When the report was accessed it was accessed through ProQuest. You are more than welcome to add an ID, but it is not required. The empty ProQuest ID templates throw an error that causes further cleanup edits behind you to fix. --GuerilleroParlez Moi20:01, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. A few points: 1. If an editor says the citation is "via ProQuest" they should provide the ProQuest data that will verify where the ProQuest citation can be found. (1.a. How do we encourage editors to actually verify such data?) 2. When the "id=" is in the citation, nothing shows up in the article reference listing because there is no actual data in the listing portion of the "id=" parameter. 3. Example: I just now added "|id={{ProQuest|via=<!-- add ProQuest data here --> }}" toOlive Smithells. I do not see any error message or any listing in the hidden categories. 4. In the particular case that you reverted, I think the error message was generated by a different item in the multiple edits you reverted. 5. Egad! I hope my understanding of what I did is correct. –S. Rich (talk)22:09, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've also raised this issue with you before, and you really need to stop changing these citations to your preferred version. The template documentation forcite news in thetemplate data section for the via parameter, clearly gives examples of accepted usage,ExampleEBSCOHost,Proquest,Newspapers.com. This has been brought to your attention beforeas seen here, and over the objections of several editors now, you continue changing them, when it's clear you don't have consensus to keep on changing them, soplease stop, as continuing this editing behavior could be potentially seen as disruptive. Additionally, when you needlessly changed oneas seen here, you didn't even bother to check if there was an online version of that source,which I easily found.Isaidnoway(talk)07:37, 13 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I've recently reverted changes you made toMay 16 - specifically where you replaced the – character(s) with an actual en dash. Please notice thatWP:DOYSTYLE mandates the use of –. I can see that you are usingWP:AutoEd - I haven't used this myself, but if you can ensure that it does not make these changes automatically, that would be appreciated. Thanks,Kiwipete (talk)03:13, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Kiwipete: I'm unclear on this. As you point out, DOY:STYLE says we should use a – (ndash). But it only gives us the actual " – " as the example. It does not give us "&ndash" as an example. Nor do we see " & ndash; " In my editing I go to the "Wiki markup" tool at the bottom of the editing screen. By clicking the endash character I get a the " – " character. An then I can add spaces before & after the –. (I do not know how or where to insert or use " – ".) But we also have {{snd}}, which produces " – ". I think the objective is to get ndashes in the markup for reader clarity. Seems that either method is good editing. –S. Rich (talk)18:07, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Srich32977 - I've edited the particular statement inWP:DOYSTYLE that I think you're referring to. The requirement should now be clear to use "&ndash" rather than any wiki markup. If you want to discuss this further, it might be better to do so at theDOY project talk page so that other project members can contribute. Thanks,Kiwipete (talk)22:55, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for improving article quality in July! - Three Ukrainian topics were on the main page today, at least at the beginning,RD andDYK, - see my talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk)19:01, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please refrain from "cleaning unnecessary hyphens from ISBNs" going forward? There's no consensus for you or any gnome to be doing that—in fact, there's an explicit consensus to refrain from going out of one's way to fiddle with ISBN hyphenation in general iirc—and believe it or not, breaking up a string of numbers into smaller groups, each a few digits each long, has a clear positive benefit one can ascribe.Remsense 🌈 论16:46, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Those were just the ones that I could find. I expect that there are more. Do you have an explanation for your return to this objectionable behavior? –Jonesey95 (talk)17:56, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonesey95: The edit you link was done to give usconsistency (seeWP:GOCE) in ISBN presentations. Same objective applies to most of the other ISBN edits. And as most readers look at WP via computer, it doesn't matter to them if the ISBNs are hyphenated. If they want more info on a book they click the ISBN number (hyphenated or not) and arrive at the proper Book Sources page. Regarding book dates, while WP citation templates allow for days and months in book citations, it is very rare in actual book citations to find that the month and/or date of publication is important. Book copyrights are posted in a year-only format. (Look at your own actual books and at Library of Congress Catalog Card Category Numbers (LCCN's). That is what you will find.) –S. Rich (talk)19:36, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind. I see that you have answered the above question withyour contributions immediately following the above posting.I have started an ANI thread about this behavior, which I would not have done if you had either stopped this objectionable editing or listened to any of the editors who have taken the trouble to visit your talk page with friendly requests about this issue over the past ten years. –Jonesey95 (talk)22:55, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have beenblockedindefinitely from editing certainnamespaces ((Article)) for continuing to make ISBN format changes on pages despite multiple editors raising concerns, cautions not to do so, and an open ANI thread on the subject. Seeking consensus on talk pages for these changes is good, but brushing off the ANI and continuing to make these changes actively is not. This is at the point ofdisruptive editing, and accordingly you have received this pblock until you engage, understand, and accept that this is the case. Please actually engage at the ANI thread.
*@The Bushranger: In the screen just above we receive two different courses of action for overcoming the block. One says "Please actually engage at the ANI thread." The other one says "...add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: ... " Seems the COA's overlap, and I'm trying to do both. –S. Rich (talk)18:20, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "different courses of action for overcoming the block". You needed to engage at the ANI thread instead of just brushing it off as your original response there clearly did. That is only part of the block reason. Once the community is assured that you will stop your disruptive behavior, an appeal here to have the block removed, assuming it wasn't already removed due to that assurance at ANI, would be appropriate. But your comments there and here make it clear that no such assurance is coming, it seems. -The BushrangerOne ping only18:57, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by anadministrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see theblocking policy).
Eight comments are listed by Jonesey95 over a 8 year period. Here is my review and summary: * December 2016 – RL0919 says don't remove hyphens. I respond with an explanation. RL0919 seems satisfied as no further comment is given. * January 2019 – Kdammers comments about changes involving page ranges and ndashes. Jonesey95 joins in and adds a comment about ISBN hyphens. Only 1 example that Jonesy95 posts involved ISBN hyphens. And that example produced a consistent scheme of hyphens. E.g., I both added and subtracted hyphens. * March 2019 – Dr Kay blocks for disruptive editing involving spaces in names and initials. Rationale by Dr Kay did not involve ISBNs. Block was removed by another admin. * January 2020 – Jonesey95 complains about typos I had made. * November 2020 – Nihiltres pointed out a typo. A = sign was added to an ISBN instead of a hyphen. * November 2022 – Dudley Miles says he prefers hyphens in the ISBNs. Dudley does not say the edits were disruptive. Sturmvogel 66 kicks in and then is content with my explanation. * June 2023 – A complex discussion about ISBNs. (As usual we do not get actual guidance on how to use ISBNs in citations – do they get hyphens or not?) * November 2024 – I get blocked by DMacks for re-reverting an edit. The rationale given by DMacks was based on a 2023 RFC that had closed withno consensus. What we really need is clearer guidance aboutWP:CITEVAR. Something that tells us what "established citation style" means. –S. Rich (talk)18:19, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Decline reason:
An unblock from article space isn't necessary to achieve consensus on a particular style to use for ISBN. In addition I see no commitment to stop changing ISBNs in articles or any attempt to address the concerns of other editors.CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human),Uqaqtuq (talk),Huliva23:27, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, pleaseread theguide 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.
Again, of the 8 notes posted by Jonesey95 I think we have aConflation. That is, the comments are listed as if theWP Community is upset about my ISBN-hyphen edits. This is not the case. If we pare down the list to the actual ISBN concerns we have Jonesey95 as the "leader of the (very small) pack". Also, I've received some BarnStars for my editing efforts. Those ought to be counted to off-set the 8 listed transgressions. But to resolve this I will do the following: 1. Confine the ISBN edits to FA and FA-releated articles only. (There are only 7,000 articles to look at.) 2. I will only add hyphens to the ISBNs. (No subtractions.) 3. When I see a mix of ISBN-hyphens I will simply post a note on the article talk page and make my recommendation. 4. Edits which change the ISBN-hyphenation will be marked asWP:MINOR. 5. I'll keep track of the littleWP:THANKS related to the ISBN edits. (I don't I'll find any – my search for them for the past two months came up empty.) So, am I good to go? Thanks. –S. Rich (talk)22:53, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just so we are clear, based on my understanding of your unblock request here and your replies on ANI:
With 315,000 edits I concede/agree/confess that some of my edits were incorrect. ButWP:DISRUPTIVE is the actual guideline we follow. It is easy for an editor to say "your edits are disruptive", but the guideline says "Each case should be treated independently, taking into consideration whether or not the actions violate policies and guidelines." (AND cases should be supported by "diffs" that pin-point the actual, exact edits that were "disruptive". Accordingly, I do not think my editing meets the "disruptive" guideline. Each ISBN-hyphenation edit was done to provide consistency. So, with the restrictions that I propose I want to renew my effort to improve WP. Those edits will comply with the 5 parameters I list above. –S. Rich (talk)03:49, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What a remarkable observation! Basically it says "speaking for the WP Community, I say your edits and comments are disruptive; therefore, you should be blocked." But you do not post anyH:DIFFs thatactually showWP:DISRUPTIVE edits. Also, forget about theBarnstars and 1,336 Thanks that you've received over the years – they do not overcome the 8 UserTalkPage comments which show how Community hates/loves you. –S. Rich (talk)03:20, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CambridgeBayWeather:Hello. We actually have two threads of discussion on my status. This one (above) and a more extensive threadhere at the ANI As the points and counter-points overlap I've been unclear on how to respond. I think somewhere I said I'd limit my ISBN-hyphen fixes to Featured Articles only, and post ISBN-hyphen-correction notes on the FA talk page. (In fact I've actually done that.) But I can't find that promise. And then The Bushranger (blocking admin) said "the edits themselves aren't a problem...". It's the way I've responded that Bushranger and other editors don't like. So I've got 8 complaints posted by Jonesey95. On 2 of them we can track my particular edits and see that they were typos. But there are no diffs which show that my comments were disruptive! So please unblockme and I will follow these personal rules: 1. Don't touch and articles edited by the editors listed in the 8 complaints. 2. Confine my ISBN edits to FA articles now and GA articles later. 3. Use theTemplate:Format ISBN on the ISBNs that really do need fixing. (I'll post a reminder notice/banner over my computer.) Thank you for your review and I'm sorry that we have the overlapping appeals. –S. Rich (talk) 00:20, 7 August 2025 (UTC). Added comment – Oh, I see I really did propose some editing restrictions earlier. –S. Rich (talk)00:24, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reading both threads! You say "...stop all ISBN edits". Wonderful, that implies that you'll reinstate me. Still, I know there are articles with ISBNs with redChecksum postings. (The ISBNs themselves are blue, but they have "Check isbn value: checksum" messages.) An example ishere atLudwig von Mises. I don't know how the 8 ISBN errors got posted, but I went through and fixed them all. Please let me come out of the corner and my next 750 edits will focus onCategory:Pages with ISBN errors andCategory:CS1 errors: ISBN. Then I'll look for another gnomish project that does not involve working ISBNs, or people names & initials & spacing. –S. Rich (talk)17:31, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I went toCategory:Pages with ISBN errors and looked. Second on the list is132nd Infantry Brigade (United Kingdom). It was last edited 3 weeks ago. And who was the editor? (Please look!) So here is an article with an error that was recently edited. Did that other editor actually fix it? You are right, "Other editors can ... .) I want to be one of the editors that does. In the 132nd Infantry Brigade I think fixing the ISBNs will take about 20 minutes. But it will be a worthwhile effort. My edit count by a small amount and I might get a few more "Thanks" and barn stars. I will also earn more monthly thanks fromUser:Gerda Arendt. Please. I was told to stop and the block makes the stop involuntary. But it also stops the process of improving the Project. Thank you again. –S. Rich (talk)22:14, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In seeking a followup I went back to 132nd Brigade article. I see that Jonesey95 fixed the ISBN. But the article still has other errors. In the References section 1. It needs a space between Maj. Becke's name and the book title. 2. It needs italics in the book title by David Fraser. 3. The Fraser book has his name Last, then First (while the other books are listed First name, Last name. The article on the 133rd Brigade, also edited by Jonesey95 has similar reference errors, plus the still existing ISBN error. These are the sort of WikiGnome errors that I'd like to correct. –S. Rich (talk)23:23, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're not the only one who cares enough to fix those sorts of trivial errors. I've fixed the ones you enumerated and even alphabetized them! You do well with these sorts of minor mistakes and nobody is criticizing you for them; you just need to stop worrying about ISBN consistency and "fixing" them. I would suggest using the ISBN error search to find articles that might have problems with general citation format errors as they often go hand in hand, but without changing any of the ISBNs, regardless how the inconsistencies make you twitch. That might even be a route past your block.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)10:35, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I have done so a few times. But it's an awkward process: Find the article via the Category listing, Research and post the recommendation. Sit back and hope an editor will implement it. I wish I could just be a Gnome and make the edits. I've proposed restrictions that should keep me out of trouble. The next step is for an admin to AGF and let me loose. –S. Rich (talk)23:41, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The admins have made it clear you should stop all ISBN edits. You made it clear that you will not, and instead make ISBN editing your top priority after an unblock. Good luck.Northern Moonlight00:22, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Avoiding or a TBAN" that involvesany and all edits related to ISBNs is a bit vague and quite over broad. Let's say I want to add a citation which includes an ISBN. (Example: "Hal Iggulden (2007),The Dangerous Book for Boys, chapter: "Navigation",ISBN978-0-06-124358-5, pp. 159-169. New York, Collins.) Ah-Ha! The citation includes an ISBN therefor Srich32977 is violating his/her TBAN! Please. I agree that some editors have been annoyed by my edits. I am sorry and I've made clumsy efforts to adjust. But I ask again to un-block me. My ISBN-related edits will be limited to theWP:CATS that list ISBN errors. Thanks. –S. Rich (talk)04:21, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The exact details of what you would need to agree to to get your TBAN lifted wouldn't be hard to specify. Nobody would have a problem with you adding a citation with an ISBN; what would upset everyone is you changing the format of any other ISBNs in the bibliography.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk)10:35, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Srich, you seem to be missing the forest for the trees. I just read your talk page and the AN/I. You need to accept that you messed up, and the the problem has nothing to do with hyphens. It's hard to see that when you're "in the thick of it" so I suggest you do the following: 1. Take a short wiki-break and focus on something enjoyable that is not Wikipedia. 2. Come back and re-read the AN/I thread, being open to the idea that administrators like The Bushranger are not looking for an excuse toblock you, but that they legitimately see a problem with your behavior that you don't see, and are trying very hard to bring it to your attention using the tools they have available. 3. Identify what the problem is and take ownership. 4. ReadWP:GAB. 5. Make a fresh unblock request that clearly identifies what the problem was and commits to fixing it. That's the best advice I can offer you right now.~Awilley(talk)01:59, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice! I certainly do confess that I messed up. That is why I've reached out to various resources for help. And I very much agree that the problem has "nothing to do with hyphens" (even though the complaint was listed as such). So I will do as you recommend – I've got 2 LA Times crossword puzzles books to work on and a fewRyan Holiday books to read. (Not just look at!) They will keep me out of Wikipedia for awhile. More importantly: 1. I will post aWP:WIKIBREAK. 2 & 3. I will re-read the ANI to find what the problem (e.g.,my) is. And then, perhaps, take ownership! 4. Reread GAB. 5. (This is perhaps the most difficult COA) I will submit a fresh a well crafted unblock request .... that is sure to persuade. ("Difficult" in one sense because I do not know the WP procedure for fresh unblock requests.) Thanks! –S. Rich (talk)05:11, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Until the discussion at AN/I concludes, I have blocked you from these spaces. While some of your edits are useful (e.g., fixing bad ISBNs), you continue to make cosmetic changes of the sort that got you into trouble in the first place. — rsjaffe🗣️22:50, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
::Color me puzzled.
When I first looked at theANI thread, I noted that the title made reference to "disruptively editing page ranges…". One of the editors active in that discussion@Jonesey95: specifically said: "...this block is about a broken promise to comply with MOS:NUMRANGE after many admonitions". I was upbraided for discussing ISBN edits even though I was responding to another editors list.
However, the block rationale clearly states, "You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain namespaces ((Article)) for continuing to makeISBN format changes on pages despite multiple editors raising concerns, ..." (emphasis addded)
The block makes reference to an ANI thread, which I presume was the currently active thread mentioned above, But I'm puzzled that the ANI thread seems primarily related to ranges and the block makes no reference to ranges, only discussing ISBN.
I also note Srich actively and politely engaging in this discussion, then I see@Rsjaffe: expanding the scope of the block.
Curiously, the comment from Rsjaffe specifically states "While some of your edits are useful (e.g., fixing bad ISBNs),..." which purportedly was the rationale for the original block.
Could someone provide some clarity on the scope of issues?
Is it narrowly page ranges as asserted by Jonesey95?
Is it only ISBN edits as implied by the Bushranger block?
I think you may be a bit mixed up, which is understandable, because there are three blocks on this page. This thread is about an expired block from August. The two September blocks are below. –Jonesey95 (talk)16:57, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Today's story - short version: ten years ago we had a DYK about a soprano who sang in concerts with me in the choir, - longer: I foundtoday a youtube ofan aria she sang with us then, recorded the same year, - if you still have time: our performances were the weekend before the Iraq war ultimatum, and we sangDona nobis pacem (and the drummer drummed!) as if they could hear us in Washington. --Gerda Arendt (talk)15:01, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Zackmann08: Yes, I know. Perhaps I should have posted an “in use” message on the article. But I didn’t think Swann would be on anyones watch list. (Also, Zack, your userpage says you are a bot operator. Does this mean that a bot posted the message and ‘’this’’ note? If the bot posted you should modify so that it doesn’t interrupt the article editing process (which may take a few tries). And, two, your talk page message to me should go into a new section at the bottom of the talk page.) In any event, thanks for your interest in Gordon Swann. He’s an interesting guy! –S. Rich (talk)15:20, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have unblocked you as the discussion has concluded. Note that violation of the topic ban may result in re-blocking. Thank you. — rsjaffe🗣️16:41, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't change the page number format in citations asseen here → pages=120–121 and pages=1606–1626 and pages=839–851 are just fine and do not need to be changed to your preference → pages=120–21 and pages=1606–26 and pages=839–51. There is no need to fix what is not broken. Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style, merely on the grounds of personal preference. Thanks.Isaidnoway(talk)21:32, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I re-added the page numbers. Total edit cost me 6 bytes. My edit complied with theChicago Manual of Style, and it still complies (but with a bit more clutter). It is interesting to note that you had not fixed the actual real citation mistakes in this particular article earlier. In any event please continue to follow my editing so that we can collaborate on improving WP. –S. Rich (talk)01:36, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is interesting to note that you had not fixed the actual real citation mistakes in this particular article earlier.
I have never edited that article, and was not aware it had any "actual real citation mistakes". Like I said, there is no need to "fix" something that is not broken, which is what you were doing.Isaidnoway(talk)03:55, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale for the edit by Srich32977 appears to be:
My edit complied with the Chicago Manual of Style
Here is the Chicago Manual of Style guidance:For ranges spanning multiple hundreds, CMOS recommends including all digits for clarity, but allows abbreviated forms in less formal contexts (e.g., 123–24 is acceptable, but 123–124 is preferred in formal citations).
While it is true that provisions of the Chicago Manual of Style have influenced the Wikipedia Manual of Style, I have found no support for the possibility that, in the case of conflict, the Chicago Manual of Style trumps the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Logic suggests the exact opposite, as there is no possible rationale for a rule in the Wikipedia Manual of Style contrary to the Chicago Manual of Style unless the explicit point is that it should be followed.
Note that the Chicago Manual of Style explicitly recommendsincluding all digits, which is not the style used by Srich32977
The Chicago Manual of Style does allow an abbreviated alternative in "lassless formal contexts". While perhaps debatable, I doubt that this community would support characterization of citations in Wikipedia as not formal.
All of the above has been explained to this editor MANY times, and the editor has agreed to comply withMOS:NUMRANGE MANY times. A quick search of this talk page's archives for "range" will show half a dozen similar conversations. –Jonesey95 (talk)01:23, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I took your advice and looked through archives back to 2021. I can appreciate your frustration. It's amazing that it has been going on so long.
Some were in the the acceptable Chicago Manual of Style and some were not. I fixed those citations so that consistency was achieved.
A number of citation styles exist including ... The Chicago Manual of Style ..." (WP:CITESTYLE).
I quoted the portion of the MOS that pertains to citations. It says TCMOS is an acceptable MOS for citations in WP.
There is a clear theme — Srich32977 clearly believes that following Chicago Manual of Style (CMOS)is acceptable
I did not miss that every one of those assertions has a response, sometimes multiple responses, but those responses generally are some form of "we told you not to do that". While there are hints that the Wikipedia manual of style (WMOS) should prevail, I didn't see anyone explicitly pointing out that when two manuals of style conflict the WMOS prevails.
More importantly, I didn't see anyone point out that the edits are not even compliant with CMOS. (Shortened ranges are permittedonly in less formal writing, which isn't Wikipedia).
I'm not so naïve as to think that multiple respected editors can tell Srich32977 to change, and my single comment (from someone who hasn't interacted with Srich32977) will be the straw but I thought it was worth trying something that I don't think has been tried before.S Philbrick(Talk)13:47, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to fix my "error" but I've got to wait a few more days. (But it is interesting to note that when my page range edit was reverted the revert also "uncorrected" some hyphen and endash errors which I had fixed. Editors are spending more time and bytes admonishing me rather than doing constructive edits.)
Sphilbrick wrote:I didn't see anyone explicitly pointing out that when two manuals of style conflict the WMOS prevails. Here's an excerpted exchangefrom September 2024, which led to the editor being blocked two months later for going back on their promise to stop editing contrary toMOS:PAGERANGE:
Srich32977:Chicago Manual of Style says "123–24" is acceptable. And WP accepts CMS as a citation style. ...
Remsense:The Wikipedia Manual of Style says it's not, except in quotations. ...
Srich32977: (in response to Jonesey95)Alright, I shall comply with MOS:PAGERANGE.
Let me know if you need me to find more (e.g.January 2019, where I saidremoving full page ranges is contrary to MOS:NUMRANGE after a reference to CMOS by Srich32977;October 2020, where I saidSrich32977, you have been asked not to do this in the past. Once again, removing full page ranges is contrary to MOS:NUMRANGE.) –Jonesey95 (talk)14:58, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Editors are spending more time and bytes admonishing me rather than doing constructive edits.
Are you unable to recognize and acknowledge that the reason multiple editors have been admonishing you over the last several years is because the community does not consideryour edits to be constructive?Isaidnoway(talk)16:34, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This, especially, indicates that you are eitherunable orunwilling to take on board that the community considers these 'gnoming' edits of yours not to be a benefit to the encyclopedia and, in fact, considers them disruptive. This is a time-sink for the community volunteers, leading to this block. -The BushrangerOne ping only17:38, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'mZackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions toGordon Swann. When you were adding content to the page, you addedduplicate arguments to a template which can cause issues with how the template is rendered. In the future, please use thepreview button before you save your edit; this helps you find these errors as they will display in red at the top of the page. Thanks.Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing)15:00, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
