Marco.caminati
CS1 error on Natalie Lander
edit
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Natalie Lander, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
- A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 10:01, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
October 2024
edit
Hello. I wanted to let you know that your recent edit(s) to Brian Keith have been removed because you cited the information you added to IMDb. As discussed at WP:RS/IMDb, IMDb is considered a questionable source, and generally should not be used as a sole reference. You are welcome to re-add the information using a different reliable source, or with an additional source confirming the information from IMDb. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Blogs are also not considered reliable sources. Please review WP:RS. DonIago (talk) 03:36, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Brian Keith, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. As previously discussed, none of the sources that you added are considered reliable. DonIago (talk) 16:25, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- You clearly cannot do your job properly. I added three sources, one of which reports a newspaper scan confirming the fact. The only goal you managed to obtain is my decreased motivation to contribute. Congrats. Marco.caminati (talk) 19:14, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- I explained why those sources were unreliable and why your content subsequently needed to be reverted in my first message to you. If you choose not to pursue finding more reliable sources, that's your choice, but it would have been irresponsible of us to let that content remain in the article while poorly sourced. DonIago (talk) 23:12, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- "poorly sourced": wrong. You don't understand what you read and how to apply rules. You're incompetent and damaging to wikipedia by unduly discouraging contributions. You can either accept that or keep damaging. Your choice. Bye. Marco.caminati (talk) 23:38, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- If you disagree, you have options, starting with asking the question at the article's Talk page, or pursuing other forms of dispute resolution, but I linked you to the relevant policies regarding IMDb and blogs. DonIago (talk) 01:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- "poorly sourced": wrong. You don't understand what you read and how to apply rules. You're incompetent and damaging to wikipedia by unduly discouraging contributions. You can either accept that or keep damaging. Your choice. Bye. Marco.caminati (talk) 23:38, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
- I explained why those sources were unreliable and why your content subsequently needed to be reverted in my first message to you. If you choose not to pursue finding more reliable sources, that's your choice, but it would have been irresponsible of us to let that content remain in the article while poorly sourced. DonIago (talk) 23:12, 6 October 2024 (UTC)