Hello, Edgenut, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay.
<ref> {{cite web | .... }}</ref>
, copy the whole thing).==References== {{Reflist}}
I'll give you 24 hours to fix these bad edits, or I'll revert the lot. Johnbod ( talk) 17:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the infobox change but:
Merytat3n ( talk) 00:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Some comments on your recent edits to the family of Cato the Elder: it's generally a bad idea to delete the nomina of figures from Roman history. While it's common to give someone's full name once, and then refer to him by cognomen for short, and while some historical writing simply omits everything but the cognomen, it's more helpful to readers if they can see the full name, at least on its first occurrence in an article. Deleting nomina leaves the reader without useful context.
You might also want to look up the essay on "disinfoboxes" or "disinformation boxes". It's not necessary for all biographical articles to have an infobox. This is especially the case for very short articles that contain all of the information that would go in an infobox in the span of three or four paragraphs, or sometimes just in the lead. If the infobox is simply repeating what the reader would find by skimming the article, or perhaps just the lead, then it serves no useful purpose, and becomes mere ornamentation that pretends to be something of value to the reader.
There are some repetitive items that likewise do little to help readers. While some editors like to use the "circa" template, the meaning of "circa" in a set of dates isn't likely to be confusing, and little is lost if it's not there. If it is there, it doesn't need to be repeated throughout an article that gives approximate dates on multiple occasions. Similarly, unless someone lived in the late first century BC or early first century, it's not helpful to keep repeating "BC" or "AD" every few lines. In a short article that clearly places a person in say, the second century BC, you may assume that the reader will understand most or all other dates to be BC unless otherwise indicated. My rule of thumb is usually to give the era no more than once per paragraph, unless there's a reason why omitting it would be confusing (for instance, referring to something that happened in a later era). And in some cases, it isn't even necessary to do it in every paragraph.
I'm going to assume good faith, and that you're going to learn this stuff on your own as you go along. It would take too long to go through all of your edits looking for things to correct. As long as you're aware of stuff like this going forward, I'm sure you can become a good contributor to WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. P Aculeius ( talk) 03:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Flag icons should not be used in infoboxes.
MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. The mass addition of some imaginary Roman empire flag is not consistent with Roman custom. Nor should imaginary death locations such as Italia, Roman Republic
be added. These are both anachronisms.
Ifly6 (
talk) 23:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Romeas the location of death. As with everything else, if you want to assert that someone died in
Rome, you must have a source saying where that person died. Italia doesn't exist for most of this period; Roman Republic is a form of government and not a territorial state. Ifly6 ( talk) 00:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Again, re keep the banners since they look cool. MOS:INFOBOXFLAG—
Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they could be unnecessarily distracting and might give undue prominence to one field among many. Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text. Flag icons lead to unnecessary disputes when over-used. A number of common infoboxes (e.g., Template:Infobox company, Template:Infobox film, Template:Infobox person, Template:Infobox football biography, Template:Infobox weapon) have explicitly deprecated the use of flag icons.
Ifly6 ( talk) 02:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
After removing all unsourced material, this infobox now contains exactly two things: a probably-false statement that he served in 51 BC – these are not modern soldiers with tours of duty; they are warrior-aristocrats that would have "served" their whole lives – and a single mention of a battle he was at. Ifly6 ( talk) 00:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The only time we are aware he fought was in 51 BC but it is more than likely he engaged in undocumented fighting elsewhere due to his social position in Gallic society of the timeas a Battle record. We can make battle records for men like Caesar or Alexander because of how well-documented their lives are. These obscure figures do not enjoy such memories. Ifly6 ( talk) 00:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
You must provide an actual source for your birth and death years. I had reverted one of your edits incorrectly because Brills' New Pauly actually gave a real birth year, which Caeciliusinhorto noticed. That is my error and I must own it. But many of these birth and death years you are rapidly putting into Wikipedia are not only unsourced, but obviously erroneous or imputed. Just because a person was last mentioned in 42 does not mean you can just assume they died shortly thereafter. Just because someone might not be continued to be attested after 46 BC does not mean you can just assume he died the next year, especially when there is a modern source that conjecturally identifies him with another name in the literary sources that postdates your imputed death date! Some of your imputed birth dates are fantastically erroneous – Hortensia and C Claudius Glaber – and defy biology or known Roman legal realities. You must provide a reliable source as to when these people were born or died. Making up years is not enough. Ifly6 ( talk) 00:31, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Do not use articles from Wikipedia (whether English Wikipedia or Wikipedias in other languages) as sources, since Wikipedia is a user-generated source ... Content from a Wikipedia article is not considered reliable unless it is backed up by citing reliable sources. Confirm that these sources support the content, then use them directly.WP:CIRCULAR. Ifly6 ( talk) 00:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Second, the death date of an obscure ancient monarch is absolute not something which is
common knowledge. I can look out my window and see the sky. I cannot look out my window and see the death date of Hiempsal II. You need a source. Ifly6 ( talk) 01:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
MOS:CIRCA says that a non-breaking space should be used between c. and some date. The template {{ circa}} does this automatically for parameters. Please stop un-parameterising years by moving them out of the parameter passed to {{ circa}}. Ifly6 ( talk) 02:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi, you are discussed here: WP:AN#Invented_dates_of_birth_and_death_by_Edgenut. Sandstein 13:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Bishonen |
tålk 13:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Edgenut ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
You should not add astimated birth and death years to a person who is missing them without a source. This counts as original research wich is not allowed. Being allowed to add info without sources means that people could intentional information. This would defeat the purpose of wikipedia in a way. For these reasons, I will no longer add estimated birth and death years without sources. I will also continue to go back and remove the unsourced years that I added previously.
Decline reason:
See TPA removal below. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 05:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
In my view, because of the WP:CIR issues evident from the discussions above, we cannot trust Edgenut to reliably contribute to Wikipedia, and this unblock request should be declined. See also the AN discussion linked to above. Sandstein 09:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
If I am unblocked, I will not edit biographical articles of beople who have died before the Fall of Rome in 476. Edgenut ( talk) 00:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
[it] sounds a lot better. Wikipedia reflects the reliable sources, not personal preferences. Other reversions that threatened to become edit wars [1] included your reverting ( again) my manual revert of your capitalising Caesar's Civil War contrary to MOS:CAPS. If unblocking you means you will mass revert reversions which I made consistent with Wikipedia policies, guidelines, etc, I must dissent. Ifly6 ( talk) 21:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
I will stop adding unsourced information because I understand WP:VERand I will stop adding unsourced information in this article because someone objected in this instance. Nobody has the time to follow anyone else around double-checking everything they do, which is what the latter implies. For example, I objected to an infobox because it is of no value; your edit summary Ifly6 doesen't like the infobox ignores that reasoning and transforms it a seemingly baseless one-time personalist objection. It implies you did not understand the objection's substance. Nor are arguments such as StarTrekker has been here since 2017 (nb my account was created in 2009) or That's a question for PubliusPretoria at all meaningful: the former implies you consider my objection a matter of rank rather than reason; the latter is merely an elision of responsibility. None of these edit comments evince understanding of WP:VER. Ifly6 ( talk) 22:11, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
blaming a different editor is a complete nonsequitur especially when that editor didn't add the unsourced material – justify your 70 BC birth date and cite sources(my edit summary).
References
How is this image anachronistic? It looks more accurate than this image which has everyone in 1500s chothing. Edgenut ( talk) 17:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
sometimes I will use sources, which regardless doesn't answer my question, which is about what kind of sources you intend to use. Ifly6 ( talk) 02:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
modern geographers reject the idea of a Balkan Peninsula, while historical scholars usually discuss the Balkans as a region). The regions given were consistent with standard transliteration of the Latin equivalents and are the divisions used in Goldsworthy Caesar (2006) chs 18–21. Reversion doesn't seem at all controversial to me and I am unsure as to why those additions could be defensible. Ifly6 ( talk) 18:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Ifly6 reverted my edit to Cynane, falsely claiming I added a "fictitious birth and/or death year", despite the fact that I didn't add any new dates, as can be seen here. The birth date even has a source! Even if we play devils advocate and assume the dates which were added previously were fictional, they are still present on the page. At best, this could have been a mistake, and at worst, a form of vandalism. Edgenut ( talk) 16:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Edgenut ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Dates of military service should only be put if their full service time is known. Adding a single date can be misleading to the reader.
Flags in person infoboxes are bad since they are a distraction for the reader, therefore not being encyclopedic.
Names should be spelt how they are in the title of the article.
Caesar's civil war instead of Caesar's Civil War. Also the
Battle of Nicopolis (48 BC) instead of the First Battle of Nicopolis.
Notes:
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=You should not add astimated birth and death years to a person who is missing them without a source. This counts as [[Wikipedia:No original research|original research]] wich is not allowed. Being allowed to add info without sources means that people could intentionally add false information. This would defeat the purpose of wikipedia in a way.<br>
Dates of military service should only be put if their full service time is known. Adding a single date can be misleading to the reader.<br>
Flags in person infoboxes are bad since they are a distraction for the reader, therefore not being encyclopedic.<br>
Names should be spelt how they are in the title of the article. [[Caesar's civil war]] instead of Caesar's Civil War. Also the [[Battle of Nicopolis (48 BC)]] instead of the First Battle of Nicopolis.<br>
I will not add birth and/or date esitmates without a source. Secondly, I wont add flags to the person infoboxes. Thirdly, I will only spell names of things based on how they are spelled in the title of the article. In the future, I will make contributions like the ones I made on the [[Antrea Net]], [[Abishemu obelisk|Abishemu Obelisk]], [[Complaint tablet to Ea-nāṣir|Complaint tablet to Ea-nasir]], and [[Cornelia Metella]]. |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}}
with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a
default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=You should not add astimated birth and death years to a person who is missing them without a source. This counts as [[Wikipedia:No original research|original research]] wich is not allowed. Being allowed to add info without sources means that people could intentionally add false information. This would defeat the purpose of wikipedia in a way.<br>
Dates of military service should only be put if their full service time is known. Adding a single date can be misleading to the reader.<br>
Flags in person infoboxes are bad since they are a distraction for the reader, therefore not being encyclopedic.<br>
Names should be spelt how they are in the title of the article. [[Caesar's civil war]] instead of Caesar's Civil War. Also the [[Battle of Nicopolis (48 BC)]] instead of the First Battle of Nicopolis.<br>
I will not add birth and/or date esitmates without a source. Secondly, I wont add flags to the person infoboxes. Thirdly, I will only spell names of things based on how they are spelled in the title of the article. In the future, I will make contributions like the ones I made on the [[Antrea Net]], [[Abishemu obelisk|Abishemu Obelisk]], [[Complaint tablet to Ea-nāṣir|Complaint tablet to Ea-nasir]], and [[Cornelia Metella]]. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here
with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=You should not add astimated birth and death years to a person who is missing them without a source. This counts as [[Wikipedia:No original research|original research]] wich is not allowed. Being allowed to add info without sources means that people could intentionally add false information. This would defeat the purpose of wikipedia in a way.<br>
Dates of military service should only be put if their full service time is known. Adding a single date can be misleading to the reader.<br>
Flags in person infoboxes are bad since they are a distraction for the reader, therefore not being encyclopedic.<br>
Names should be spelt how they are in the title of the article. [[Caesar's civil war]] instead of Caesar's Civil War. Also the [[Battle of Nicopolis (48 BC)]] instead of the First Battle of Nicopolis.<br>
I will not add birth and/or date esitmates without a source. Secondly, I wont add flags to the person infoboxes. Thirdly, I will only spell names of things based on how they are spelled in the title of the article. In the future, I will make contributions like the ones I made on the [[Antrea Net]], [[Abishemu obelisk|Abishemu Obelisk]], [[Complaint tablet to Ea-nāṣir|Complaint tablet to Ea-nasir]], and [[Cornelia Metella]]. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
Hello, Edgenut, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay.
<ref> {{cite web | .... }}</ref>
, copy the whole thing).==References== {{Reflist}}
I'll give you 24 hours to fix these bad edits, or I'll revert the lot. Johnbod ( talk) 17:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the infobox change but:
Merytat3n ( talk) 00:31, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Some comments on your recent edits to the family of Cato the Elder: it's generally a bad idea to delete the nomina of figures from Roman history. While it's common to give someone's full name once, and then refer to him by cognomen for short, and while some historical writing simply omits everything but the cognomen, it's more helpful to readers if they can see the full name, at least on its first occurrence in an article. Deleting nomina leaves the reader without useful context.
You might also want to look up the essay on "disinfoboxes" or "disinformation boxes". It's not necessary for all biographical articles to have an infobox. This is especially the case for very short articles that contain all of the information that would go in an infobox in the span of three or four paragraphs, or sometimes just in the lead. If the infobox is simply repeating what the reader would find by skimming the article, or perhaps just the lead, then it serves no useful purpose, and becomes mere ornamentation that pretends to be something of value to the reader.
There are some repetitive items that likewise do little to help readers. While some editors like to use the "circa" template, the meaning of "circa" in a set of dates isn't likely to be confusing, and little is lost if it's not there. If it is there, it doesn't need to be repeated throughout an article that gives approximate dates on multiple occasions. Similarly, unless someone lived in the late first century BC or early first century, it's not helpful to keep repeating "BC" or "AD" every few lines. In a short article that clearly places a person in say, the second century BC, you may assume that the reader will understand most or all other dates to be BC unless otherwise indicated. My rule of thumb is usually to give the era no more than once per paragraph, unless there's a reason why omitting it would be confusing (for instance, referring to something that happened in a later era). And in some cases, it isn't even necessary to do it in every paragraph.
I'm going to assume good faith, and that you're going to learn this stuff on your own as you go along. It would take too long to go through all of your edits looking for things to correct. As long as you're aware of stuff like this going forward, I'm sure you can become a good contributor to WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. P Aculeius ( talk) 03:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Flag icons should not be used in infoboxes.
MOS:INFOBOXFLAG. The mass addition of some imaginary Roman empire flag is not consistent with Roman custom. Nor should imaginary death locations such as Italia, Roman Republic
be added. These are both anachronisms.
Ifly6 (
talk) 23:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Romeas the location of death. As with everything else, if you want to assert that someone died in
Rome, you must have a source saying where that person died. Italia doesn't exist for most of this period; Roman Republic is a form of government and not a territorial state. Ifly6 ( talk) 00:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Again, re keep the banners since they look cool. MOS:INFOBOXFLAG—
Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they could be unnecessarily distracting and might give undue prominence to one field among many. Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text. Flag icons lead to unnecessary disputes when over-used. A number of common infoboxes (e.g., Template:Infobox company, Template:Infobox film, Template:Infobox person, Template:Infobox football biography, Template:Infobox weapon) have explicitly deprecated the use of flag icons.
Ifly6 ( talk) 02:21, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
After removing all unsourced material, this infobox now contains exactly two things: a probably-false statement that he served in 51 BC – these are not modern soldiers with tours of duty; they are warrior-aristocrats that would have "served" their whole lives – and a single mention of a battle he was at. Ifly6 ( talk) 00:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The only time we are aware he fought was in 51 BC but it is more than likely he engaged in undocumented fighting elsewhere due to his social position in Gallic society of the timeas a Battle record. We can make battle records for men like Caesar or Alexander because of how well-documented their lives are. These obscure figures do not enjoy such memories. Ifly6 ( talk) 00:43, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
You must provide an actual source for your birth and death years. I had reverted one of your edits incorrectly because Brills' New Pauly actually gave a real birth year, which Caeciliusinhorto noticed. That is my error and I must own it. But many of these birth and death years you are rapidly putting into Wikipedia are not only unsourced, but obviously erroneous or imputed. Just because a person was last mentioned in 42 does not mean you can just assume they died shortly thereafter. Just because someone might not be continued to be attested after 46 BC does not mean you can just assume he died the next year, especially when there is a modern source that conjecturally identifies him with another name in the literary sources that postdates your imputed death date! Some of your imputed birth dates are fantastically erroneous – Hortensia and C Claudius Glaber – and defy biology or known Roman legal realities. You must provide a reliable source as to when these people were born or died. Making up years is not enough. Ifly6 ( talk) 00:31, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Do not use articles from Wikipedia (whether English Wikipedia or Wikipedias in other languages) as sources, since Wikipedia is a user-generated source ... Content from a Wikipedia article is not considered reliable unless it is backed up by citing reliable sources. Confirm that these sources support the content, then use them directly.WP:CIRCULAR. Ifly6 ( talk) 00:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Second, the death date of an obscure ancient monarch is absolute not something which is
common knowledge. I can look out my window and see the sky. I cannot look out my window and see the death date of Hiempsal II. You need a source. Ifly6 ( talk) 01:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
MOS:CIRCA says that a non-breaking space should be used between c. and some date. The template {{ circa}} does this automatically for parameters. Please stop un-parameterising years by moving them out of the parameter passed to {{ circa}}. Ifly6 ( talk) 02:22, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi, you are discussed here: WP:AN#Invented_dates_of_birth_and_death_by_Edgenut. Sandstein 13:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Bishonen |
tålk 13:44, 27 February 2024 (UTC)Edgenut ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
You should not add astimated birth and death years to a person who is missing them without a source. This counts as original research wich is not allowed. Being allowed to add info without sources means that people could intentional information. This would defeat the purpose of wikipedia in a way. For these reasons, I will no longer add estimated birth and death years without sources. I will also continue to go back and remove the unsourced years that I added previously.
Decline reason:
See TPA removal below. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 05:01, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
In my view, because of the WP:CIR issues evident from the discussions above, we cannot trust Edgenut to reliably contribute to Wikipedia, and this unblock request should be declined. See also the AN discussion linked to above. Sandstein 09:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
If I am unblocked, I will not edit biographical articles of beople who have died before the Fall of Rome in 476. Edgenut ( talk) 00:08, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
[it] sounds a lot better. Wikipedia reflects the reliable sources, not personal preferences. Other reversions that threatened to become edit wars [1] included your reverting ( again) my manual revert of your capitalising Caesar's Civil War contrary to MOS:CAPS. If unblocking you means you will mass revert reversions which I made consistent with Wikipedia policies, guidelines, etc, I must dissent. Ifly6 ( talk) 21:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
I will stop adding unsourced information because I understand WP:VERand I will stop adding unsourced information in this article because someone objected in this instance. Nobody has the time to follow anyone else around double-checking everything they do, which is what the latter implies. For example, I objected to an infobox because it is of no value; your edit summary Ifly6 doesen't like the infobox ignores that reasoning and transforms it a seemingly baseless one-time personalist objection. It implies you did not understand the objection's substance. Nor are arguments such as StarTrekker has been here since 2017 (nb my account was created in 2009) or That's a question for PubliusPretoria at all meaningful: the former implies you consider my objection a matter of rank rather than reason; the latter is merely an elision of responsibility. None of these edit comments evince understanding of WP:VER. Ifly6 ( talk) 22:11, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
blaming a different editor is a complete nonsequitur especially when that editor didn't add the unsourced material – justify your 70 BC birth date and cite sources(my edit summary).
References
How is this image anachronistic? It looks more accurate than this image which has everyone in 1500s chothing. Edgenut ( talk) 17:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
sometimes I will use sources, which regardless doesn't answer my question, which is about what kind of sources you intend to use. Ifly6 ( talk) 02:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
modern geographers reject the idea of a Balkan Peninsula, while historical scholars usually discuss the Balkans as a region). The regions given were consistent with standard transliteration of the Latin equivalents and are the divisions used in Goldsworthy Caesar (2006) chs 18–21. Reversion doesn't seem at all controversial to me and I am unsure as to why those additions could be defensible. Ifly6 ( talk) 18:54, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Ifly6 reverted my edit to Cynane, falsely claiming I added a "fictitious birth and/or death year", despite the fact that I didn't add any new dates, as can be seen here. The birth date even has a source! Even if we play devils advocate and assume the dates which were added previously were fictional, they are still present on the page. At best, this could have been a mistake, and at worst, a form of vandalism. Edgenut ( talk) 16:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Edgenut ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Dates of military service should only be put if their full service time is known. Adding a single date can be misleading to the reader.
Flags in person infoboxes are bad since they are a distraction for the reader, therefore not being encyclopedic.
Names should be spelt how they are in the title of the article.
Caesar's civil war instead of Caesar's Civil War. Also the
Battle of Nicopolis (48 BC) instead of the First Battle of Nicopolis.
Notes:
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=You should not add astimated birth and death years to a person who is missing them without a source. This counts as [[Wikipedia:No original research|original research]] wich is not allowed. Being allowed to add info without sources means that people could intentionally add false information. This would defeat the purpose of wikipedia in a way.<br>
Dates of military service should only be put if their full service time is known. Adding a single date can be misleading to the reader.<br>
Flags in person infoboxes are bad since they are a distraction for the reader, therefore not being encyclopedic.<br>
Names should be spelt how they are in the title of the article. [[Caesar's civil war]] instead of Caesar's Civil War. Also the [[Battle of Nicopolis (48 BC)]] instead of the First Battle of Nicopolis.<br>
I will not add birth and/or date esitmates without a source. Secondly, I wont add flags to the person infoboxes. Thirdly, I will only spell names of things based on how they are spelled in the title of the article. In the future, I will make contributions like the ones I made on the [[Antrea Net]], [[Abishemu obelisk|Abishemu Obelisk]], [[Complaint tablet to Ea-nāṣir|Complaint tablet to Ea-nasir]], and [[Cornelia Metella]]. |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}}
with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a
default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=You should not add astimated birth and death years to a person who is missing them without a source. This counts as [[Wikipedia:No original research|original research]] wich is not allowed. Being allowed to add info without sources means that people could intentionally add false information. This would defeat the purpose of wikipedia in a way.<br>
Dates of military service should only be put if their full service time is known. Adding a single date can be misleading to the reader.<br>
Flags in person infoboxes are bad since they are a distraction for the reader, therefore not being encyclopedic.<br>
Names should be spelt how they are in the title of the article. [[Caesar's civil war]] instead of Caesar's Civil War. Also the [[Battle of Nicopolis (48 BC)]] instead of the First Battle of Nicopolis.<br>
I will not add birth and/or date esitmates without a source. Secondly, I wont add flags to the person infoboxes. Thirdly, I will only spell names of things based on how they are spelled in the title of the article. In the future, I will make contributions like the ones I made on the [[Antrea Net]], [[Abishemu obelisk|Abishemu Obelisk]], [[Complaint tablet to Ea-nāṣir|Complaint tablet to Ea-nasir]], and [[Cornelia Metella]]. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here
with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=You should not add astimated birth and death years to a person who is missing them without a source. This counts as [[Wikipedia:No original research|original research]] wich is not allowed. Being allowed to add info without sources means that people could intentionally add false information. This would defeat the purpose of wikipedia in a way.<br>
Dates of military service should only be put if their full service time is known. Adding a single date can be misleading to the reader.<br>
Flags in person infoboxes are bad since they are a distraction for the reader, therefore not being encyclopedic.<br>
Names should be spelt how they are in the title of the article. [[Caesar's civil war]] instead of Caesar's Civil War. Also the [[Battle of Nicopolis (48 BC)]] instead of the First Battle of Nicopolis.<br>
I will not add birth and/or date esitmates without a source. Secondly, I wont add flags to the person infoboxes. Thirdly, I will only spell names of things based on how they are spelled in the title of the article. In the future, I will make contributions like the ones I made on the [[Antrea Net]], [[Abishemu obelisk|Abishemu Obelisk]], [[Complaint tablet to Ea-nāṣir|Complaint tablet to Ea-nasir]], and [[Cornelia Metella]]. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}