User talk:92.71.60.61

March 2022
Hello, I'm Cassiopeia. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Shamil Abdurakhimov, 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.  Cassiopeia  talk  08:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Sergei Pavlovich, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.  Cassiopeia  talk  08:45, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Alexander Volkov (fighter), you may be blocked from editing.  Cassiopeia  talk  08:46, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Andrei Arlovski.  Cassiopeia  talk  08:46, 30 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, pls provide independent, reliable source to support your claim on the above pages. Sources such as from the newspaper and sources can be in any languagues. Cassiopeia  talk  08:47, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Sergei Pavlovich.  Cassiopeia  talk  21:54, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Sergei Pavlovich.  Cassiopeia  talk  21:54, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Shamil Abdurakhimov.  Cassiopeia  talk  21:55, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Andrei Arlovski. <b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:105%;color:#FF8000"> Cassiopeia</b>  talk  22:46, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

<div class="user-block" style="padding: 5px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; border: 1px solid #a9a9a9; background-color: #ffefd5; min-height: 40px"> Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Ad Orientem (talk) 23:12, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

Hello, I'm Dormskirk. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Hargreaves Lansdown, 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. Dormskirk (talk) 12:41, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Categories
Well, no.

Firstly, every redlinked/nonexistent category that people try to add to articles is not always necessarily a category that should exist — people go around adding genuinely stupid, nonsensical or previously deleted categories to articles all the time, so just because somebody added a redlinked category to an article is not automatic grounds for creating that category in and of itself.

Secondly, in order to create a category, I would have to know the subject area well enough to know where in the category tree to file it: I would have to already know what are the other existing categories that this new category needs to be a subcategory of. If I don't, then I have to invest several minutes of research time into figuring that out — but with several hundred redlinked categories to clean up all at once, I don't have the time to spend ten minutes on each individual redlink in the list, because it would take me the entire day to get through the list if I had to do that every time.

And further, one of the rules around categories is that there normally have to be at least five things to file in a category before its creation is justified — categories for just one or two things are normally not desirable or wanted at all. So not only would I have to create the category, I would also have to know and/or find at least three other things to file in it right away, which again is requiring me to put more time into the job than I can spare. (And again, not every category that people want to create always necessarily has five things that can be filed in it, because people try to add articles to redlinked categories, or even create categories, that fit only one thing all the time too, such as "every person with a biographical article automatically gets an eponymous category located at their own name even if nothing else can be added to it at all".)

So I'm sorry, but if you can't create categories, then your workaround is not to go around adding redlinked categories to articles in the hopes of getting somebody else to create them for you — redlinked categories are strictly forbidden on articles, so your only option is to work with categories that exist, and you're not entitled to go around adding nonexistent categories to articles in the hope of making other people create them for you. I will create a redlinked category only if I already know that it's appropriate, warranted and populatable, and if I already know its proper parentage, so that I can get the job done in no more than a few seconds — if I have to spend extended amounts of time investigating even one of those things because I don't already have established prior knowledge of the subject area, then creating the category is simply not my job, and the redlink has to be removed because it can't stay redlinked. Bearcat (talk) 16:12, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd like to add to that. We do have a formal process for requesting new categories, it is to be found at WP:AFCRC. But where several new categories are closely related (like the ones that 92.71.60.61 has been requesting), it's generally better to suggest the creation of these potential new categories at the talk page of a relevant WikiProject. In this way, there be a coordinated discussion for the whole group of suggested new categories. Posting requests for single categories to each of many different pages (whether the parent category talk page, or to individual user talk pages) creates lots of separate little discussions with potentially different outcomes and also runs against WP:MULTI and WP:FORUMSHOP. Discussing at the talk page of the parent category is doomed to fail because category talk pages have very few watchers, usually just one - the person who created the category page. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 12:09, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

November 2023
<div class="user-block uw-block" style="padding: 5px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; border: 1px solid #a9a9a9; background-color: #ffefd5; min-height: 40px"> You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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:. User:Ymblanter (talk) 11:56, 24 November 2023 (UTC) Ymblanter (talk) 11:03, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

January 2024
<div class="user-block uw-block" style="padding: 5px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; border: 1px solid #a9a9a9; background-color: #ffefd5; min-height: 40px"> You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 year for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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:. PhilKnight (talk) 15:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Lol, what a fuking idiot. Doesn't even know who he blocked or why.


 * On review, I have unblocked you. In future, be more careful in who you describe as a vandal. PhilKnight (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

July 2024
This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Flag of the Lesser Poland Voivodeship, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Loyce Labadie I (talk) 10:44, 4 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Dude, fuk off. Look at the page. It's a flag with red, yellow and white.