User talk:Stephen C Taylor

Hello, I'm CommanderWaterford. I noticed that you recently removed content from C'était un rendez-vous without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at 2020 Formula One World Championship. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges.

Please take you proposed change to Talk:2020 Formula One World Championship if you are being repeatedly reverted and try to persuade people that the information is notable there. Thank you,
SSSB (talk) 16:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Grand Moff Tarkin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CGI (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I noticed you recently added some sources to Autodromo Enzo e Dino Ferrari. However, you only added bare URL's (links to the websites). You need to convert these to proper citations using templates such as {{cite web}}. Please see WP:CITE for more information.Tvx1 17:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Stephen C Taylor, two things I want to talk about,

Hello, Stephen C Taylor, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 21:41, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Stephen C Taylor! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Avengers: Endgame that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:01, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Avengers: Endgame. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

You have a custom signature set in your account preferences. A change to Wikipedia's software has made your current custom signature incompatible with the software.

The problem: Your preferences are set to interpret your custom signature as wikitext. However, your current custom signature does not contain any wikitext.

The solutions: You can reset your signature to the default, or you can fix your signature.

Solution 1: Reset your signature to the default:

1. Find the signature section in the first tab of Special:Preferences.
2. Uncheck the box (☑︎→☐) that says "Treat the above as wiki markup."
3. Remove anything in the Signature: text box. (It might already be empty.)
4. Click the blue "Save" button at the bottom of the page. (The red "Restore all default settings" button will reset all of your preference settings, not just the signature.)

Solution 2: Fix your custom signature:

1. Find the signature section in the first tab of Special:Preferences.
2. Uncheck the box (☑︎→☐) that says "Treat the above as wiki markup."
3. Click the blue "Save" button at the bottom of the page.

More information about custom signatures is available at Wikipedia:Signatures#Customizing how everyone sees your signature. If you have followed these instructions and still want help, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Signatures. 19:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Chompy Ace. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Avengers: Endgame, 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 the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Chompy Ace 20:56, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

When the reliable source is ready we can include him.--Island92 (talk) 22:32, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Writing what can probably happen or not goes in contrast with the encyclopedia.--Island92 (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

It's been removed from 2021 calendar. We do not have news from Liberty Media and reporting whether this race is going to take place or not. Its too Early.--Island92 (talk) 20:27, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Joseph2302. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, 2020 Sakhir Grand Prix, 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 the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Russell for Mercedes needs a source Joseph2302 (talk) 09:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Stephen C Taylor. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "sandbox/2020 British Grand Prix".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:54, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Stephen C Taylor. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "sandbox/2020 Hungarian Grand Prix".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:48, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Don't add speculation like this to articles, we report what reliable sources have confirmed, not what people may do in the future. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Max Verstappen shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Pyrope 18:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at 2021 Formula One World Championship, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. "The Emiligia Romagna Grand Prix held at Imola Circuit was also set to dropped has since been reinstated as a replacement for the aborted Vietnamese Grand Prix." is WP:OR, and also not true, as the TBC date is still TBC Joseph2302 (talk) 10:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a liveblog about Hamilton future. Island92 (talk) 00:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at 2021 Formula One World Championship. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

It isn't difficult to add reliable sources if they exist. And if the sources don't exist, then it's speculation which shouldn't be added. Don't see what isn't clear about that. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:55, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Joseph2302: How have we got to an unsourced4 with a single warning within the last month and an addition of content which is clearly good faith? It's definitely on the editor to add citations but with this you could easily find a reference by a simple Google search. FozzieHey (talk) 11:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

There's a warning for adding speculation as recently as yesterday, and an entire talkpage full of warnings for it (including an L2 last month) This is excluding all the times they've added unsourced material where a warning hasn't been added. I know many F1 editors are fed up at the unsourced speculation being added by this user. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

And the onus is on the user to add sources, not for other people to go find sources when others cannot be bothered. It's completely acceptable to revert unsourced material as per WP:VERIFY. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Joseph2302: Sure it's fine to revert it but it's not exactly helping the project when a citation can easily be found. I'd very much prefer if @Stephen C Taylor: could communicate and add citations to their edits and I'm not doubting that. I just don't think it's fine to post a template that assumes bad faith and threatens a block when clearly it was a good faith addition. FozzieHey (talk) 13:31, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@FozzieHey: the additions are good faith, nobody denies that. However, continingly failing to add citations is considered disruptive. As much as I appreciate Stephen's contributions he must start citing his contributions.
SSSB (talk) 14:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

And some more speculation: . Joseph2302 (talk) 17:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Stephen C Taylor! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Epistulae ad Familiares (talk) 07:13, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Mads Mikkelsen. ALSO, the edit you made was not "minor". You have been asked not to mis-mark edits; please stop doing this. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 15:55, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Justice League (film), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 16:04, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Rogue One, you may be blocked from editing. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 16:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. Thanks! — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 16:09, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Rogue One, you may be blocked from editing. Your unexplained edits broke the infobox at the head of the article. PLEASE STOP DOING THIS! You are causing damage to the encyclopedia and wasting people's time. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 18:32, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

It's already explained here.--Island92 (talk) 16:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

F1.com includes it. Island92 (talk) 23:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--Joseph2302 (talk) 16:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for a long-term failure to abide by basic content policies, and refusing to communicate with other users. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, it is required that you be willing to talk to other users when they have concerns abut your 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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Beeblebrox (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• I received your email, but that's generally not how blocks are appealed. You need to read the above block message and respond here. Lack of on-wiki communication is part of why you are blocked, so it's kind of important that you show you are capable of it if you wish to be unblocked. A previously uninvolved admin will review your appeal. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not sure what was unclear about the above message, I feel like I was pretty clear about how to proceed and that email was not the right way to go about it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Stephen C Taylor. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:2020 Austrian Grand Prix, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 11:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Stephen C Taylor. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of Formula One Grand Prix wins by Kimi Räikkönen, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 12:04, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Stephen C Taylor. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "sandbox/2020 Sakhir Grand Prix".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Stephen C Taylor (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

I realise editng without communicating was wrong and after some time of of though am ready to turn over over a new leaf and follow Wikipedia guidelines--Stephen C Taylor (talk) 11:36, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Accept reason:

It's been a long enough time since the block I'm comfortable with lifting it. Please ensure you are always using edit summaries, and ensure you discuss controversal changes on the talk page before making them directly. If concerns are raised with you by other editors please respond to them as a return to previous behaviour is likely to lead to another block. CoconutOctopus talk 14:47, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

@Stephen C Taylor and CoconutOctopus: user is not using edit summaries whatsoever. Also, don't refactor other's talk page comments, even to fix typos: . -- Cerebral726 (talk) 16:37, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

@Stephen C Taylor, can you explain why you are not using edit summaries despite being advised to? CoconutOctopus talk 16:38, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I will do so in due course . I am multi-tasking whilst editing. I would appreciate some patience. Stephen C Taylor (talk) 16:44, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Let me make this clear; you should be using edit summaries for all edits you make. Edit summaries are not something you can go back and do, they have to be done when the edit is made. CoconutOctopus talk 16:49, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Stephen C Taylor! You can go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing and enable "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary)" to be reminded if you forget to add an edit summary in the future. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:35, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

For the record the summary I copied from was technically my own copied from a reuest I made from a temperary account I used for talk pages whilst still blocked from editing. Stephen C Taylor (talk) 16:47, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

@Stephen C Taylor, when you're blocked, you're not supposed to edit anywhere. Not via temporary accounts. Not at all. You're now unblocked, and can edit freely. If you continue to edit while logged out, you will again be blocked from editing. Please stop. -- asilvering (talk) 16:59, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

I am logged in. I did not edit myself whilst logged out! Please re-read the comment. Even with a temporary account my IP address was blocked from I merely continued to provide sources on talk pages for others to integrate and edit into as they wish into articles Stephen C Taylor (talk) 17:08, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

This is not true. -- asilvering (talk) 02:31, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

(But, to be clear, providing sources on talk pages while blocked, which you did do, is also block evasion. You should not have done that.) -- asilvering (talk) 02:33, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

You are being false . I am logged in . Check Wikipedia's records Stephen C Taylor (talk) 15:34, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

I did. -- asilvering (talk) 15:48, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

I was auto logged out when I came back this morning UK time. Why this was the case I know not. You wouldn't have something to do with that would you? Stephen C Taylor (talk) 17:26, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

I would not. -- asilvering (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

I would hope not as well. Stephen C Taylor (talk) 18:06, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

While some edits now have summaries, the user has continued their lack of communication via a range of edit wars across F1 and cricket articles with no meaningful elaboration or means to settle the dispute, just plain reversions and reiterations. The leaf has hardly been turned. MB2437 05:43, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Excuse me! I have continued to provide updateswith comments explaining changes in Edit summaries which I have continued to provide for the majority of edits. I was previously told this would be satisfactory as communication and was not obligated to use talk pages Stephen C Taylor (talk) 11:51, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

This is plain false I have used Edit summaries most occasions. Stephen C Taylor (talk) 11:53, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

You need to be more communicative than solely in this thread with a few half-baked edit summaries. The original block message explains: Wikipedia is a collaborative project, it is required that you be willing to talk to other users when they have concerns abut your edits. MB2437 13:35, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Half baked ? Some of them are rather complex and detailed. Stephen C Taylor (talk) 14:05, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

only 14 of your last 100 edits have an edit summary. Spike 'em (talk) 11:01, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Last chance, Stephen. You'll be re-blocked if you don't seriously attempt to fix the problems that led to your last block. -- asilvering (talk) 12:03, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

@Stephen C Taylor you seem to be editting in response to messages I have left on article talk page, but are still not using edit summaries nor replying to those messages directly. Spike 'em (talk) 14:17, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I always endeavour to use edit summmaries . For grammatical edits I don't feel them neccessary particularly if it is the edit of one word. I you would like to help and assist my edits you are welcome to. Stephen C Taylor (talk) 14:29, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

No you don't. You have made 30+ edits to Twenty20 today, and 3 of them have edit summaries; you have also failed to respond to my messages on the talk page. I have been trying to copyedit what you have added, but you keep adding back in irrelevant and poorly-formatted information. Spike 'em (talk) 14:40, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

30? It's about 10 about most and the information I have added is of value. Stephen C Taylor (talk) 14:50, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Twenty20 : 38, or is counting something else that is too onerous for you? Some of what you added is of value, but it needed a lot of trimming down. Spike 'em (talk) 15:02, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Are you using the prompt reminder tool I suggested last time? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:45, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I can't see this prompt tool ? Where is it? Stephen C Taylor (talk) 14:52, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing, "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary)". Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:57, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for your efforts to improve Wikipedia, and in particular for adding references, as you did to 2026 Formula One World Championship! However, adding a bare URL is not ideal, and exposes the reference to link rot. It is preferable to use proper citation templates when citing sources, including details such as title, author, date, and any other information necessary for a bibliographic citation. Here's an example of a full citation using the {{cite web}} template to cite a web page:

Lorem ipsum<ref>{{cite web |title=Download the Scanning Software - Windows and Mac |publisher=Canon Inc |work=Ask a Question |date=2022 |url=https://support.usa.canon.com/kb/index?page=content&id=ART174839 |access-date=2022-04-02}}</ref> dolor sit amet.

which displays inline in the running text of the article as:

Lorem ipsum^[1] dolor sit amet.

and displays under References as:

1. ^ Download the Scanning Software - Windows and Mac". Ask a Question. Canon Inc. 2022. Retrieved 2022-04-02.

If you've already added one or more bare URLs to an article, there are tools available to expand them into full citations: try the Citer tool, or in the wikitext editor, try the reFill tool, and in the Visual Editor, the reference dialog can convert some bare urls into a full citation. Once again, thanks for adding references to articles. Cerebral726 (talk) 19:26, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. Stephen C Taylor (talk) 20:26, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

You have continued to use bare URLs. Please add proper citations as described above. Cerebral726 (talk) 14:31, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

I would but I am bound by time constraints with other activities. Stephen C Taylor (talk) 15:36, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Adding proper citations takes neglible amount more time using the tools described above. Most information can even be autofilled in. I do appreciate the content you are adding, but taking the time to learn what method works best for you would be a huge improvement. Cerebral726 (talk) 15:58, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

I add sources slowly and my typing seed is not as fast as others . I know the method required but it would take me more time than you realise to execute it. Stephen C Taylor (talk) 17:18, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

@Stephen C Taylor, the tools Cerebral has suggested do not require extra typing. -- asilvering (talk) 14:19, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

But they require more time consumation Stephen C Taylor (talk) 16:09, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Only seconds. And if you aren't willing to spend those seconds, that does not speak positive things about your willingness to collaborate with other editors. -- asilvering (talk) 20:10, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

Please use Preview. Thank you, Jessicapierce (talk) 17:35, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for reverting your recent experiment with the page McLaren MCL39. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use your sandbox instead, as someone could see your edit before you revert it. Jessicapierce (talk) 17:35, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Lando Norris, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources to see how to add references to an article. The source you are providing does not support the information you're trying to add. – Quinn ΘΔ 21:47, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi Stephen! I appreciate the additions you've made at Chapter Eight: The Rightside Up, but please not that per WP: FORBESCON, articles from Forbes that lists the author as "Contributor" or "Senior Contributor" (like it does for Erik Kain here) are not reliable, and shouldn't be used. Happy editing! Nil🥝 11:20, 26 January 2026 (UTC)

A note on why we do not source articles with tabloid rumours. That includes—but not limited to—The Sun, Daily Mirror, Daily Mail, Daily Star, Evening Standard, and Daily Express. F1-specific tabloids include Sportskeeda, GP Blog, F1 Oversteer, GPFans, F1 Fansite, Last Word On Sports, and GP Today. Please read WP:BLP and WP:RS, and refer to WP:RSP when making contentious edits. Not to mention that an on-off relationship is still ongoing even if they 'break up' temporarily; it is inherent to their nature and does not require updating unless an RS says otherwise. BLPs require the upmost accuracy and care; such inaccuracy can leave us liable to libel. MB2437 22:20, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Just a note that you have been pointed towards these policies on countless occasions. They are paramount to our work. MB2437 23:12, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at 2025 Formula One World Championship, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources to see how to add references to an article. Thank you.

Additionally, the content you added did not adhere to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. • Quinn (talk) 02:14, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you believe that 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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  CoconutOctopus talk 14:49, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

You have been given many more warnings than most users; you continue to add unsourced content and refuse to use edit summaries or work with other editors. I see absolutely no course of action other than to restore your previous block. CoconutOctopus talk 14:50, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

{{unblock|I wish to appeal this decision. Whilst I do admit one or two of my recent edits have included unsouurced material these have been mostly in introductory sections of which the introductory sections on many Wikis which do not have sourcing links with regualarity. Will you agree to unblock me if I ask for your help directly in addings sources. Please understand that i'm very busy and I do not have time to find sources Wikipedia. I have typed edit summaries on several occasions ( though I admit to occasional) so that part of your accusation is not correct. Stephen C Taylor (talk) 20:22, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

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).

Stephen C Taylor (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

wish to appeal this decision. Whilst I do admit one or two of my recent edits have included unsouurced material these have been mostly in introductory sections of which the introductory sections on many Wikis which do not have sourcing links with regualarity. Will you agree to unblock me if I ask for your help directly in addings sources. Please understand that i'm very busy and I do not have time to find sources Wikipedia. I have typed edit summaries on several occasions ( though I admit to occasional) so that part of your accusation is not correct. Whether you think they are detailed enough for Wikipedia is is up to up to you but I can assure you I have used Edit summaries on most edits. Are you sure the software notifying moderators an edit summary is working correctly. Please check it.Stephen C Taylor (talk) 20:27, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

If you don't have time to find sources, you don't have time to edit Wikipedia. Sources are a fundamental part of edits that add content. If it's a matter of you learning how to add sources, you should learn how to do that first, before editing. A lack of edit summaries is far more common than you having an edit summary. It's not a matter of their detail. 331dot (talk) 08:52, 28 March 2026 (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.

Stephen, there is nothing wrong with how edit summaries work. You're simply not leaving them in most of your edits.

As for sourcing, there's nothing wrong with not having the time to find a source, but if you don't have the time to find a source, you also don't have the time to make an edit. Sourcing content is not an optional suggestion. It shoudln't be a burden to find sources for things you write, because the things you write should already be based on the source. If you're writing something, and only then finding a source, you're editing Wikipedia precisely WP:BACKWARD. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:34, 28 March 2026 (UTC)