User talk:Popward123

August 2023

Hello, I'm MistyKangaroo. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Aaru (film), 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. MistyKangaroo (talk) 10:49, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory, 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. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:21, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, you may be blocked from editing. FMSky (talk) 18:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The 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 2023 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) 00:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Gayatri Jayaraman. DMacks (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Vijay (actor), 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. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 16:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bond Street station, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Paddington tube station. 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) 17:55, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes

Please don't alter quotes as you did in Kadhalar Dhinam. Please see sic and WP:SIC regarding this. Even if you do, please put the "correct" words in square brackets. Kailash29792 (talk) 01:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive edits - unnecessary abbreviations

You've attempted to make this edit three times now, never with any explanation. Why do you keep doing this? There's no reason to list off possible abbreviations for something when the abbreviation isn't ever used in the article. Please stop. Sergecross73 msg me 15:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

You have been given multiple warnings in the past about unsourced content / original research, yet you persist in adding it as you just did to Wembley Park tube station. Please stop, but also please acknowledge to show that you actually understand what you are doing wrong. 10mmsocket (talk) 20:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning

Reviewing your edits, and this talk page, I'm rather concerned that you don't seem to be making any sort of effort to follow or understand Wikipedia's sourcing policies. This is not acceptable. Following WP:V and WP:NOR is a non-negotiable aspect of Wikipedia. Please read and learn them.

Final warning - if you violate our sourcing or original research policies again, your account will be temporarily blocked from editing. If you have questions, you can ask them here or ask the WP:TEAHOUSE for help. If you need help on how to add a reference to Wikipedia, see WP:REFB. But don't just ignore this warning like the previous ones, or you'll be blocked. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 14:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Your account is blocked for 1 week for continued refusal to add sources to the content you add to Wikipedia. Please reconsider the instructions I gave you above, should you decide to return to editing after your block expires. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 17:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

Hello, I'm Quaerens-veritatem . Please do not introduce information into articles, as you did to Gal Gadot by adding content against WP:MOS, in this case MOS:SURNAME. Please review and adhere to the WP:MOS. Also, you did not give any reason for the edit in an edit summary. Your edit has been reverted. Also, in the future you should described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary per Wikipedia's consensus policy. Regards, Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 21:16, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. livelikemusic (TALK!) 22:05, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. Charliehdb (talk) 08:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pavitra Bandham, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Bengali and Jeet.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited High Street Kensington tube station, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gloucester Road.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Please use edit summaries when making edits - it's much more helpful for everyone else! "According to the consensus policy, all edits should be explained (unless the reason for them is obvious)—either by clear edit summaries or by discussion on the associated talk page." H:FIES Turini2 (talk) 17:02, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, please use edit summaries - for example, why did you remove the Holborn station RDT in the Holborn tube station article? @Useddenim has reverted your edit as "unexplained deletion". Turini2 (talk) 14:54, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You’re still not doing this, so expect your edits to be reverted. Seasider53 (talk) 19:07, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Be wary of mass-reverting edits simply because they don’t have an edit summary - that could be construed as vandalism.

that said, @Popward123 edit summaries are required. Danners430 (talk) 09:06, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Popward123 Once again, I reiterate - please use edit summaries. They are not a "nice to have" or "if I have time" – they are a requirement. They save time for everyone else, as we don't have to look at diffs to see what you did! Turini2 (talk) 17:23, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 2025

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that your recent edit to Waterloo & City line did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account, you can give yourself a reminder by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary), and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! Danners430 (talk) 09:05, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Danners430 (talk) 09:13, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of edit summaries

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.Turini2 (talk) 11:59, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 2025

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain namespaces ((Article)) for lack of communication.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. asilvering (talk) 15:39, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Admins: you're welcome to lift this without consultation with me if this editor starts communicating.

Popward123: please come to WP:ANI#Popward123 - no edit summaries, thank you. -- asilvering (talk) 15:41, 23 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).

Popward123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I’ve been blocked for not following Wikipedia editing rules. If I get unblocked, I will follow editing rules like using edit summaries to explain the editing and only inserting reliable and relevant information to an article.

Decline reason:

Please obtain consensus in the WP:ANI thread you are participating in, to get your partial block lifted. Yamla (talk) 18:59, 23 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.

I’ve been blocked for not following Wikipedia editing rules. If I get unblocked, I will follow editing rules like using edit summaries to explain the editing and only inserting reliable and relevant information to an article. Popward123 (talk) 16:47, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) will you engage on this talk page when other editors raise concerns and try to discuss issues with you? That’s what we’re trying to do… we’re not badgering you, we’re trying to discuss why we’re undoing all your edits. Danners430 (talk) 17:28, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll engage on this page when other editors raise their concerns and try to discuss issues with me. Popward123 (talk) 18:09, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed the note above - I’d suggest going to ANI (follow the link directly above your unblock request) and join the discussion there. Danners430 (talk) 18:25, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

hello Popward (talk) 17:07, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Popward123 @Popward are you the same person using multiple accounts? Danners430 (talk) 09:08, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. I'm a different user. Popward123 (talk) 09:12, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

June 2025

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You have been reverted making that caption edit three times now. The correct course of action would have been to open a talk page discussion after the first time. Danners430 (talk) 08:10, 26 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Popward123 this is now the fourth time you’ve introduced your preferred version of Queens Park. So it’s time for another trip back to WP:AN3. Obviously you haven’t learned from the last time. Danners430 (talk) 08:05, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Popward123 why is it that you’re refusing to engage on talk page with editors that disagree with what you’re changing? Danners430 (talk) 08:19, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that I have to engage on the talk page first before editing. Popward123 (talk) 08:23, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You don’t - but you have to engage on the talk page if your edits are being reverted. See the discussion that was had when you were appealing your last block. You’ve changed Queen's Park station (England) four times now, and three of those times you’ve been reverted. Per WP:BRD, it’s your job after being reverted the first time to discuss your changes on the article talk page. Danners430 (talk) 08:27, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will discuss the changes the first time after being reverted. Popward123 (talk) 08:28, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you happy to revert your change to Queen’s Park station so that a discussion can be had? I’m happy to withdraw my report to AN3 if so, given you’re happy to discuss instead of continuing the edit war. Danners430 (talk) 08:30, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm happy. Popward123 (talk) 08:31, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted my recent change to Queen's Park station. Popward123 (talk) 08:33, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean this as genuine advice, because most of your edits are genuinely useful and we don't want to lose you - in the future, if someone reverts one of your edits, it's always advisable to start a discussion at the article talk page instead of just making the change again. Making the change again is edit warring, and can in the worst case lead to being blocked, which we don't want. I'll start a discussion at Queen's Part just now regarding this. Danners430 (talk) 09:06, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Popward123 (talk) 09:08, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Danners430 (talk) 08:13, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop

Please stop moving navigational templates away from the footer of articles. As you have been warned on multiple occassions now, these go grouped together at the footer of articles, see WP:NAVBOX. MRSC (talk) 05:31, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]