User talk:DuckeggAlex

Roman diocese

Hello, and thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. I need to let you know, however, that your contributions at Roman diocese wouldn't be considered good encyclopedia material by most editors. Although I've chosen not to undo them, someone else is likely to do so. The reasons are:

You haven't cited any sources.
"(it's been the fashion for 40 years to describe their movements as more akin to slightly rowdy coach tour customers than the destructive meanderings that brought down the Roman State in the West aided by a weak and confused response of a society divided against itself on the part of the Romans who appear to have been half oblivious to the danger they were in so that pursued a policy of appeasement and accommodation mixed with efforts to deal with it militarily, which half the time came to nought = the East was far more determined, united and had the backing of society)"
--that's not only a run-on sentence, it's analysis. Wikipedia doesn't do analysis. Wikipedia, for all intents and purposes, is a content aggregator of mainstream, verifiable sources.
The tone also sounds more like an essay than an article.
One of your edit summaries reads "Changes made by author of this article." I'm not sure what you mean by this. Neither you nor I nor any one person is the author of Roman diocese. If you mean that you wrote an article, published elsewhere, that bears upon this section, you should cite it.

I encourage you to rephrase and cite your contributions so that they conform more closely to the house style and standards. You may find Referencing for Beginners helpful. Please don't be discouraged; Wikipedia policies exist to further the project's goal of creating a high-quality encyclopedia, and fall alike upon the just and the unjust. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 03:02, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Apple pie, 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. bonadea contributions talk 15:10, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isabel Moctezuma

I reverted your changes to Isabel Moctezuma. You left grammar errors, and the changes removed content without explanation. Please discuss the changes you want to make on that article's talk page before making any further changes. Regards Tarl N. (discuss) 15:47, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further commentary, on your edit comment: His being a hostage did not "lead' to his death as this suggests this fate was inevitable but it did result in it by accident or deliberately.. It actually did lead to his death; his subjects rebelled, and in the resulting fracas, he died. Under any criminal investigation, this would be "lead to his death".

What WP:RS sources are you using for your assertions? Tarl N. (discuss) 04:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Late antiquity, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Villas (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:13, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Hello, DuckeggAlex, and welcome to Wikipedia. Please consider the following suggestions when editing Wikipedia. Please preview, group, and summarize your edits:

Use the "Show preview" button (beside the "Publish changes" button)
Group edits together to avoid cluttering the page's edit history; this makes it easier for fellow editors to monitor edits to articles on their watchlists
Explain each edit with an edit summary (box above the "Publish changes" button)

Thanks in advance for considering these suggestions. Eric ^talk 01:12, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Roman diocese

Hi, in Roman diocese, under the "Substitutes on the provincial level" section, you've got a sentence that doesn't make sense:

"The practice was not unprecedented: the governor of Egypt. the praefectus Aegypti, from 30 BC was equestrian, Pat Southern, The Roman Empire from Severus to Constantine, 2001, pp. 93. ISBN 0-415-23944-3."

Looks like half a sentence and half a citation. Can you clarify?

Also, in the lede, there's this, which looks to be missing a word or two, and ends with stray punctuation:

"The official title of the vicar was agens vices praefectorum praetorio who stands in for, acts on behalf of, represents, or manages for praetorian prefects.' "

I'd fix these, but I wasn't sure what was intended. Thanks, Jessicapierce (talk) 09:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Irish Americans into another page. 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, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. 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. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but 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. Ireland If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requests

Hello, I need to request that you don't add your own personal views or unreferenced commentary to Wikipedia articles as you have been doing in a number of articles. Unfortunately it will be necessary to entirely remove or revert any such editing if it isn't possible to easily improve it. Can I also ask you to study the Manual of Style (WP:MOS) more closely as you are making quite a lot of basic MOS errors in your editing at present. Thanks. Anglicanus (talk) 03:37, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, DuckeggAlex. 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 Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, DuckeggAlex. 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 Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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]

Original research at Elizabethan Religious Settlement

Hello, DuckeggAlex. I noticed that you have added a significant amount of content at Elizabethan Religious Settlement in the last few days. Wikipedia welcomes editors who wish to improve the encyclopedia, so thank you for your interest in this article. There is a problem, however: a central principle of Wikipedia is Verifiability, and with a couple of exceptions, the content you added is unsourced. It is core to the mission of the encyclopedia that all material be verifiable. Added material that is unsourced is considered original research, and that is not permitted at Wikipedia. Accordingly, I am planning to revert the article to the version before the recent series of edits. You can see details about this on the article Talk page, and participate in the discussion there if you wish.

Looking at your Talk page and in your contribution history, I see that someone noticed the same issue about lack of sourcing at Roman diocese and mentioned it to you above. And, checking your contributions, this appears to be a general pattern. I'm glad that someone noticed at Roman diocese, but in a way, it's too bad there weren't more complaints about this early on, or even a short block, to set you on the right path as far as using sources. I feel like you've been led astray a bit by insufficient guidance, and that's a shame. It's a bit like a brand new driver, who gets their license and starts driving 80 MPH everywhere they go, because they never get stopped. Maybe they get pulled over once or twice, but never get a ticket. After a while, they just get used to driving fast, and don't take the speed limits seriously anymore. And by that time, it's much harder to unlearn bad habits and start driving safely.

You're in an analogous situation, here. You're going to have to unlearn the old habits, and start "driving safely" by taking the Wikipedia policy and guidelines on verifiability and sourcing seriously, now, and the transition may be a bit painful at first. Probably you've gotten used to certain habits about adding content to articles rapidly (88 edits at ERS, doubling the size of the article in five days—wow!), and it's going to take longer, now, sometimes a lot longer, to add content to articles, because you're going to have to find reliable sources that support all of the content you wish add, turn them into footnotes by writing citations that support the material, and then add them to the article. That's the bottom line. I'm sure this rollback will be painful, but I don't see a way around it. I considered just leaving the material there and giving you time to footnote it, but in reality, it's too massive, and others would be editing on top of it in the meantime, and it would be a mess. It's easier just to remove it for now, and build back up incrementally from that point. Don't worry, nothing is really gone when you delete something; it's still preserved in the article history. One thing that might ease the pain, is that if you like, I could copy all the removed material to a Userspace draft, which is a space where you can work on your material on your own, finding sources and adding footnotes without intererence, and when you're done, merge the material back into the article, bit by bit.

As far as going forward and editing other articles, please be sure to carefully adhere to verifiability policy from now on, so the same thing doesn't happen again. If there's any other way I can help with this, please let me know. Mathglot (talk) 12:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note that this editor has never once edited his talk page. Looking at his edit history, he has only once made an edit to a talk page - Talk:Donald Trump. I suspect all the warnings we've been leaving him are not even being read - he may not even be aware of this page's existence. Tarl N. (discuss) 18:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tarl N. Good point. I notice that this editor has their "Email this user" link active in the left sidebar under "Tools", so that's another possible way to reach them (if it's a real email they monitor). Unless they have Notifications turned off in their settings, they should also be getting alerts when their userid is linked and for other events. If they won't respond, and disruptive behavior continues, the rollback may get their attention. If that doesn't work, a short block may be the only way. Let's give them time, though, before asking for a block. In the meantime, protecting the encyclopedia comes first, and edits by this user that are contrary to policy need to be dealt with. The article Elizabethan Religious Settlement is not the only one (see Catholic Church in England and Wales, Anglican eucharistic theology, Scottish Americans and, of course, Roman diocese) but one has to start somewhere. I was going to wait a while at Elizabethan Religious Settlement, but they need a wake-up call, and waiting might complicate things if other editors start to make further changes. Maybe it's best not to wait; WP:V is clear about what needs to be done; let's just do it. Mathglot (talk) 22:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabethan Religious Settlement has been rolled back to revision 869853588 of 20:16, November 20, 2018. There will probably be at least one more. For further information about the status of the article, please consult Talk:Elizabethan Religious Settlement#Rollback to remove original research. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 07:06, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am planning a second rollback of the article to revision 846412200 of 16:24, June 18, 2018 in order to remove an additional 10kb of OR content. Details at Talk:Elizabethan Religious Settlement#Rollback 2. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 10:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Roman diocese does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. You have made over 500 edits to this article in the past few months, in a sloppy manner, with two unhelpful edit summaries that do nothing but demonstrate your indifference to the Wikipedia's spirit of collaboration. Eric ^talk 18:57, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DuckeggAlex, I see you've been reading your Talk page notices, or at least, your usage of edit summaries is way up today for some reason, so congrats for that; that *is* helpful. There are other issues and warnings on this page, so keep up the good work on edit summaries, and please turn your attention to the other issues. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 01:36, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Original research at Roman diocese

I have rolled back 56kb of your edits at Roman diocese for massive violations of Verifiability policy. See the article talk page for details. ~~And, hello? You just keep rolling merrily along, with four more edits since the rollback?~~ You need to respond to other users, and pay attention to Wikipedia policies, or you will likely be blocked from editing. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 01:42, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In looking at those four edits, and the seven subsequent ones, you appear to be adding ISBNs and other sourcing information, so that's all to the good; bravo for that. So these past eleven edits are fine. I'm a little uncertain how to proceed with you on this article: on the one hand, because of previous damage to the article, it may need to be rolled back further, which means that any edits made to the article now would be removed in a rollback, and someone (maybe me) would have to redo all the good edits that were removed in the rollback. On the other hand, if you are committed to going through the whole thing, and adding footnotes to source everything you added it would be great, and then it wouldn't have to be rolled back any further. But that is a huge undertaking, and the article shouldn't be left in un-referenced limbo for too too long. To resolve how to proceed, here, I kind of need to know your intentions. And for that, you'll have to respond here, and let me know. As long as any edits you make from here on out conform to verifiability requirements, there would be no reason to revert them, but please understand that a major rollback, if still required, would wipe out everything you do from here on out, even the good edits. Solution: please talk to me. I really need to hear what your intentions are on this article, so I know whether to hold off on another rollback while you slowly footnote the whole thing, or whether we do the rollback first, and you start building up incrementally from that point. Honestly, I'm in favor of the latter, because you may get tired of the former, in which case we're back to square one, or maybe, two. Talk to me. Mathglot (talk) 07:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OR to-do list

For other editors willing to help investigate articles that may contain original research, a non-exhaustive list of articles needing investgation is available:

Partial list of articles to check for possible original research
List moved to its own subpage: please see User talk:DuckeggAlex/OR removal worksheet.

For any user willing to assist, it would be helpful if you would add your userid (~~~) next to the article (no obligation or committment from doing so). Useful icons are {{in progress}}, {{checking}}, {{done}}, {{Checked2}}, {{Resolved mark}} and any of the others listed at Template:Done/See also. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 07:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC) updated by Mathglot (talk) to move content to subpage, at 03:03, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How to avoid getting blocked

Hello, DuckeggAlex,

Yesterday I would've said you were on the cusp of getting blocked, and it might still happen, but it appears you've maybe moved back half a step from the brink. You seem to enjoy being an editor here, and you seem capable of good work, although there are definitely some things you need to work on, if you're going to remain. Anyway, I wanted to give you some tips that I hope will help. The good news is that a block is supposed to be preventative, not punitive. What that means for you is that it doesn't make any difference how much blockable stuff you did in the past, if you can credibly maintain that you've stopped doing it, as there would then no longer be a reason to block you from editing. From what I've seen, you've made some changes since you were warned above, mainly in the area of edit summaries,^[a] and possibly also a bit in the area of sourcing. The more you do the right thing, and especially the more you avoid doing the wrong thing, the better your chances are of avoiding a block. I'm not an admin, but if I had to guess, here's how I'd rank your risks of getting blocked:

WP:COPYVIO – if you violate copyright policy again, you will definitely be blocked instantly as soon as it is discovered. It might not be an indefinite block, but then again it might be, and you'd have to credibly explain how you won't do it again, having already been warned not to. But the better strategy, is just avoid violating copyright policy altogether; if you're not 100% sure, then don't do it, and ask the copyright gurus for help.
WP:SOCK – Sock puppets get blocked indefinitely. It seems to me that you might have edited under another id in the past, as the pattern of editing at Roman diocese and other articles looks just like you. If that's the case, then you should go log in to your old accounts, go to the user page, and add Template:Retired to the top of the page. Then log in as yourself, go to your current user page and add Template:user previous account somewhere on the page. Full details at WP:CHU. Sock puppets are not tolerated, and if you have edited under another userid, you need to get out in front of this ASAP; don't wait another minute.
WP:DISRUPT – You could be blocked for disruptive editing. The definition of this is vaguer than for the first two, but basically anything that disrupts progress toward improving an article or building the encyclopedia. A few edits that don't include citations probably would just get ignored; hundreds of such edits which require other editors to painstakingly hunt down the changes, and either roll them back, or add the references, would likely be considered disruptive and could very well get you blocked, if you keep doing it, after you've been warned. I consider your past edits to Roman diocese and your past edits to Elizabethan Religious Settlement disruptive, mostly because of the lack of citations. Your edits today at Roman diocese all look okay, so if that's an indication that you have stopped making unsourced edits and you stick to this, there would no longer be a reason to block you because of this. So make sure you stick to this path.
Other reasons – Here are all the other reasons one might be blocked, but I don't think you currently have to worry about them.

Here's what you should do now, imho: make sure never to violate COPYVIO again; that's clearly #1. Number two: deal promptly with any former usernames you may have used. Three, always follow WP:V and use citations to reliable sources for your edits. And four, start communicating with other editors, here on your Talk page, and also on article pages. If you can do all those things, I think you should be okay. Good luck, Mathglot (talk) 11:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

^ Not providing edit summaries is pretty small potatoes as far as a violation; and you'll never get blocked for not using them. The reason I mention them at all, is because you appear to be changing your edit summary behavior after being warned about it; that's a good sign, and will help you if you're about to be blocked for something else, because it shows you are capable of taking advice and heeding it. So keep using them. Now, you need to start changing your behavior on the important stuff. Also, so far at least, you've never responded here, and that is a negative; you need to communicate with other editors.

These edits were good

Just wanted to give you some positive feedback for your two edits at Anglican eucharistic theology where you used full edit summaries, and added references. Without commenting on the appropriateness of the quotations, in general these edits seem to improve the article, replacing a {{citation needed}} tag with some references. The formatting of the references could have been a whole lot better, but that can be learned.

First of all, you have to use <ref> tags around your references, so that they show up as footnotes in the article. See Help:Footnotes. Secondly, in order to maintain a consistent style and appearance, the use of citation templates like {{cite book}} and {{cite web}} could make it a lot easier for you to write proper references. Here's an empty {{cite book}} template:

<ref name="Lastname-year">{{cite book |last1= |first1= |date= |title= |edition= |url= |location= |publisher= |page= |isbn= |oclc= |quote= }}</ref>

You can copy the code above, fill out the parameters (location is for the publisher city; url is when you have a google books, or other url, and oclc is for the WorldCat id; just leave out anything you don't know, but try to always include at least author, title, year, and page) and paste it into an article, and it will generate a well-formatted reference the way Wikipedia likes it. Here are your four references from the article, coded as cite book templates:

<ref name="Jones-1992">{{cite book |last1=Jones |first1=Cheslyn |date=1992 |title=The Study of Liturgy |edition=Revised |url= |location=London |publisher=SPCK |page=316 |isbn=019-520922-2 |oclc=874812954}}</ref>
<ref name="Cranmer-1965">{{cite book |last1=Cranmer |first1=Thomas |date=1965 |title=Doctrine of the Eucharist |url= |location= |publisher=MacMillan |page=28 |isbn= }}</ref>
<ref name="McAdoo-1995">{{cite book |last1=McAdoo |first1=H.R. |last2=Stevenson |first2=Kenneth |date=1995 |title=The Mystery of the Eucharist in the Anglican Tradition |url= |location=Norwich |publisher=Canterbury Press |page=28–32 |isbn=1-85311-113-9 |oclc= }}</ref>
<ref name="Moorman-1983">{{cite book |last1=Moorman |first1=John R.H. |date=1983 |title=The Anglican Spiritual Tradition |url= |location=Norwich |publisher=Canterbury Press |page=74–79 |isbn=0-87243-125-8 |oclc=925330081 }}</ref>

Note that in the first one, I used the ISBN to recover other parameters from WorldCat, and on the last one, I've added publisher, location, and oclc (the WorldCat id number); in the third one, I've added last2 and first2 for the second author. You can add quoted text from the source into the quote param, and it will appear in the footnotes at the bottom of the article. If you can take these references and place them in the article in-line where you made your edit, it will improve the article further by generating standard references. Start with one at a time, so you can see how it works. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 22:09, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do not use ibid, but do use <ref> tags

In Wikipedia, we do not use ibid and op cit when citing works that have previously been cited, as you did here at Anglican eucharistic theology. One reason for this, is someone could come in after you, add some additional text and another reference, and all of a sudden, your "ibid" further down points to the wrong reference. Remember that this is an online encyclopedia that anyone can edit; so you can't be sure that your original citation, and your "ibid" will stay close together; someone could come along and separate them with hundreds of words and dozens of references, and your "ibid" would become meaningless.

There are various ways to re-use a previous reference the right way Assuming the original, first reference was this:

<ref name="Brooks-1992">{{cite book |last=Brooks |first=Peter Newman |title=Thomas Cranmer's Doctrine of the Eucharist: An Essay in Historical Development |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=SDevCwAAQBAJ |accessdate=28 November 2018 |edition=2nd |date=27 January 1992 |publisher=Palgrave Macmillan UK |location=London |isbn=978-1-349-12163-2 |oclc=24666917}}</ref>

then here are three ways to reuse the same reference later:

1. The most standard method is called "named references".

...and then Cranmer said blah blah blah.<ref name="Brooks-1992" />{{rp|225}}.

Note the "slash" before the right-angle bracket, that's important when you re-use a named reference. The name between the quotation marks inside the <ref> tag must exactly match the name in the original reference, letter for letter. The {{rp|225}} means, "page 225". Naturally, you should substitute in the correct page number.

2. Method 2 is simpler, if the named reference above seems a bit too complicated just yet, you can just add the author, year, and page number inside <ref> tags, when you want to refer to a source previously mentioned. One generally puts the year in parentheses. In this method, the second reference would look like this:

...and then Cranmer said blah blah blah.<ref>Brooks (1992) p. 225</ref>

You can put anything you want inside the <ref> tags, but convention is just to use last name, (year), and page number. If there are two different Brookses in the article, then add initial letter of first name, so, "Brooks, T." or "Brooks, J." or whatever.

3. Finally, you can use "short footnotes" to write it like this, which means exactly the same thing as the example above:

...and then Cranmer said blah blah blah.{{sfn|Brooks|1992|p=225}}

The "sfn" stands for "short footnote", and it's my favorite method, but you can use any one you want. Remember that these three methods are about re-using a full reference that has been listed previously; method 1 requires you to have the long-form <ref> as the first reference, before you can reuse it; methods 2 and 3 don't, but will be opaque without it so it's always best to list the complete reference first.

If you can fix your edit to Anglican eucharistic theology to use one of these three methods, I'd appreciate it. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see you made the attempt in this edit, but you forgot the beginning "ref" tag. The beginning and end tags always come in pairs, like this:

<ref>Brooks (1992) p. 316</ref>

I've edited the page and converted the first ref to a {{cite book}}-style reference for you, and repaired the attempt to replace the ibid with a reference, but that was missing a beginning ref-tag for you. If you look in the References section near the bottom of the article, you will see that they now show up there as reference #9 (full reference), and reference #10 (re-used reference).

Do you see how to do it now? Are you able to convert the other references in that section in the same way? Writing references is absolutely critical to editing at Wikipedia, so even if this is difficult for you, you need to learn it. Take as much time as you want, and I'll help, but you must learn this. If you don't like the {{cite book}} template, you can write your references in MLA or Chicago style; just always include the <ref>....</ref> tags at the beginning and the end, and then what goes into the dot-dot-dot, you can write it your way, if that's easier for you. For example, this is an acceptable method of writing the first reference without the use of the {{cite}} template:

<ref>Jones, Cheslyn (1992). The Study of Liturgy (Revised ed.). London: SPCK. p. 315-317. ISBN 019-520922-2.</ref>

Would that be easier for you? If it is, just do it that way. For me, it's easier to write it with the template:

<ref name="Jones-1992">{{cite book |last1=Jones |first1=Cheslyn |date=1992 |title=The Study of Liturgy |edition=Revised |url= |location=London |publisher=SPCK |page=316 |isbn=019-520922-2 |oclc=874812954}}</ref>

but they are completely equivalent, and you can pick whichever is easier for you. If you remember only one thing from all of these different comments about references, then remember this: always put your references inside <ref>....</ref> tags, and make sure the tags come in pairs. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 00:00, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you playing games with this apparent lack of knowledge of how to use <ref> tags? In this edit at Scottish Americans in October, it looks like you know how to use them perfectly well. And this one, in September; I don't get it. If you're just wasting my time trying to show you how to improve your sourcing and use of references, then I really don't appreciate it. Mathglot (talk) 23:57, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He also used the ref tags perfectly in this edit from September - [1]. Very strange, I am finding many places in the same article where he put the references into the body of the text, and then that one where he properly makes it a footnote.Smeat75 (talk) 02:01, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Admins: before you block...

Unless COPYVIO occurs again, a block won't accomplish anything, imho. A few days ago, I was within a hair of taking this user to ANI for disruption for massive OR without sources in multiple articles. I put together three rollbacks (see discussions above at #Original research at Elizabethan Religious Settlement and #Original research at Roman diocese) undoing hundreds of edits by this user and another editor rolled back at Anglican eucharistic theology. I suspected the worst, imagining edit warring or scathing commentary, but was surprised to see no reaction, other than a few more edits at the article just rolled back. So I AGF'd and left messages here about sourcing and references. Meanwhile, another editor warned about edit summaries. Lo and behold, edit summaries started to appear. The rapidfire, source-free edits appear to have stopped, and have been replaced by edits which add references (poorly done, but still) in place of {{cn}} tags, or new sources inline. He still hasn't quite got the hang of paired <ref> tags, but is halfway there. So, my view of what we have here has evolved from what I originally thought was an incorrigible OR troll, to a borderline CIR issue, to finally someone who is not as tech-savvy as one would like, has some issues, but is learning. See for example, this edit (the summary is better than the result). He got into some bad habits with lack of sourcing early on that were not sufficiently corrected by the community, and still has a long way to go but is responding positively to talk page feedback, and clearly attempting to do the right thing. This is a sea change from my original view. Picture someone who still has their trusty old typewriter on the desk in the den, and learned email a couple years ago from their granddaughter. And, I suspect they may technically be a sock, but now I believe they probably just forgot their old password, because there is no overlap and the earlier one is inactive. So, plenty of tech issues, but movement in the right direction. I'm still peeved they have not yet responded here on their talk page, but I hope that will come. Keeping "preventative" in mind, I don't think a block would solve anything, although I understand why it would be necessary if they fall afoul of copyvio again. I think they need mentoring, but I no longer think their massive, early OR was malicious, just unaware. (There is still a ton of checking, fixing, and rolling back to be done: see #OR to-do list; and that's unfortunate; but, "preventative" again: I think they've stopped.) Anyway, just my two cents. I'm thinking editor retention, and I'm seeing evidence of movement in the right direction, slow, but sure. Help me out here.

Alex: I know you're reading this: number one thing before everything else, remember never never never copy/paste anything word-for-word out of a book or other source, into a Wikipedia article. (Short quotations, inside double-quote marks, are okay if attributed to the source.) If you can manage that, I don't think you'll be blocked. Mathglot (talk) 00:38, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh; two steps forward, one step back. We'll see. Mathglot (talk) 09:43, 30 November 2018 (UTC) Uh-oh; this together with the very next edit look like possible CIR issue. Mathglot (talk) 10:52, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ANI issue (here), has apparently elicited his first User TP comment, and his first reply. Two steps back from the brink. Mathglot (talk) 17:30, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And he's now communicated several times on a user page, and responded to article Talk page discussions, albeit at the wrong page, but nevertheless is now engaged with other editors. A body length away from the brink, and no longer in danger of falling in by mistake, I would say. (A copyvio at this point, would be just sad, but I've tried to warn him.) Anyway, user is responding to article discussions extremely civilly, especially given that the proposal is to remove many dozens or hundreds of his edits; and ANI request has been withdrawn. Mathglot (talk) 22:17, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please fix up your citations at Anglican eucharistic theology

Alex, please go fix up your citations at Anglican eucharistic theology. See that bold comment above regarding references, where I said:

you should always include the <ref>....</ref> tags at the beginning and the end

Please go back into section Varieties of eucharistic theology of the Presence of Christ where there are several citations in plain text, such as "McAdoo and Kenneth Stevenson", "John R.H. Moorman", and later, "Moorman, p. 75". See those? I would like you to please turn those into references, by preceding them each with a <ref> and ending them with a </ref> tag. So, for example, where it currently says,

through the instrumentality of the elements taken up and used by Christ who is himself the Presence," McAdoo and Kenneth Stevenson, The Mystery of the Eucharist in the Anglican Tradition, 1995, pp. 28-32 {{ISBN|1-85311-113-9}};

I'd like you to change that to this:

through the instrumentality of the elements taken up and used by Christ who is himself the Presence,"<ref>McAdoo and Kenneth Stevenson, The Mystery of the Eucharist in the Anglican Tradition, 1995, pp. 28-32 {{ISBN|1-85311-113-9}}</ref>;

And ditto the other two cases. Can you do that? It's really important you learn how to do this. Please stop adding new material to this or other articles and just add <ref>...</ref> tags around all your references at Anglican eucharistic theology. Okay? Mathglot (talk) 09:29, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stop making unsourced edits or you will be blocked

Mixed news: Good job on your edits to Ancient Roman cuisine and Vulgar Latin where you included a source. Your edit to Roman diocese is good because you fixed an ibid. But, I was really sorry to see you slip back to your old ways adding unsourced material to Matthew Parker and Sacrifice. Both of your recent edits to Sacrifice and 5 of 7 at Matthew Parker have been reversed for lack of sources. This is disruptive behavior, and it must stop. My patience is wearing thin; I'm tired of cleaning up after you, I have other things to do. You MUST source your edits, and you MUST learn to place <ref>...</ref> tag pairs around your citations. If as you say you wrote your thesis at Cambridge, and you are an accomplished writer of 36 years then you can learn to do this, right? If you are unable to do this consistently, I will ask an admin to block you; you don't want that, do you?

Please respond to me here on your talk page and let me know you have read this, and please tell me if you have any questions. Just click the small, blue [edit] link right after the title of this section, and start typing at the bottom of the page. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 10:28, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot believe how patient you have been with this editor User:Mathglot how much effort you have made to help him, how much work you have put it cleaning up after him. He needs to be blocked for sure, to prevent further disruption and also to get his attention, as he does not respond to any of the messages left on this talk page. A block may convince him to start listening to others and adapt his writing to WP's policies and guidelines.Smeat75 (talk) 00:19, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The thing that is really astounding is that it's clear the editor has read this talk page (some edit comments have alluded to things said here), but refuses to respond here. It's as if the editor does not understand that a collaborative encyclopedia requires two-way communication. There are many policies the editor is trampling, and it's not possible to tell whether it's ignorance or arrogance. I don't have the time to track things down, or I'd be going through Mathglot's list of articles which need repair. Tarl N. (discuss) 01:17, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tarl N, another astounding thing, in a good way, is that he is on another tear as we speak; this time, adding nothing but <ref> tags to the article, and thereby increasing the reference count from 56 to 152, last time I refreshed the page. So, as you say, he clearly reads the talk page, and this time, has acted on it. Where to go with this now, I cannot say. I guess we wait and see? Mathglot (talk) 04:09, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, DuckeggAlex. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Isaidnoway (talk) 05:30, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 2018

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Smeat75 (talk) 07:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User talk pages and Article talk pages

Alex, thanks for your messages at my Talk page. Your question there about possible duplication between content and notes at the Roman diocese article is definitely worth discussing, but first a few words about Talk page usage.

There are two kinds of Talk pages: 1) User talk pages, like this one, and 2) Article talk pages, like Talk:Roman diocese for example.^[a]

This page is your User talk page. Where you left your messages to me, was my User talk page. We use User talk pages to leave messages for a user about a topic that pertains to that user, or that the rest of the world doesn't necessarily care about. An article talk page, on the other hand, is not directed at a particular user. It is a place where all users interested in the topic of an article can get together and discuss how best to improve the article. That is really the only purpose of an Article talk page, although discussions can take many forms.

You can read more about using Talk pages here: Help:Talk pages. When you reply to a comment on a Talk page, rather than create a new section like you did here at my User talk page to follow up to a previous commens, just edit the existing section, and follow the Talk page guideline for follow-up comments. Note particularly the section Help:Talk pages#Replying to an existing thread about using colons for indentation to separate the original post from new replies, and to make it clear who is replying to whom.

A topic like the one you raised on my User talk page is squarely in the category of "how to improve a specific article", namely, the article Roman diocese. Therefore, that question most appropriate for the Article talk page, i.e., Talk:Roman diocese, and not on my User talk page.

To begin, just create a new section at Talk:Roman diocese, like you did at my Talk page, and repeat your question. Create a section header relevant to your question, something like, "Duplicate text in Civil dioceses" or, "Body text duplicates footnote content", or, "Duplicate text" or whatever you want, as long as it makes sense to you regarding the question you wish to discuss. (I've already done this for you.). Since the issues on the Article talk page are about how to improve the article, any editor from anywhere on Wikipedia might respond to you, and join in the discussion.

If you wish a response from a particular user, or if you just wish to let a particular user know that the Talk page discussions exists so they can read what you have to say, you generally need to let them know about it by pinging them. If you start your message at a Talk page with the user's id in brackets, then they will get a ping, just like you did when I responded to you earlier on my Talk page. So, to alert me to a new message on an article Talk page (or on your User page), you can start off your message with [[User:Mathglot]], and then type your message. (You could also code {{reply|Mathglot}}, or {{ping|Mathglot}}, and it does the exact same thing. You can also alert several users at once, e.g., {{ping |Mathglot |User123 |Another_user |User_456}} and so on.)

I hope this clears up how to use User and Article talk pages. Please read Help:Talk pages for starters, and WP:TALK and WP:INDENT for more details about this. The absolute basics:

reply to Talk page discussions in the same section by clicking the little [edit] link to the right of the section header, rather than creating a new section every time;
WP:INDENT your comments one tab stop to the right further than the comment above yours; use colons to indent; see WP:THREAD;
Except at a user's own talk page where it isn't necessary, do Notify user(s) of your reply with template {{reply}} or {{ping}};

Now, back to your original question: I'll open a section at Talk:Roman diocese and answer your original question there. (See section Body text duplicates footnote content.) If you have questions about this post, i.e., about how to use Talk pages, just follow the numbered steps above. Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

^ Actually, there are other kinds of Talk pages, too; but User talk pages and Article talk pages are the first two you should be concerned about for the time being.

References for Native Americans in the United States

Hello, looks like a few months ago you added information to Native Americans in the United States and never defined your references. You can see those additions here. There's an error in the references that says "Cite error: The named reference p113 was invoked but never defined (see the help page). Cite error: The named reference p114 was invoked but never defined (see the help page)." ever since. Thanks, oncamera 19:00, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A summary of site policies and guidelines you may find useful

Please sign your posts on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~, found next to the 1 key), and please do not alter other's comments.
"Truth" is not the criteria for inclusion, verifiability is.
We do not publish original thought nor original research. We merely summarize reliable sources without elaboration or interpretation.
Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. This usually means that secular academia is given prominence over any individual sect's doctrines, though those doctrines may be discussed in an appropriate section that clearly labels those beliefs for what they are.

Reformulated:

"Truth" is not the only criteria for inclusion, verifiability is also required.
Always cite a source for any new information. When adding this information to articles, use <ref>reference tags like this</ref>, containing the name of the source, the author, page number, publisher or web address (if applicable).
We do not publish original thought nor original research. We're not a blog, we're not here to promote any ideology.
A subject is considered notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.
Reliable sources typically include: articles from magazines or newspapers (particularly scholarly journals), or books by recognized authors (basically, books by respected publishers). Online versions of these are usually accepted, provided they're held to the same standards. User generated sources (like Wikipedia) are to be avoided. Self-published sources should be avoided except for information by and about the subject that is not self-serving (for example, citing a company's website to establish something like year of establishment).
Articles are to be written from a neutral point of view. Wikipedia is not concerned with facts or opinions, it just summarizes reliable sources. Real scholarship actually does not say what understanding of the world is "true," but only with what there is evidence for. In the case of science, this evidence must ultimately start with physical evidence. In the case of religion, this means only reporting what has been written and not taking any stance on doctrine.
Material must be proportionate to what is found in the source cited. If a source makes a small claim and presents two larger counter claims, the material it supports should present one claim and two counter claims instead of presenting the one claim as extremely large while excluding or downplaying the counter claims.
We do not give equal validity to topics which reject and are rejected by mainstream academia. For example, our article on Earth does not pretend it is flat, hollow, and/or the center of the universe.

Also, not a policy or guideline, but something important to understand the above policies and guidelines: Wikipedia operates off of objective information, which is information that multiple persons can examine and agree upon. It does not include subjective information, which only an individual can know from an "inner" or personal experience. Most religious beliefs fall under subjective information. Wikipedia may document objective statements about notable subjective claims (i.e. "Christians believe Jesus is divine"), but it does not pretend that subjective statements are objective, and will expose false statements masquerading as subjective beliefs (cf. Indigo children).

You may also want to read User:Ian.thomson/ChristianityAndNPOV. We at Wikipedia are highbrow (snobby), heavily biased for the academia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Benedict Swingate Calvert

Hi DuckeggAlex, I have reverted your additions to Benedict Swingate Calvert. The information mostly repeats what is in the preceding paragraph and the 'very possibly' seems like WP:OR. In all, it didn't seem to improve the article. Feel free to contact me if you have questions/disagreements. Leschnei (talk) 13:30, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Homosexuality. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Bradv🍁 00:18, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We don't "draw conclusions", we cite sources. This is still original research. Bradv🍁 00:24, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on American Revolutionary War. This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. That was not sourced, it was definitely not WP:MINOR, and much of it was off topic for that section. Meters (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Catholic Church in Greece. Meters (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been warned multiple times about original research and unsourced claims. user:Mathglot recently bluntly told you that you would be reported for a block if you did not consistently use references [2]. I agree with that warning, and from your recent edits it appears that you did not take that advice. I see nothing but unsourced claims marked as minor edits. Meters (talk) 00:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, read WP:MINOR. Stop marking content changes as minor. Meters (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please be a better editor, or stop editing

I reverted you at Ukraine‎. You have been told before that we need citations to accompany content. We're serious about that, per WP:V. We actually don't care about what's true. This may seem crazy to you. I suspect you're some sort of partisan, so maybe you should just stop editing, altogether. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:37, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 2019

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Citizens (Spanish political party). 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 notice boards.
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. Impru20^talk 14:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of prayers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Morning Prayer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Bolzano, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Jeppiz (talk) 10:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Alto Adige. Jeppiz (talk) 12:46, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Christian faith

Regarding this edit of yours removing "Jewish faith" at Jewish ethnic divisions, because only Christian's have faith: it's hard to contain my amazement. No aspersions, but that was truly one of the most ignorant edit summaries I've seen. I know you sufficiently from previous interaction to know that you don't have a malicious bone in your body, at least, not that I've ever seen, but jeez... I'm gob-smacked. Try this search for "Jewish faith" in books. Muslims have faith, too. And Buddhists. And Shintos. And Zoroastrians. And Jains. And Hindus. Shall I continue? Mathglot (talk) 10:17, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no not again! I undid this edit of yours at LGBT rights in Algeria; this time, for mucking with "Muslim faith". I sincerely hope you are not doing this all over the place, and spreading your ignorance in the edit comments far and wide. If you have been, or are, please revert yourself immediately. Mathglot (talk) 10:42, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And this one at Algeria; already removed by someone. Mathglot (talk) 10:47, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copying licensed material requires attribution (2nd request)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Ashkenazi Jews into Historical Jewish population comparisons. 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, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. 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. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but 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. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:04, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello DuckeggAlex, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your additions to Egypt (Roman province) have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into the public domain (PD) or under a suitably-free and compatible copyright license. Such a release must be done in a verifiable manner, so that the authority of the person purporting to release the copyright is evidenced. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are PD or compatibly licensed) it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions, the help desk or the Teahouse before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps in Wikipedia:Translation#How to translate. See also Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

Thanks for contributing to the article Middle Ages. However, one of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. Please help by adding more sources to the article you edited, and/or by clarifying how the sources already given support the claims (see here for how to do inline referencing). If you need further help, you can look at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the Teahouse, or just ask me. Thank you. - Epinoia (talk) 01:42, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, this is a Featured Article, one of the best we have. Your edits introduced poor writing, overlinking (there is no need whatsoever to link "Europe" or "tribe"), and I don't think the content serves much of a purpose either. Sorry. Drmies (talk) 23:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of sourcing

Alex, what is going on? You're far from a newbie now, you know perfectly well that you can't just introduce your own numbers and other unsourced content into articles, as you did in these six edits to Catalan language. Your edits have been reversed. You were just warned about this above by Drmies. Please adhere to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and use citations to reliable sources. You're way past the point of having to have basic policy quoted to you. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:25, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mathglot, what do you make of that source they introduced? DuckeggAlex, I don't see those numbers on there. There is nothing in there about speaking, reading, writing. Moreover, I am wondering how you found access to a copy of a web page that was archived in 2015. I cannot but conclude that you made those numbers up.
Don't treat this like all the other warnings, by ignoring it. So far, I am seeing warnings for original research, unreferenced material, unencyclopedic tone, unexplained removal of content, lack of edit summaries, improper grammar, commentary/personal views, lack of engagement on talk pages, copyright violations, possible socking, -- OK, I've read enough on your talk page. Mathglot, earlier you said that blocking this editor would serve no purpose, but by now I disagree. I counted 4,674 article edits, 4 edits on a user talk page, and one single edit on an article talk page. I see the edits on your talk page, which are odd since they are in better English than the article edits, but I do not see enough communication skills for this person to work in a collaborative environment. If you think this user is a net positive, please say so. DuckeggAlex, if again we don't hear from you, I will block this account. Drmies (talk) 20:58, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, what you need to do, before you add another dozen edits to another article, is answer these questions here, including the ones you were asked here before. BTW, where does 81.2% come from? Drmies (talk) 01:11, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DuckeggAlex: you have made 58 edits to Catalan language in the the last 24 hours, of which at least some have been controversial. I don't have time to look at it in detail right now, but I will.

I can't tell you what to do or what not to do, but I am advising you as a fellow editor with a lot of experience, that my spidey sense tells me that you are on the very brink of the precipice right now. One false step, and I believe you will fall into the abyss. If you wish to remain here as an editor, I would stay calm, not sass the admins, and agree to voluntarily stop editing the article Catalan language for the time being, and discuss your concerns at the article's Talk page instead. Please follow all Wikipedia policies scrupulously—if you are not sure, don't make the edit; instead, talk it out at the Talk page, seek advice. And please maintain civil relations with all editors. Drmies has posed some questions for you; you really need to respond, or, imho, your situation will become even more precarious than it already is.

@Drmies: I will get back to you about the sourcing question and other issues in a couple of days. Needless to say, I support any decision you make to protect the encyclopedia. Mathglot (talk) 03:39, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November 2019

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing 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 ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 03:45, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

October 2020

Alex, is that you, editing at Roman diocese again under two new registered accounts, and IP 73.219.142.120 (talk · contribs) again? Please don't. The way to address your situation, is to apply for unblock on this page. Be advised, that because of prior block evasion, imho it will not be easy for you to get unblocked, and certainly not if you continue to sock using other ids. So if that's you, please knock it off, wait a decent interval (I'd say six months), and then follow the unblock instructions. Good luck, Mathglot (talk) 11:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Not providing edit summaries is pretty small potatoes as far as a violation; and you'll never get blocked for not using them. The reason I mention them at all, is because you appear to be changing your edit summary behavior after being warned about it; that's a good sign, and will help you if you're about to be blocked for something else, because it shows you are capable of taking advice and heeding it. So keep using them. Now, you need to start changing your behavior on the important stuff. Also, so far at least, you've never responded here, and that is a negative; you need to communicate with other editors.

[2] Actually, there are other kinds of Talk pages, too; but User talk pages and Article talk pages are the first two you should be concerned about for the time being.

[a]

[a]