User talk:Unfriendnow

October 2024

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Graywalls (talk) 20:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Unfriendnow (talk) 21:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder for the second time, especially with the addition of contents. Graywalls (talk) 17:34, 12 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) 00:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP

Please see footnote e in particular. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:24, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited additions to biographies

Here are two of your last three edits; both changed content without providing a source: [1] [2]. @DrKay: evidently the monthlong block in August did not help. —JBL (talk) 18:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will be adding a source. I figured the second one was pretty obvious since the source is on her stepfather's wikipedia page and not at all hidden. Unfriendnow (talk) 18:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

December 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content.

If you believe that 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 ~~~~}}. DrKay (talk) 23:45, 24 December 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

It is incorrect to block an editor indefinitely for adding basic information to a Wikipedia article Unfriendnow (talk) 00:07, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I have looked into your history. You've been blocked five times previously for exactly the same reason. I don't see any reason to believe you understand at all what Wikipedia requires for sourcing. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 00:12, 25 December 2024 (UTC) You have only looked at when I was blocked and not my most recent history where I do add sources, again it's unfair to block someone for making the mistake of thinking that basic information doesn't need a source Unfriendnow (talk[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 believe this indefinite block is totally incorrect and I request a reconsideration. The first reason why I think this is incorrect and wrong is because the information that I added in was very obvious and that even within the articles themselves there was no source in the first place since the information is about who's related to who. To block me indefinitely for adding basic information is wrong. I believe my block should be reversed. And if you look into my history, I have added a source to almost very Wikipedia article I have edited.