95.175.85.38

September 2020

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Bratz, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. jfeise (talk) 14:42, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Credit card, 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. Largoplazo (talk) 21:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

My suggestion is that even anyone can add a specific established dates, months ans years of anything. Can you implement thsi feed-back? Please.

You now seem to be just adding random dates. Please stop. Kuru (talk) 01:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

They are valid. I have even made a suggestion. Please.

You've now added different dates for the same event. If you add another without a valid source, this account will be blocked. Kuru (talk) 01:53, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Trust me, it was at january 1st, 1936. Not at 1934. I have found this valid source on-line at 1 of the pages. They're all valid. I beg you to add them. So, anyone can read them. Please.

The very first charge cards came was at January 1st, 1936. As well as, the first Air Travel Card that came valid internationally was at October 1st, 1948. Then, at September 18th, 1958 the credit cards became established. So, they're all valid. I've found this all in a book on-line. Please.

You just added September 1, 1958. I think it would be a good idea to provide a link to your sources. Kuru (talk) 02:10, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

"In 1958, Bank of America launched the BankAmericard in Fresno, California" that means that Bankamericacard was established at 18th of September, 1958. Here is the evidence:

Visa Inc. Visa 2014 logo detail.svg Old Visa Inc headquarters.jpg Visa Inc. headquarters at Metro Center in Foster City Type Public Traded as Class A: NYSE: V DJIA component S&P 100 component S&P 500 component Class B: Unlisted Class C: Unlisted ISIN US92826C8394 Edit this on Wikidata Industry Financial services Founded '''September 18, 1958'''; 62 years ago (as BankAmericard)[1] Fresno, California, United States

I apologize, I meant September 18, 1958. Not September 1, 1958.

That was the primary problem - when you keep adding different dates, it's going to look like you're making it up. Add sources along with your edit. Wikidata is not going to be a reliable source, but you should be able to find others. Kuru (talk) 03:17, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I have found an on-line page of which date and month of 1887 did Edward Backward concepted the idea of credit cards, it was at May 30th, 1887. Here's the evidence, https://www.laphamsquarterly.org/future/magical-thinking. When you read the paragraph it will be written there. I have added it in the Wikipedia page. So, I request you not to remove it. Because, it's valid and I even showed you the proof. Please.

Here's the sentence that's on that link that I've provided. Looking Backward is the story of Julian West, a wealthy young Bostonian who enters a hypnotist’s trance on May 30, 1887, and wakes up 113 years, three months, and eleven days later.

They're looking for the date of the publication where the author describes the card; not the date the character dreamed about it. Kuru (talk) 03:17, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I knew it. Sorry about that. But, that book was established at 1888, not 1887. Even, the very first charge cards was established at January 1, 1936. Not at 1934. Then, at October 1st, 1948 the very first international charge cards from Air Travel became launched. Lastly, credit cards came out at September 18, 1958. So, I want to add this information on that page. Please.

Here's the evidence about the book was launched at 1888. "Looking Backward: 2000–1887 is a utopian novel by Edward Bellamy, a journalist and writer from Chicopee Falls, Massachusetts; it was first published in 1888." So, can I edit it from 1887 to 1888? Please.

I have edited the year from 1887 to 1888, added October 1, 1948 and September 18, 1958. So, don't remove them. Because, they're 100% valid. Please.

I have even added January 1, 1936 for UATP charge card. Here's the evidence that this is valid. Universal Air Travel Plan, Inc. (UATP) is an network that allows for payment for travel and hotels. It was established in January 1, 1936 as the Air Travel Card. So, don't remove it. Please.

About the UATP charge card, it was established at January 1, 1936. Here is the sentence that I've found at this on-line book "https://books.google.com.kw/books?id=8g3smb1-j7cC&pg=RA1-PA721&lpg=RA1-PA721&dq=universal+air+travel+place+charge+card+january+1+1936+established&source=bl&ots=puTfwc8okv&sig=ACfU3U3TROcB34k0he23NYqSLG0_RT9pfQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwisyruQiIbsAhVQXhoKHSwoARoQ6AEwA3oECAQQAQ#v=onepage&q=universal%20air%20travel%20place%20charge%20card%20january%201%201936%20established&f=false". The sentence is written as "Air Travel Plan: The air travel card plan, by agreement first effective January 1, 1936, between a number of air carriers, provides a means whereby certain persons who use air transportation exceeding a specified amount in the course of a year may obtain a discount amounting to 15 percent of the standard one way fares. So, don't remove it." Because, this is valid source. Please.

The source cited in the article says 1934. I have reverted your change. You need to discuss this on the article's talk page, not here. I came here to issue a warning because it looked to me like you were making stuff up, as Kuru said above.

When sources disagree, we need to discuss which one is the reliable one. There needs to be a justification for removing a reliable source from an article. And please don't just change facts that are already cited to sources without offering more reliable sources. ~Anachronist (talk) 05:50, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Trust me, the book of Edqard Bellamy was established at 1888, not 1887. Please.

Trust me, all of the links and sentences that were highlighted in bold were valid. So, please re-edit them back. All of them were not my words, they were from other sites that I've found on-line. Please.

I beg you to re-edit it all back again. Because, they're all correct infromation. Because, the information that you put back in again is wrong and missing. Trust me! Please.

I beg you to bring them all back to how I'eve edited again. Because, they were all valid and available. Please.

Since it seems to call for clarification: Information given in Wikipedia articles should be derived from reliable sources. This is the reason for the emphasis you're seeing placed on them. Given this requirement, you should be able to conclude that "trust me" and "I beg you" are the opposite of what's required to support information added to Wikipedia articles. They will be ineffective at persuading anyone. See WP:Verifiability.

You're going to need to identify reliable sources that say what you're claiming, and then, as Anachronist said, in light of the discrepancies among reliable sources, will need to discuss them on the talk page and await consensus about how to deal with those discrepancies. Largoplazo (talk) 11:07, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

What should I do then? Please.

Your response to my guidance as to what you should do is to ask me what you should do. Where do you expect me to go from there? Largoplazo (talk) 12:51, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I want you to bring all of the information that I added and edited as it was previously. Please.

What I want to do is to add and edit some missing and false information the same as before and don;t remove them again. Please.

If you want those things, then do what you've been told is required before they can happen. Please. Largoplazo (talk) 13:51, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Can you give me all of the steps of the requirements for me to provide? Please.

See WP:Verifiability, WP:Reliable sources, and WP:Citing sources. Largoplazo (talk) 14:43, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I have read them all. So, what should I do now? Please.

I'm done talking to you. Largoplazo (talk) 15:49, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

You mean that we can't edit the details to that page? Please.

I even want to add October 15, 2000 for the domain registrar Namecheap, February 8, 1997 for Godaddy, January 1, 1979 for Network Solutions and May 21, 2001 for Bratz on their pages. Because, they're 100% true and useful information. They're acceptable too. Please.

I have just rolled back all the changes you've made contrary to the instructions and guidance you've been given here repeatedly. Largoplazo (talk) 14:36, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Warning

OK, I'm going to explain something. You have been edit warring on the credit card article. If you revert one more time, you will be blocked. See WP:3RR for the policy.

Here is what you need to do:

• Start a discussion on Talk:Credit card.
• Describe the changes you want to make, and why.
• Include full citations to the sources you are using to support your changes. If there are links to those sources, include them.
• Wait for others to respond.
• DO NOT engage in a revert war. You are always in the wrong when you remove reliably sourced material and replace it with other material without providing verifiable reliable sources.

Is that clear? I and others have been patient with you. That, and the fact that you have been willing to discuss your changes, are the only reasons why you have not yet been blocked. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

I even want to even add October 15, 2000 for Namecheap domain registrar, Febraury 8, 1997 for Godaddy domain registrar, January 1, 1979 for Network solutions domain registrar, November 7, 2004 for "Development of what was to become the iPhone began in 2004, when Apple started to gather a team of 1,000 employees (including Jonathan Ive, the designer behind the iMac and iPod) to work on the highly confidential "Project Purple." on the iPhone page. Please.

As stated to you repeatedly, you need to cite reliable sources, not just make claims. Otherwise your edits will continue to be reverted. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for guidance. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I did it. I have written everything about my requests at talk:Credit Card page. Please.

With the Gemological Instritute of Ameirca Wikipedia page, it was estabished at 15th of February, 1931. So, don't remove it again. Here's the evidence https://gregaorg2.weebly.com/education.html. Please.

With the Gemological Instritute of America Wikipedia page, it was estabished at 15th of February, 1931. So, don't remove it again. Here's the evidence https://gregaorg2.weebly.com/education.html. Please.

I have added September 18, 1958 for the Visa Wikipedia page. So, don't remove it. Please.

I've added 16 December 1966 for MasterCard Wikipedia page, for JCB 25 January 1961, 8 February 1997 for Godaddy, 15 October 2000 for Namecheap and 1 January 1979 for Network Solutions domain registrars in their Wikipedia pages. So, don't remove them at all. Because, they're valid. Please.

I have even added 21 May 2001 for Bratz Wikipedia page. it's valid. So, don't remove it. Please.

At the Univeral Air Travel Plant Wikipedia page, I have added January 1 before 1936. It's valid. So, don't remove it. Please.

I have added 15 October, 2000 for NAamecheap. It's valid. So, don't remove it. Please.

I have added 8 February, 1997 for Godaddy. It's valid. So, don't remove it. Please.

I have just rolled back all the changes you've made contrary to the instructions and guidance you've been given here repeatedly. Largoplazo (talk) 14:38, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

September 2020

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia. Largoplazo (talk) 14:37, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

They're all valid information. Please.

Can you explain why, after everything that's been said to you, you appear to still believe that all you need to do to justify additions to articles is to say that they're valid, to ask for them not to be removed, and to say "please"? Can you explain why you think that if you do those things, then you don't have to follow the rules? Largoplazo (talk) 14:43, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

No, it's not that I am not following the rules at all. The regulations that you mentioned and are there doesn't have to do with adding the specific dates, months and years of companies. Because, there are other Wikipedia pages that I've found without editing has companies with their released dates, months and years too. Other than the ones that I've edited. That's why. Because, of course that's what Wikipedia is all about. As long, as their valid. If n=they aren't they should be removed. Please.

Wrong. See WP:V and WP:BRD. Since you have been challenged on dates and have then either not supplied a source, or supplied a source that didn't validate your addition, your claims of validity for the additional dates you're adding are suspect. Therefore, I am reverting them and challenging you on them. Again, see WP:BRD.

Either you have valid sources or you don't.

• If you have valid sources for these dates, then why aren't you supplying those sources instead of falling back on asking everyone just to trust you?
• If you don't have valid sources, then how do you know all these dates, and how do you know they're valid? Largoplazo (talk) 14:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Because, I don't want them to remove all of the information that I've added and edited.

I do know that they're correct from searching for them on-line and asked other people.

Yes, I had all valid sources. I even provided evidence that my information is true. Please.

"Because, I don't want them ..." doesn't make any sense. If you don't want it removed, you do now need to provide sources.

If you've found the information online in reliable sources, then supply them as you've been instructed to do. If they aren't in reliable sources (see WP:RS), or if "other people" have told them to you then you have no basis for claiming the dates are valid. If you have no basis for claiming them to be valid, then you must not add them here.

In your earlier discussion in which you provided sources, another editor showed how you were misinterpreting those sources and drawing erroneous conclusions.

Not one of your edits that I reverted cited any source. Largoplazo (talk) 15:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Why you dn't believe me? I haven't found them from my own words. I've found them all on-line. Not from me. Please.

Then cite your sources. That's how this works. Again: WP:Citing sources. Largoplazo (talk) 15:13, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

While you're at it, read WP:IDHT. Largoplazo (talk) 15:14, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Here's an example of an unreliable source: "I have live chatted with the agent and he/she told me that it was estabished at 1st of January, 1979." (Your comment at Talk:Credit card.) An unknown agent on a website is not a published reliable source, and there is no way to supply a footnote that would allow other Wikipedia readers to confirm this information from that agent anyway. Largoplazo (talk) 15:24, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I've read the link. They didn't really say that adding established dates, months and years are against the Wikipedia's rules. It said that anyone can provide the dates, months and years etc. from newspaper articles , web pages, sound recordings, journal articles, film, television, video recordings, etc. As long as they're correct. All of the information that I've edited and added are valid. Please.

As long as it's not just correct but verifiable. Again: read WP:V. You consistently give a strong impression that you are either not reading or not grasping the point of the guidelines to which you've been directed. Anything added may be challenged. Anything challenged must be supported by a reliable source or it is subject to removal. If you have reliable sources, add them. If you can't find a reliable source, then you don't have reliable information. You appear to think, all evidence to the contrary, that it's much more productive to continue making the same arguments that haven't been successful before than to just cite the reliable sources you've been asked for, and that you claim to have, when you add content to an article. Largoplazo (talk) 15:26, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.  --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 15:29, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I have read the links. Please.

Why all of my infromation that I've edited and added are not verifiable? What makes them that? Please.

What you must do for your edits to stick has been explained to you many, many times now. There's no need for further answers to the same questions. Just reread what you've already been told the previous times that you've asked them. Largoplazo (talk) 15:45, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

This person's IP sometimes change. The person at User_talk:91.140.131.14 seems to be the same person. I had told him all the same things about reliable sources there. He just seems to ignore that. jfeise (talk) 23:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

October 2020

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Mastercard. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 22:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Largoplazo (talk) 22:54, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

• Warning: I will block this IP and any other IP such as 95.175.71.183 (talk · contribs) that continues to add unsourced information. I have left a similar warning with more detail at User talk:95.175.71.183. Apart from the need for text to be verifiable, collaboration is also required. That means you must stop your current approach and resolve disagreements with other editors before proceeding. Questions can be asked at WP:Teahouse. This issue was raised at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Adder of exact dates. Johnuniq (talk) 00:03, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

---