User talk:Crentonville

August 2023[edit]

Hello, I'm TheManInTheBlackHat. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, James Bowen (author), 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. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 19:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Doreen Mantle, 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) 15:17, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright[edit]

Hello Crentonville! Your additions to James Bowen (author) have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. (To request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.) While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from sources to avoid copyright and plagiarism issues.

You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify the information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
We have strict guidelines on the usage of copyrighted images. Fair use images must meet all ten of the non-free content criteria in order to be used in articles, or they will be deleted. To be used on Wikipedia, all other images must be made available under a free and open copyright license that allows commercial and derivative reuse.
If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. Understand, though, that unlike many other sites, where a person can license their content for use there and retain non-free ownership, that is not possible at Wikipedia. Rather, the release of content must be irrevocable, to the world, into either the public domain (PD) or under a suitably free and compatible copyright license. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you must follow the copyright attribution steps described at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. See also Help:Translation#License requirements.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 01:00, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you readded the copyright violation after I removed it. I've removed it again, please do not re add it, as you risk being blocked from editing. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 04:44, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023 (again)[edit]

Your recent editing history 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.

Stop adding unsourced material to Lucy Letby. Sentence has not yet been handed down. Wait til it is and is reported. DeCausa (talk) 10:20, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics[edit]

You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

SN54129 16:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Letby[edit]

I understand you are a new user, but stop changing the infobox on Lucy Letby to just "victims". The "victims" parameter is used when the person only murdered, assaulted, etc. In this case, she killed 7 and hurt 6. TheXuitts (talk) 20:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023[edit]

Hello, I'm Wham2001. I noticed that you recently removed content from Rose West without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Wham2001 (talk) 19:16, 4 September 2023 (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, as you did at Liz Truss, you may be blocked from editing. Theroadislong (talk) 08:02, 20 September 2023 (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, as you did at Liz Truss, you may be blocked from editing. You have been repeatedly asked to use the talk page and stop edit warring. Theroadislong (talk) 06:50, 21 September 2023 (UTC) Theroadislong (talk) 06:50, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Truss[edit]

Hello. For the time being, could you pause moving around the info in that article, particularly in the "Post-premiership" section. It's all very precariously been decided on here. Not saying that there's anything wrong with your edits, just that there's a current discussion. Thanks, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have now reverted. I ask you again to stop. The FAC could fail if you continue. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:17, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you are talking about. I can only see you are removing my edits and another editor's additions. You say there is nothing wrong with my edits, yet you remove them all entirely? Why? And why totally contradict yourself? Don't just revert the edits of others for no reason. Take it to article the talk page. Crentonville (talk) 16:19, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did not remove the other editor's edits, only yours. Your edits, although I accept that they were made in good faith, also went against the editing notices right at the top of the page. I also advise you to read the FAC and consult WP:RECENTISM. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:21, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to the page's history, you removed double the amount of material compared to what I added, so you did remove another editor's additions. And there was no need for any of the removals at all. Also the phone hacking information has nothing to do with the material you are referring to. You have also prevented me from replying here several times by making new additions. You are the one who definitely needs to stop as it is simply too pathetic for words. Crentonville (talk) 16:30, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"To [sic] pathetic for words" and yet you still try. I am the one who has tried to be amicable here. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same for you. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What utter nonsense!! Please just STOP writing here!! Crentonville (talk) 16:36, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Liz Truss. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:45, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been repeatedly asked to stop and discuss your edits to the Truss article but have refused to do so. You have failed to give reasons for your edits in the edit summary, and judging from the posts above this appears to be you modus operandi. When the block expires, please make better use of the edit summary field and engage in discussion when people disagree with your edits. Edit warring is against site policy and is considered disruptive; if you continue after this block, the next one is likely to be much longer. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:50, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Crentonville, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia, such as Dopenguins (talk · contribs). Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]