User talk:Editorforchange

Welcome!

Hello, Stepheditorforchange, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum, see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Your first article
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Ali Beary (talk) 12:58, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 2024

Hello, I'm Theroadislong. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Kismet Healthcare, 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. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 19:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

copy, thank you! Stepheditorforchange (talk) 20:09, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Animal welfare science, 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. Theroadislong (talk) 19:42, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Master data management, you may be blocked from editing. Theroadislong (talk) 19:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your recent edit appears to have added a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person, organization or product added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists. If you wish to create such an article, please first confirm that the subject qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article according to Wikipedia's notability guideline. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 20:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Abhishek Nigam. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. ManaliJain (talk) 05:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Autoclaved aerated concrete

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Autoclaved aerated concrete, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 17:48, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on List of former British Basketball League teams

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page List of former British Basketball League teams, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 13:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alechtron is user-generated and cannot be used as a source

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. However, please do not use unreliable sources such as blogs, wikis, personal websites, and websites and publications with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. These sources may express views that are widely acknowledged as pushing a particular point-of-view, sometimes even extremist, being promotional in nature, or relying heavily on rumors and personal opinions. One of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. If you require further assistance, please look at Help:Menu/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the Teahouse. Thank you. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

copy, thank you! Stepheditorforchange (talk) 08:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mirrors, again

Thanks for contributing to the article Madhavrao I. However, one of Wikipedia's core policies is that material must be verifiable and attributed to reliable sources. You have recently used citations which copied, or mirrored, material from Wikipedia. This leads to a circular reference and is not acceptable. Most mirrors are clearly labeled as such, but some are in violation of our license and do not provide the correct attribution. Please help by adding alternate sources to the article you edited! If you need any help or clarification, you can look at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia or ask at Wikipedia:New contributors' help page, or just ask me. Thank you. Sam Kuru (talk) 16:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, at Chiba Lotte Marines. Please slow down and carefully evaluate the sources you are using. Sam Kuru (talk) 03:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Asan Medical Center, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page College of Medicine. 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) 19:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 1

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Macrohon Institute, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Public schools.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:58, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources again; alchetron is user-generated and cannot be used as a source

Please stop. If you continue to attempt to make disruptive edits to Wikipedia and trigger the edit filter, you may be blocked from editing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:43, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deceptive edit summaries

You did not add citations in this edit; you removed "cite needed" tags. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:52, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:BOLDSYN

Per MOS:BOLDSYN, the title of the topic in the lede sentence should be in bold; why did you remove the bolding in this edit? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:04, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Last warning for removing lede sentence formatting

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make disruptive edits to Wikipedia contrary to the Manual of Style. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:01, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources, again

You've been warned to evaluate the sources you are added multiple times above. You've again used a very clearly identified Wikipedia mirror at Paul Loeb. I've blocked this account for 24 hours. If you continue to ignore these warnings, this account is likely to be disabled for longer periods. Please indicate you understand the problems and outline the steps you will take to avoid introducing fake sources and errors in the future. Sam Kuru (talk) 15:29, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kuru This user has continued to add citations that are not useful, either because they are not WP:RS or because they do not verify the information that they claim (see my notes below). At least one of the citations was courtesy of ChatGPT, and I suspect the rest of their edits are of a similar nature.[1] I'm happy to take this to a noticeboard, but thought I'd ping you first. Vegantics (talk) 20:50, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Hello, I noticed that you used ChatGPT to locate a source for List of former British Basketball League teams. However, that source does not verify any of the information that you claimed it did. If you intend to use AI to identify sources, you need to confirm that they are reliable and accurate. Vegantics (talk) 20:33, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Further, your edits to Durham Dales added citations that do not verify the information that you claimed they did. I have reverted the edit. Vegantics (talk) 20:48, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources again; IMDb and FilmAffinity are user-generated and cannot be used as sources

Your 4 March edits[2] to Tiana Alexandra were not productive. Vegantics (talk) 20:43, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple accounts

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:52, 11 April 2025 (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).

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

Request reason:

Hi, I just wanted to say I didn’t realize having more than one account wasn’t allowed. I honestly thought it was okay if I wasn’t using them to cause any trouble. I get now that it goes against the rules, and I’m really sorry about that. I’ve read up on the guidelines since and I'm still continuing to learn. I’d really appreciate a chance to get back to editing the right way and contribute the right. Hoping for your kind consideration. Thank you so much for taking the time to read this.

Decline reason:

But you were using the multiple accounts abusively. As you think you weren't, there's no way we can lift the block. Yamla (talk) 12:03, 14 April 2025 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Hi Yamla, thanks for taking the time to review this. I wanted to explain a bit more from my side. I didn’t realize at the time that using more than one account could be considered abusive, and I now understand how that broke the rules. I wasn’t trying to manipulate anything or get around a block, I just made a mistake because I wasn’t fully aware of how strict the guidelines are. I’ve taken time now to read through the policies and learn more about how things work. I see now that even unintentional actions can have consequences, and I respect that. I’d really like the chance to contribute again, and I’m committed to doing it the right way from here on. I know trust has to be earned, and I’m willing to start fresh and follow the proper steps moving forward. Thanks again for considering my request. Stepheditorforchange (talk) 12:53, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

My suggestion is that you take the standard offer and re-apply in 6 months time with no more abuse of multiple accounts. PhilKnight (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2025 (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.

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

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

Request reason:

Hi, I know I’ve already appealed before, but I wanted to take one last chance to explain where I think I went wrong. I had two accounts, this one, and Editwithyuri and I now understand that using multiple accounts without disclosure is against Wikipedia’s policies. I’m not completely sure if I edited the same page or topic using both accounts, but I realize now that even the possibility of that can be a serious issue, especially if it gives the impression of sockpuppetry. I want to clearly state here that I won’t log in to or use the other account again under any circumstances. If I’m given another chance, I’ll stick to this account only and if I ever access or edit using Editwithyuri again, I fully accept that I should be permanently blocked with no further appeals. I’m really sorry for the confusion I caused. I didn’t mean to break the rules or misuse the system I just didn’t know better at the time. I truly want to move forward the right way, and I’ll do my best to make sure this doesn’t happen again. Thank you for taking the time to read this. I understand if the block remains, but I wanted to give a full and honest explanation, and respectfully ask for one more chance.Stepheditorforchange (talk) 18:15, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Unblocked, with one-account restriction and a reminder to avoid using AI for Wikipedia. -- asilvering (talk) 21:40, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stepheditorforchange (talk) 18:15, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved your unblock request to the bottom of the page. Please place any future unblock requests at the bottom. PhilKnight (talk) 16:40, 19 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for moving it and letting me know. Sorry about that! I’ll make sure to place any future requests at the bottom. Appreciate your patience. Stepheditorforchange (talk) 02:51, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Stepheditorforchange, did you ever use these two accounts to give the false impression that there were two different people supporting the same edit? Or use both of them in the same talk page discussion? -- asilvering (talk) 17:58, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Asilvering, no, I didn’t use both accounts to make it look like two different people were supporting the same edit, and I also didn’t use them in the same talk page discussion. I honestly didn’t realize that even just having overlapping edits could be a problem. That definitely wasn’t my intention, and I’m really sorry if anything I did gave that impression.

I haven’t logged into the other account at all since this came up, just to make sure I don’t cause any more issues. I really appreciate the chance to explain, and I’m doing my best to understand everything properly now. Stepheditorforchange (talk) 00:30, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've had a look at your edits and I agree that it doesn't look like you were using these two accounts in an obviously deceptive way, though I can see why someone would make the conclusion that you'd created a second account to avoid your past warning/block history. I think we can probably unblock, with a one-account restriction - @Ponyo, thoughts?

But before that happens, I notice that you have a lot of warnings on your talk page about reliable sources. I presume this has been happening because you are using AI, since your edit summaries also appear to be AI-generated. Please do not use AI to contribute to Wikipedia. It does not understand our policies and cannot learn them, and is very prone to errors. If you go back to this kind of editing after being unblocked, you will almost certainly be blocked again. Do you understand? -- asilvering (talk) 18:07, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Asilvering: The naming of the accounts (Steph for this one and Yuri for the other) does give the impression that a level of obfuscation was intended; a single account restriction should definitely be required. Other than that, please proceed as you see fit. -- Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:13, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, I certainly assume the idea was to keep the two identities separate. What I mean was that no deception appears to have been done using the two, as in votestacking, etc. -- asilvering (talk) 21:39, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much @Asilvering. I really appreciate being given another chance. I’ll make sure to follow the one account restriction and avoid using AI going forward. I’ve honestly learned a lot through all of this, and I’ll be more careful and thoughtful from here on. Thanks again, it really means a lot. Stepheditorforchange (talk) 09:19, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Asilvering, thank you so much for taking the time to look into this. I really appreciate your message and the chance to explain. I’ll be honest, I did use AI a few times to help draft content or summaries. I thought it might speed things up, but I realize now that it was a mistake. I didn’t fully understand how much of a problem that could be on Wikipedia, and I’m really sorry for the trouble it caused. I won’t be using AI anymore, I’ve learned a lot through this situation, and I’ll be much more careful moving forward, making sure to follow the rules properly and rely only on reliable sources and following the rules as best I can. Yes, I completely understand the one-account restriction and I’ll make sure to follow it completely. Thanks again for giving me a chance to make this right, it means a lot. I really do want to do better and contribute the right way. Stepheditorforchange (talk) 18:53, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (May 30)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by ToadetteEdit was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

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.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to User:Editorforchange/sandbox and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 14:19, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Editorforchange! 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! ToadetteEdit (7M articles) 14:19, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft moved: Lordan Gualberto Suan

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is just a note to let you know that I've moved the draft that you were working on to Draft:Lordan Gualberto Suan. This has been done because the Draft namespace is the preferred location for Articles for Creation submissions. Please feel free to continue to work on it there. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 14:26, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lordan Gualberto Suan has been accepted

Lordan Gualberto Suan, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 14:37, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just to explain the difference between @ToadetteEdit's decision and mine, I went through and cut (i.e.: challenged, see WP:PROVEIT) some of the content that was missing citations and what I believed to be un-encyclopedic—as a project, we don't care what the subject (whether it be a person or a company) has to say about itself, we care what third parties have said about it. See WP:42 So you'll notice that content was left on the cutting room floor. Feel free to add more stuff back in, or address maintenance tags that get added to the article in the future, but make sure to do so with respect to WP:V and WP:BLP—make sure to cite your sources.

Thanks for your contributions, all the best. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 15:00, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]