User talk:Derwent Goat

January 2020[edit]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Uldale, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. On that article and on another you removed sourced text and added unsourced; this is not acceptable. David Biddulph (talk) 17:48, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Uldale, you may be blocked from editing. David Biddulph (talk) 17:53, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Uldale. You have yet again removed sourced text and added unsourced. David Biddulph (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Long term promotional editing.

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Since 2013. Per a complaint at WP:AIV. EdJohnston (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I live and work in the parish of Uldale and Ireby and have repeatedly attempted to update the page on both of these villages to contain the name of the village pub in Ireby and the tea rooms in Uldale. Yet someone who obviously knows nothing about the village would rather see out of date information! Come on Wikipedia - at least try and show some credibility! Derwent Goat (talk) 20:13, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This does not address the reason for the block, which is promotional editing. Wikipedia is not intended as a place for up to date current information; it is a place to summarize what independent reliable sources state about article subjects. That can include up to date information, but is not it exclusively. Your edits were uncited. Until you can address the reason for the block, there is no cause to remove it, and I must decline your request. 331dot (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I was simply trying to correct the various errors - for example your page on ireby claims the pub is now closed - this is incorrect - but if you would rather fill people with nonsence that's your look out. And simply stating that the pub is open and its name is hardly advertsing. Your experts also stated that Uldale is outside of the national park - total rubbish! Derwent Goat (talk) 12:58 pm, Today (UTC−8)

Decline reason:

Sorry, this still doesn't address the reason you were blocked. You were blocked for adding information without providing reliable sources, and for removing information which did have reliable sources without providing a proper justification. Your own personal expertise or familiarity with subjects is not a valid source of information on Wikipedia because it cannot be verified by independent readers. For more information on Wikipedia's policies about verifiability and sourcing in articles, see WP:V. I would suggest that you not make another unblock request until you have familiarized yourself with the relevant policies and can articulate both what you did wrong and how you will avoid such errors in the future. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.