User talk:SBD091
Welcome[edit]
Hello SBD091 and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your contributions do not conform to our policies. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox (but beware that the contents of the sandbox are deleted frequently) rather than in articles.
If you still have questions, there is a Help desk, or you can to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing?
I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! VVikingTalkEdits 13:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello, SBD091,
Why did you empty out this category, "out of process"? If you believe it should be deleted, please propose deletion at Categories for Discussion. If you have questions about this, please bring them to the Teahouse. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 18:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
August 2023[edit]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Kara-Khanid Khanate. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. R Prazeres (talk) 09:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Disruptive editing[edit]
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did on numerous recent articles. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello, SBD091,
Draftification is only appropriate for recently created articles. Please do not draftify older articles, meaning articles that were created more than 3-6 months ago. You realy don't have enough editing experience to make good decisions for when draftification is appropriate.
If you have questions about editing on Wikipedia, please bring them to the Teahouse. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 01:23, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Please review draftification policy[edit]
Hi SBD091, I see you've moved the article Zhao Mao to Draft:Zhao Mao in this edit. As stated in the section immediately above this one, moving articles older than 90 days to draftspace is not compliant with Wikipedia policy. The relevant guidance is WP:ATD-I, which states Older articles—as a rule of thumb those older than 90 days—should not be draftified without prior consensus at AfD or another appropriate venue.
The "other appropriate venue" bit is currently disputed, but that some consensus is required, rather than just the perspective of a singular reviewer, is not contested.
I think we can all agree that the article currently at Draft:Zhao Mao is not great, but the policy compliant options are to improve it, tag it for improvement, or bring it to AfD (where it will be met with editors opining that "AfD is not cleanup").
You don't seem to have the New Page Patroller or AfC reviewer permissions, so I'm not sure why you have access to a draftification script, but you should really familiarise yourself with policy and ask for help at WP:AfC or WP:NPP before taking the kind of actions you are taking. Folly Mox (talk) 01:58, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
- I have reverted this draftification, as it was extremely inappropriate. Not only was the article beyond the 90 day window, but it was already reviewed through WP:NPP. I would also note that you did this draftification a day after the message from Liz above. Please respond to this in acknowledgement so we know you are WP:LISTENing. Curbon7 (talk) 01:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
- For the same reasons, I have also reverted your draftifications of Zhao Yong (general), Hu Mei (Ming dynasty), and Ding Yu (Ming dynasty), the latter of which was also conducted after Liz's message above. Curbon7 (talk) 01:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Blocked as a sockpuppet[edit]
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.