User talk:Searcher 1990

Hi Searcher 1990, and Please excuse this intrusion as you have been around a bit already but if no one has said it before: Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

---

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

• Table of Contents

• Department directory

Need help?

• Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
• Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.

• Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations
• The Simplified Ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.

How you can help:

• Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.

• Community Portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...

• Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

• If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

Good luck, and have fun. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 19:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC).

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

January 2011

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you violate Wikipedia's No Original Research, Verifiability or Reliable Sources policies by adding unsourced material to articles, as you did with this edit to List of suicides, you will be blocked from editing. Nightscream (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Alberto Pandolfi

Hi! It seems you recently created an unreferenced biography of a living person: Alberto Pandolfi. The community has decided that all new biographies of living persons must contain a reliable source that supports at least one statement made about the person in the article as per our verifiability policy. Please add references as soon as possible. Thanks! --LaraBot (talk) 00:10, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

April 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Henry Knox, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. GcSwRhIc (talk) 03:10, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a study

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to Main Study. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates about 20 minutes. I chose you as a English Wikipedia user who made edits recently through the RecentChange page. Refer to the first page in the online survey form for more information on the study and me.cooldenny (talk) 02:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Lack of edit summaries

Please add an edit summary to any non-trivial change you make in articles. Lack of an edit summary negates the usefulness of a watchlist.

Georgejdorner (talk) 16:18, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

October 2011

Thanks for contributing new article John B. Babcock. However, one of Wikipedia's core policies is that material must be verifiable, by being clearly attributed to reliable sources. Please help by adding more sources to the article you created, and/or by clarifying how the sources already given support the material (see here for how to do inline referencing). Many thanks! PS If you need any help, you can look at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia or ask at Wikipedia:New contributors' help page, or just ask me. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 14:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Leroy A. Mendonca. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

James S. Casey

I just thought I'd let you know that I saw your article James S. Casey in the New Articles list-- However, I noticed there are some holes that may need filling: the article does not contain in-line citations, and so doesn't follow Wikipedia style guidelines. It would be great if you could also improve the related article Bernard A. Byrne. Jipinghe (talk) 20:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistent violation of various policies related to sourcing (WP:V/WP:NOR/WP:BLP, et al.), as well as a disruptive refusal to include edit summaries in edits, the most recent violations of the former being the creation of this unreferenced article, this edit to Leroy A. Mendonca, and this edit to List of foreign-born Medal of Honor recipients, and the most recent examples of the latter being innumerable examples on your contributions page. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Given your long history of ignoring warnings regarding WP:V, and your attempts to conceal this fact by removing warnings for this behavior from your talk page, I urge you to reconsider your activities on Wikipedia. If you wish to be a part of the editing community here, you'll have to learn to follow the rules, and communicate with others when matters like this arise. Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 19:07, October 16, 2011

That's certainly odd. The block went through at 18:57, October 16, 2011, and it is now past 21:40 a week later, so it should have been lifted. However, my email provider informs me that you sent your email three hours ago, which might've been a short while before the block expired. Have you tried editing since then? Try it now. Nightscream (talk) 01:44, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi, this message is to let you know about disambiguation links you've recently created. A link to a disambiguation page is almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

William H. Macomb (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

was linked to Commodore

Any suggestions for improving this automated tool are welcome. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Unreferenced edits

The following section was added to Nightscream's talk page:

Many recent edits have been made by Searcher 1990 (talk | contribs), all without any references or citations. I have reverted many of the edits between the dates of 17 December 2011 – 20 December 2011, but there are quite a few more edits made previous my revision corrections, for which I imagine are also unreferenced &/or uncited. Upon further review of the edit history of Searcher 1990, it appears they continue to conduct a patter of behavior that is be disruptive & not in accordance with Wikipedia's manual of style (even after a history of punishment). Please assist with preventing such edits from continuing.
Bullmoosebell (talk) 09:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for persistent addition of unsourced content, and ignoring over a year and a half of repeated warnings for this and other types of disruptive editing, the most recent violations being the following edits to Robert T. Henry, Freeman V. Horner, Paul B. Huff, and dozens of other reverted edits visible in your edit history. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Nightscream (talk) 05:58, December 20, 2011‎ (UTC)

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

Searcher 1990 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I'm apologising for my recent editing behavior, because I should have known to reference the edits properly. If you would allow me to return to editing (or shorten my sentence), I will immediately put in all the proper references to my sources. If not, I shall accept the punishment given to me.

Accept reason:

The editor apologized for his behavior, and indicated that he would rectify the problem, which I understand to mean that he will no longer add unsourced material to articles. Nightscream (talk) 17:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Searcher, I have two matters I need to talk to you about. First, regarding the following edits: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], you should know that punctuation goes before a citation, not after, according to WP:PAIC. It's a minor point, but I thought I'd let you know.

Second, it appears that you are again adding unsourced material to articles, with edits such as these: [7], [8], [9], [10].

Also, with this edit, you removed both a citation needed tag and a disambiguation tag needed, without any explanation or edit summary.

Can you explain this? Nightscream (talk) 00:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for coming off a block and carrying on with exactly the same problems that got you blocked. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 00:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

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).

Searcher 1990 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I did not make any major editing errors this time. All the info I added to the articles comes from their external links, or from other articles I linked to. I do apologize for forgetting edits summaries, and I will never be a perfect contributor (unless somebody teaches me), but I stand by my point.

Decline reason:

Procedural decline, as the editor has requested the closing of this account (see below). But in case of any change of mind, future requests after a break can certainly be made and should be considered in the light of the editor's obvious good faith -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:38, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

---

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.

• Hi. It's way past my bedtime now and I'm really too tired, but I'll re-examine your latest edits in the morning and will expand on what I thought was wrong with them, and try to help towards an unblock (that is, if nobody else reviews your unblock request before then). But in short, the problem is that you were adding new material with no indication where it came from - it's not enough to just take information from sources being used for the article and expect people to guess that it came from one of the sources and guess which one, you need to add citations (<ref>....</ref>) so we know where it comes from. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Can we discuss reverting the edits by this user that led to them being blocked? Bullmoosebell (talk) 05:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

We may need to, yes,and I have reverted a few already - but I'd like to get answers to my questions, below, before we consider going for large scale reversion -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• OK, here's an example. In this change, you added "Years of service 1943 - 1945". Where did you get that? I've checked the only two sources given, and while they both put his death at 1945, neither appears to mention 1943 as the year he entered service.
• And in this one it's similar - I can't see those years of service mentioned in either of the sources used by the article. You also changed his rank to "Brigadier General", but the two sources used state "Major" and "Major General" - Major at the time of his Medal of Honour action, and Major General as the highest rank he reached.
• In this change you added "In 1877, Paine was shot and killed by Claron A. Windus" - but again, I can't see any mention of that in the sources used.
• And can you explain this removal?

  It's entirely possible I've missed where the sources support the information you have added, so can you please explain where you got these snippets of information from? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

It's still apparent to me that this user is blatantly and deliberately making edits without regard to the guidance and advice provided to this user (through their talk page), by way of apologies and denial of knowledge (that which has been provided on their talk page). Can we discuss reverting the edits by this user that led to them being blocked? Bullmoosebell (talk) 05:50, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, as I just said above, I'd rather wait and see what answers we get first, and if they are not satisfactory, I think we'll need to consider a blanket reversion of the changes - but let's give them a chance -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:39, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• I'll explain were I got this info; in the case of John F. Weston, I took that from the Arlington National Cemetery site (it's possible that one isn't linked yet), and I also linked it to the List of brigadier generals in the United States Regular Army before February 2, 1901, on wich he is listed. In the case of Adam Paine, I put a link to the Handbook of Texas Online site at Claron A. Windus' page (wich I did not make clear enough, I agree). In the case of Charles H. T. Collis, I personally created that article, but could not find any other sources that mention Rappahannock. In the case of John Wainwright (Medal of Honor), the serviceyears are already in the article, so I did not feel it was necessary. In the case of James E. Robinson Jr., this info came from a book, wich I didn't know how to link properly. If you do not consider my explanantions to be enough, you can inactivate this account, on the condition I'm notified beforehand. Anyway, Happy Holidays from Searcher_1990.

  Hi. Thanks for the explanations. I have a busy afternoon now, but will be happy to come back later and look over those articles again (and, of course, anyone else is welcome to). But before I head off, I just want to make it clear that our aim here is not to "inactivate this account", but to help you improve your editing so we can unblock you (at least, that's what I'd most like to see happen) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:22, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Whatever the details relating to particular edits, your previous unblock was lifted after you said "I should have known to reference the edits properly. If you would allow me to return to editing ... I will immediately put in all the proper references to my sources." How do you reconcile that with the fact that you have continued to make unsourced edits? JamesBWatson (talk) 13:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• I should clarify i'm mildly autistic, but that it's no excuse. This was never a problem before, but I accept the responsibility, and would like to deactive this account, so I could make a fresh start once I'm more experienced in editing. But please don't undo my latest edits, I just wanted to help complete those articles, not vandalize them. I hope all of you can understand. Searcher_1990

Hi. Firstly, please be assured that nobody is accusing you of vandalism or of any bad faith - I'm quite sure your intentions are entirely honorable. (And I can sympathize with your mild autism - I have experience of it with some friends too). I'll come back to the fresh start later, but first I'd like to go through those articles again - not to criticize, but to try to help you understand and move forward.

• John F. Weston. You may have obtained the information from the Arlington National Cemetery site, but unless you actually include it as a citation, it can't be used as a source. The article has a link to the Arlington National Cemetery article, and from there I guess readers could look up the cemetery site and search for themselves, but that does not satisfy Wikipedia's policies - if you use a specific source, it must be cited in that actual article, as an inline citation as explained at WP:Citing sources. Also, a link to List of brigadier generals in the United States Regular Army before February 2, 1901 is not sufficient as a source for stating his rank in the article itself - that's just a list of people who, at some time in their career, attained that rank. Soldiers typically rise through many ranks, and you can't just pick one at random that he happened to hold at one time - I'm not sure what the guidelines are, but I'd expect a biography article to use the highest rank he attained. And again, it needs an inline source - a wikilinked article is not sufficient (because Wikipedia is itself not a reliable source).
• Adam Paine. OK, you added an external link to the Claron A. Windus article, but as you appear to now appreciate, that is not sufficient as a source for other linked articles - the approach that "Another article that it links to has an external link that provides the information" is not sufficient. In fact, just adding it as an external link is not good enough even for the Claron A. Windus article itself - you need to include it as an inline citation, so that it appears in the References section, and not expect the reader to have to search the external links to see if the source is in there. To reiterate, in this case you needed to add the source, as an inline citation, to both articles that took information from it.
• Charles H. T. Collis. The fact that you personally created that article means nothing - if something needs a citation, and you cannot find one, you must not simply remove the "citation needed" tag. You should leave it in the hope that someone else will be able to find one, and if that does not happen after a reasonable time, the unsourced content itself, not the tag, should be removed.
• John Wainwright (Medal of Honor). Yes, you're right, the years of service are indeed included in the article, so you can have that one :-) But please note there are no inline references in that article, and it needs some.
• James E. Robinson Jr.. if you got the information from a book, you can cite a book using the template {{Cite book}}

Concerning your recent edits, what I'll try to do over the next dew days is have a look over them and see if I can find where the source for each is - if I can find it, I'll fix it up, but if I can't then I'll have no alternative but to revert it. I'll also fix up the Adam Paine and Claron A. Windus articles so you can see how they should have been done.

If you feel you need a break then a clean start, that's fine - WP:Clean start says you can. As for this account, you can just walk away from it. Alternatively, after you've had a break you might feel you are able to carry on from this one again - if so, just ask here for an unblock (and feel free to ping me on my Talk page) and we can see how things are going.

Anyway, I hope this hasn't been too discouraging an experience for you, and I hope you can be back some time in the not-too-distant future -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm gonna have to read up on the editing guidelines. I could also provide you or others with info instead of making edits myself, if that is considered a better option. Until after New Year everyone. Searcher_1990

Regarding the List of brigadier generals in the United States Regular Army before February 2, 1901 article, I would add that one article cannot be a source for another, since this is circular. Please see WP:CIRCULAR for more on this.

As for starting fresh, well, that's your call, but I would personally recommend---and this is just my personal opinion, not one directly relating to any policy or guideline---that part of learning the ropes is accepting your mistakes, and incorporating your early mistakes as a newbie into the process. I do not believe that sweeping it under the rug of a new username account is the answer, since looking back on one's early mistakes helps build one's character and in the future, may provide someone with perspective on both where they've been, and on newbies that you yourself may encounter as a future veteran. Moreover, we don't stop making mistakes once we're veterans. I myself have made one or two recently, and rather than blanking evidence of this from my talk page, I keep it (though I do archive past pages when they become too big, and I will revert things like vandalism or harassment from my tp), in order to maintain a sense of openness and transparency about both my successes and my failures. But that's just me.

Happy Holidays to all concerned here. :-) Nightscream (talk) 00:17, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Edits without logging in?

It appears you are making edits in the same fashion that caused you to be blocked from editing, only now you are not logging in (editing under IP address 84.193.82.180 (talk | contribs). Please resolve all issues that caused you to be blocked from editing before continuing to make disruptive edits. Bullmoosebell (talk) 05:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Problem with the Generals' lists

So User:Brightgalrs, without once discussing it with anyone else, looking at the article histories, or bothering to read the talk pages (not to mention Wikipedia:Consensus) has suddenly shown up and made a massive 22,000 character addition to List of American Civil War Generals (Union) and a 307,000 character deletion from List of American Civil War Generals (Confederate), both of which (particularly the latter) drastically change the very nature of both articles. When asked why, the user insisted that her (?) way was "superior" and that she would allow for no discussion on this point from anyone. As another editor of the page, I'm turning to you and a few others to ask assistance in trying to reign in actions that frankly border on vandalism. While some of her changes are more than welcome (additions of photos of Union officers, for example), the wholesale elimination of notations that were being worked on and the changes is format, to say nothing of refusing to discuss it with anyone else - either before or after - are, in my opinion, invasive. May I ask for you to take a look and give your opinion on the matter? IcarusPhoenix (talk) 20:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Top Ten (American TV program) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Top Ten (American TV program), to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Top Ten (American TV program) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:04, 30 May 2022 (UTC)