User talk:Yupthatsitrightthere

January 2023[edit]

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Araújo—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 11:40, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not experimenting, but thanks, unfortunately I'll have to undo the reverted edit you just did, reason posted on the edit's reason. Sources from the quote have been deleted but could be re added if the current version is undone, go back to the edit made prior to the IP, and you'll see that that one is clearly entirely sourced, and correct, of course, meanwhile this IP just decided to erase all sources, and change the data to wrong data. As the reasoning on the edit states, it will stay on the current version until the user who put all sources and correct data, makes a decision to revert it to the edit that they made (the one which was made prior to the ones by the IP, which had correct data and all of it sourced, prior to the edits by the IP who decided to delete such sources and edit the article with incorrect data) or not. Thank you for your understanding, have a good day. Yupthatsitrightthere (talk) 11:50, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Just saw you reverted the edits by the IP, you could ban it if you like, which would certainly help. The current edit is the correct edit, made by the user prior to the IP. But if the IP keeps changing it to unsourced and incorrect data, I'll sustain what I said, since the IP could do the same, again, and again. Thank you. Yupthatsitrightthere (talk) 11:58, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given the fact that you reverted it to the correct one, would you please add a security level to it, so it stays as such, and there's no incorrect changes and deletion of sources? Thank you. Yupthatsitrightthere (talk) 12:00, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do cite inline references with your additions. Otherwise they change sourced information to unsourced information. This triggers instant reverts. Materialscientist (talk) 22:05, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it did have sources for the things that I added. Apart from references, I added bibliography for the quote by the clergy, everything had it's source. You can go back to my edit to check them. Yupthatsitrightthere (talk) 02:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have Confirmed this account to S63caustakenmydude. Therefore, I have blocked this account directly. --Yamla (talk) 00:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below.

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.