User talk:Aneeta Overjob

Welcome!
Hello, Aneeta Overjob, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Your first article
 * Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
 * Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
 * and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place  on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! Adakiko (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

February 2023
Hello, I'm Adakiko. I noticed that in this edit to Pat Tillman, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Adakiko (talk) 11:31, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Poor sourcing
At Austrian passport, you seem to have added "sources" that are 1) a clearly identified copy of Wikipedia material, 2) a spam link to a site that sells illegal passports and 3) A link to a random PDF of what looks like a student paper. I've reverted the entire edit as unhelpful. Please read WP:RS before adding any more references - I can't see how even a cursory review of those links would have led you to believe they were acceptable. Thanks. Sam Kuru (talk) 14:05, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It's unfortunate I failed to notice that. I'll be careful when citing. Aneeta Overjob (talk) 14:29, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You literally added a source and typed out the title as "Exquisite fake Austria passport for sale". I'm not clear how you "failed to notice" that. Your latest addition at Economy of Europe uses "knightsbridgecapitalpartners" which is a company pitch page and should not be used as a source. "dbpedia" is a Wikipedia mirror as they scrape our material and clearly identify the source in multiple places; please note this is the exact same mirror that I removed from your additions earlier. Please be more careful with your additions.Sam Kuru (talk) 21:27, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Third warning: please stop adding references to 'dbpedia', as you did again here. This is a mirror. They copy material directly from Wikipedia and supply a clear notice that they have done so: "This content was extracted from Wikipedia and is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License". Sam Kuru (talk) 12:47, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Third warning: please stop adding references to 'dbpedia', as you did again here. This is a mirror. They copy material directly from Wikipedia and supply a clear notice that they have done so: "This content was extracted from Wikipedia and is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License". Sam Kuru (talk) 12:47, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Changes to John Baird (North West Lanarkshire MP)
Hello! I'm Dl2000. Your recent edit(s) to the page John Baird (North West Lanarkshire MP) appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been reverted for now. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. 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. Thank you. Dl2000 (talk) 14:52, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Blocked
Given the warnings above with no meaningful response, I've disabled this account for 24 hours. You've again used obvious mirrors at Kosiv (loquis), Waterways Experiment Station (liquisearch), Cappadocian Greek (alchetron), History of Phitsanulok Province (sensagent). Also, at Willy Taylor, pelase note 'prabook' is an open-editing scraper and sometime mirror; it's not a WP:RS by any means. I'm really not convinced that you're being careful at all; most of these are very clearly identified as coming from Wikipedia. Please respond to this and outline the steps you will be taking to evaluate your sourcing in the future before making any more edits when your block expires. Sam Kuru (talk) 17:35, 18 February 2023 (UTC) Okay, so just looking at the rest of today's edits:
 * In this edit, you added a source that appears to have absolutely nothing to do with the multiple claims you added it to.
 * This edit introudues another very clear mirror (encyclo), and a source to mylondon that seems to cover a different ship burning.
 * This edit intruces the encyclo mirror again.
 * This is a company pitch blog.
 * This edit add two more mirrors. The first very clearly identifies Wikipedia as the source, the second (nau.edu) credits a defunct Wikipedia mirror as the soruce of the material.
 * In this edit, the first ref sources Wikipedia throughout the page. (in addition to the sensagent mirror previously noted).
 * In this edit, the first source (datawhistory) credits Wikipedia as a source. The 'plexuss' source also clear copies and credits the Wikipedia article.
 * This edit introduces 'whosdatedwho', which is a junk gossip-style blog. Please don't ever use those. There's also a link to a british art studies site that seems to have absolutely nothing to do with the actor.
 * That's just one day. I really need a response on a few of those, especially the failed validations that seem to have absolutely nothing to do with the material. Is there something that's making you rush though this? Sam Kuru (talk) 18:19, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! I have looked at the highlighted concerns and this how I'll address them when doing further editing. The steps will be as shown below.
 * Identify the sources: The first step    in evaluating sourcing is to identify the sources used in the article.     This can be done by reviewing the references section at the end of the     article.
 * Evaluate the reliability of the    sources: Once the sources have been identified, I would evaluate their     reliability. This involves looking at the author of the source, the     publication or organization that produced it, and the date of publication.     I would also consider whether the source is biased or presents a     particular point of view.
 * Check for accuracy: I would then    check the accuracy of the information presented in the article against the     sources. This involves looking at whether the information is consistent     with the sources and whether there are any discrepancies.
 * Check for notability: Another    important factor to consider is whether the subject of the article is     notable. This involves looking at whether there are multiple reliable     sources that discuss the subject and whether the subject has had a     significant impact on its field or society as a whole.
 * Check for neutrality: I would also    evaluate whether the article is written from a neutral point of view. This     involves looking at whether the language is unbiased and whether the     article presents multiple perspectives.
 * Make necessary changes: If there are    issues with the sourcing in the article, I would make the necessary     changes to improve its accuracy, reliability, and neutrality. This may     involve adding new sources, removing unreliable sources, or rewording     sections of the article.
 * Review and refine: Finally, I would    review and refine the article to ensure that it meets Wikipedia's     guidelines and policies. This may involve consulting with other editors,     responding to feedback, and making additional revisions.
 * This will be as per WP:RS. Aneeta Overjob (talk) 07:19, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

February 2023
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to North Down (Northern Ireland Parliament constituency), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Dl2000 (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Allan Wade, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use your sandbox. Thank you. Dl2000 (talk) 23:06, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at 1925 Forest of Dean by-election, you may be blocked from editing. Dl2000 (talk) 00:05, 25 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Given the warnings above and the very clearly identified mirror here, I've disabled this account until you can post something convincing about your attention to detail. The list in the section above does not suffice, and clearly did not help. If you're adding sources minutes apart, you're clearly not attempting to evaluate them. Sam Kuru (talk) 00:31, 25 February 2023 (UTC)