User talk:Dourriga169

We are currently running a study to evaluate the effectiveness of alternative algorithms for providing personalized task recommendations through SuggestBot. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Tagged with…
49		African Chinese (talk)	Add sources
109		Social cleansing (talk)	Add sources
12		Frankie Muse Freeman (talk)	Add sources
6		Charlotte Ellertson (talk)	Add sources
19		Enide (talk)	Add sources
76		Amy Jacques Garvey (talk)	Add sources
80		African-American folktales (talk)	Cleanup
94		Timeline of African-American history (talk)	Cleanup
1,096		Sojourner Truth (talk)	Cleanup
17		Sarah Deer (talk)	Expand
829		Family planning (talk)	Expand
1,098		Birth control (talk)	Expand
37		Red Guard Party (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
191		Temne people (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
87		Ain't I a Woman? (book) (talk)	Unencyclopaedic
52		Portrayal of black people in comics (talk)	Merge
206		Social stigma of obesity (talk)	Merge
16		Gynecological surgery (talk)	Merge
378		Marion Zimmer Bradley (talk)	Wikify
354		Racism in South Africa (talk)	Wikify
43		Abortion in New Jersey (talk)	Wikify
4		International Family Planning and Development (talk)	Orphan
2		Women's Healthcare in the 20th Century United States (talk)	Orphan
5		Carafem (talk)	Orphan
40		Samaná Americans (talk)	Stub
6		Quintus Laberius Durus (talk)	Stub
11		Eldridge Cleaver, Black Panther (talk)	Stub
58		Afro-Seminole Creole (talk)	Stub
14		Goewin (talk)	Stub
6		The Squire, His Knight, and His Lady (talk)	Stub

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 17:52, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Ryan Kavanaugh has an edit summary that appears to be inadequate, inaccurate, or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. The dog food charity info you added to the article cannot possibly be construed as "cleanup" or copyediting. The content also strikes me as unduly flattering toward the subject, which is why I've removed it entirely. Please discuss at Talk:Ryan Kavanaugh and seek consensus for inclusion before restoring. Throast ^{{{ping}} me!} (talk | contribs) 00:08, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, your summary is untrue, the edits I've made are accurate and cited with reliable sources. You're breaking guidelines by deleting my edits without any discussion with me. Wikipedia guidelines are clear and anyone may edit articles provided the information being edited is accurate and properly sourced as these edits are. So why are you deleting them without so much as a note to be BEFOREHAND? Dourriga169 (talk) 01:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, Throast is NOT breaking any guidelines by reverting edits of yours without any discussion with you. No such discussion is required as a precondition of doing so -- where did you get that notion? The onus is rather the other way around, that you should not restore such edits before discussing it on the talk page. Ravenswing 03:31, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, that's not what I see when I look at the guidelines. Funny, why are you chiming in here, you just stumbled onto this page out of the billions of pages on wikipedia, to defend Throast's illegitimate bullying? Anyone can edit any article at any time and the guidelines even go on to say bold editing is encouraged. Throast should re-acquaint itself with the rules.Dourriga169 (talk) 15:59, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just re-read your comment and I simply selected the "common edit description" that was presented to me when I clicked publish. I see other editors, yourself included, typically use "ce" for copy edit. Dourriga169 (talk) 03:00, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When editing existing copy, yes, some do. Throast has, I see, on fifteen of his last five hundred edits. You, by contrast, use "Clean up/copyedit" for every single edit you make, whether or not you're actually doing minor tinkering with existing copy. Quite misleadingly and objectionably, you do so when adding content as well. You need to stop doing that at once and use summaries which accurately identify the type of edits you are making; if you are adding new material, say so. If you're not copy editing existing material, don't say that you are. Ravenswing 14:57, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The edits I made are so important that it's critical that you went to count how many times Throast used 'ce' in the last five hundred edits? You two must be really threatened for some reason. Why are you here bullying me, and trying to prevent my good edits? You're acting as though I lied and published incorrect information using invalid sources and the only thing you can find to attack is the edit summary was a pre-chosen piece of text from the "common edit summaries" drop down list that Wikipedia provides when publishing???? You're acting like a junkyard dog, protecting Throast so it doesn't get in trouble for Wikibullying. Which makes me question why it's so important to you, or Throast. There's more there than you're telling. Dourriga169 (talk) 16:03, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I "stumbled" onto this page because when looking into an ANI complaint -- as I do often -- it's prudent to look into the recent edit histories of all parties to see if there's something people aren't telling. As a matter of fact, it was you who first looked into the number of times Throast and other editors used "ce" in edit summaries, or you wouldn't have made a comment to that effect. Any other comments I have to make to you I'll make at ANI. Ravenswing 20:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Might I suggest that you actually spell out the changes you are making with regard to the article. The first few may be laborious but as you gain more experience with writing summaries you will find ways to shorten it. I would almost never recommend using a generic edit summary unless you are making the same general edit to multiple articles like changing a category on articles about rivers in country "x". Even then I would suggest adding more detail specific to the article. It can't hurt and can only help. --ARoseWolf 16:23, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making personal attacks towards other editors.

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 ~~~~}}.  Valereee (talk) 19:10, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For this after multiple warnings about making personal attacks and unsupported accusations. Valereee (talk) 19:15, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]