posting before a citation is available as that is what has caused a large number of these reversions Steven a91 (talk) 19:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that the sources you cited didn't actually say what you claimed they said. When three different editors tell you you've gotten it wrong, it is past time to stop and think about what is being said.

Please read

WP: NOTNEWS

.

If you get into another scrape like this, you are not likely to be given three warnings before you get a minimum 24 hour block that will redouble on each offence. So when you feel the blood rising, go away and make a cup of tea. --

talk) 20:16, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_edits_by_User:Steven_a91 regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:12, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lions (rugby union), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Emirates.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under

If the deletion has already occurred, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia.

Hello, Steven a91. It has been over six months since you last edited the

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:45, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2021–22 Premiership Rugby Cup Table has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Nigej (talk) 09:01, 31 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 Elizabeth II. Sundayclose (talk) 18:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Template:2020–21 European Rugby Challenge Cup last 16 table has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:03, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect 101 Dalmatians (upcoming musical) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 5 § 101 Dalmatians (upcoming musical) until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 21:47, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Warner Bros. Discovery, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page TNT Sports.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:32, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:2018 Vitality Blast North Division has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 08:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]