Lede at 1990 United States Census

edit

The lede at 1990 United States Census needs to be altered. It's true that the census was the first to be conducted by a woman, but that doesn't need to be the first thing mentioned in the article. I'd propose moving it down further into the body. 92.40.212.157 (talk) 08:19, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have moved this request to Talk:1990 United States census. Tollens (talk) 09:44, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Looking again it appears you should be able to edit the article directly – you're more than welcome to do so and don't need to ask for permission first. Tollens (talk) 09:50, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. 92.40.212.153 (talk) 10:45, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Your submission at Articles for creation: 2016 Rhode Island Republican presidential caucuses (February 4)

edit
 
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The comment left by The Herald was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
 
Hello, 92.40.212.157! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:38, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

February 2024

edit

  Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Al Gore 1988 presidential campaign, 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. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:05, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Are you kidding me!? This is getting ridiculous. Next thing I know, I'll be dragged to some noticeboard over this whole fiasco.. 92.40.212.157 (talk) 10:08, 4 February 2024 (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.

Blocked for edit warring

edit
 
Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as done at Al Gore 1988 presidential campaign.
During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
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 ~~~~}}.  Daniel Quinlan (talk) 10:47, 4 February 2024 (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.

Unblock request

edit
 
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).

92.40.212.157 (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

I see that I've been blocked for a day for violation of the WP:Edit warring guideline. I understand that I had been reckless by reverting to my preferred version of the Al Gore 1988 presidential campaign article several times, and that, while I did raise the issue at the talk page, I should not have continued to revert after User:The Herald disagreed with my change to the article. I should have decided to seek consensus at the talk page, instead of violating the three revert rule. I wholly and completely understand that my decision to do this was not helpful and not a net positive to the encyclopedia. I will ensure that I will seek consensus for my changes before I use any further reverting of content. Thank you.

Decline reason:

That has nothing to do with the current block. Yamla (talk) 11:36, 5 February 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.

March 2024

edit

  Please do not add or change content, as you did at Sergio Pablos, 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. Waxworker (talk) 17:02, 2 March 2024 (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.