173.13.87.209

Repeated violations of WP:BLP

Hi @173.13.87.209:. I had an editor blocked last week for performing similar disruptive and unsourced edits to the ones you're making right now. Firstly – stop edit warring. If a user contests something because it is unsourced, they have the right to remove it, and it is you who should challenge it on the talk page of the article given that you're the one pushing for something without providing a citation. We NEVER add centenarian categories to biographies of living persons unless a source is attached to the article confirming that they made that milestone. Why? I've edited Wikipedia for 15 years. In that time, there have literally been hundreds of examples of individuals who were listed in centenarian categories but died before their 100th birthday (though their death wasn't reported until weeks, months or even years after). That's why we need a source for such a category. The category makes a claim – and that claim must be supported. Now if you add a source to the body confirming that they reached their 100th, then want to add the category to the page, that's totally fine with me, but if you continue reverting my edits and making disruptive unsourced contributions in the same way you're doing now, I'll raise a case to have you blocked from editing. Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 14:09, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok. Sorry. I was not familiar with that particular rule. It will not happen again. 173.13.87.209 (talk) 18:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

October 2021

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to List of Saturday Night Live cast members. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 17:11, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

December 2021

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Don Young—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 Help desk. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 01:42, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

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.

Hello, I'm RA0808. I noticed that in this edit to Trevor Smith, Baron Smith of Clifton, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 22:33, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Warning retracted and redacted. Thank you for clarifying the later edit summary. RA0808 ^talk_contribs 22:43, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

January 2022

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Emma Kirkby. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:41, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

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.

With all due respect, I fail to see how my edit constitutes vandalism. I was merely indicating where she falls in the UK Order of Precedence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_precedence_in_England_and_Wales.

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to A. S. Byatt, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Suonii180 (talk) 18:57, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Suonii180, the removal is correct. For background, see User_talk:MichaelMaggs#Order_of_Precedence. MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:07, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours to prevent further vandalism. 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 ~~~~}}.  Alexf^(talk) 21:13, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

Please see the discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MichaelMaggs#Order_of_Precedence. There was no vandalism. 

Accept reason:

Not vandalism; user seems willing to engage; see below. Graham87 06:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

You said you would "undo your edits"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

• I support this unblock request. While the rapid reverts do at first sight seem suspicious, they are in fact the editor trying to do the right thing and correct their own earlier edits. The editor had added {{S-start}} in association with {{S-prec}} templates to the articles of many individuals of the UK rank of knight or dame, in order to record their positions within the UK Order of Precedence. Those additions seemed odd to me, and I initially thought they might themselves have been vandalism. They were not, but they used the {{S-start}} template incorrectly. When I explained the reasons why at User_talk:MichaelMaggs#Order_of_Precedence, the editor attempted to undo their work and was blocked for their pains. I recommend unblocking, and discussing any remaining issues on this page. The editor appears more than willing to engage. MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I've unblocked. Alexf, hope you don't mind. I'd also encountered these edits around the place and thought they were a little odd, but I don't know enough about the British honours system to have grounds to debate them. 173..., Since you seem willing to engage in this section and elsewhere on your talk page, I think it's best to give you the benefit of the doubt here. Might I also add: as some people like to say here, "Trying to make serious edits to Wikipedia as an IP editor is like blindly blundering through the countryside on the first day of hunting season dressed like a moose". For this reason, I very, very strongly advise that you create an account here, which has many, many advantages. I might actually save you the trouble and revert your incorrect editions of succession boxes myself. Hope you don't mind. Graham87 06:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Now now, Graham, no need to grouse. But you're right. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Ralph Northam, you may be blocked from editing. A09090091 (talk) 17:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for above. I have responded on my talkpage. A09090091 (talk) 21:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Rebecca Miller, you may be blocked from editing. Suonii180 (talk) 22:35, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

February 2022

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Lindsay Hoyle, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Lard Almighty (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

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.

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours to prevent further vandalism.

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 ~~~~}}.  -- TNT (talk • she/her) 15:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

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.

@TheresNoTime: were this user's recent edits vandalism? They look to be correct about Rep. Hagedorn's death and the seniority adjustments I spot checked appear to be correct. Was there some sneaky vandalism that I missed? Firefangledfeathers 15:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: No you're quite right, I'm just still a bit jumpy on automated/rapid IP edits since last night. @173.13.87.209: my apologies for blocking you, I've reverted myself. Please take it a little slower -- TNT (talk • she/her) 15:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick fix, TNT! IP 173, it looks like Special:Contributions/Pvmoutside is working on the same fixes, so you might want to check out their contribs so you don't waste time on articles that are already fixed. Firefangledfeathers 15:55, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

March 2022

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Kelly Ayotte, you may be blocked from editing. Tarl N. (discuss) 04:17, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

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.

I see above there is some discussion that your edits look like vandalism, but on later looks don't seem to be. I went back, and I still can't figure out what you meant to do. When you make an edit, explain WHY you are making the edit and what it does. Don't just stick an unrelated URL into the edit comment field. In the meantime, your edit remains reverted. Tarl N. (discuss) 04:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I think I now understand what you are doing. You're trying to link together the entire chain of articles of everyone who could be referenced by the order of precedence in the U.S., and in this case, ex-Senator Ayotte under section 19c. I have several comments:

• Don't do this.
• WP:NOTNEWS. Don't add add a chain thousands deep which needs to be updated every time someone changes office or dies.
• The relevance of order of precedence beyond active officeholders is rather meaningless.
• It's uncited. You provided a pointer to a PDF which gives a general sense of where to place people in the order of precedence. Your reference does not mention Senator Ayotte, so your addition constitutes WP:SYNTH - you are making a statement your reference does not specifically state.
• Create a bloody account. If you're doing massive edits, you need to back them up with a permanent presence, with history of discussion on controversy. An IP address is sufficient for a standalone edit or two, it is not sufficient for massive reworking of thousands of articles.

Tarl N. (discuss) 04:33, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

---