User talk:Glory.roda

March 2020

Hello, I'm ViperSnake151. Your recent edit(s) to the page 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Canada appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been removed for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. 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. You are spreading misinformation on cases in NB. There is only ONE presumptive case, not 3. ViperSnake151 Talk 06:16, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I never updated cases in NB. Glory.roda (talk) 16:29, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Glory.roda, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Glory.roda! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like John from Idegon (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:11, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

March 2020

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia. El_C 20:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That would be really right thing to do. This is very sensitive information. --Igor Yalovecky (talk) 23:53, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of community-authorized general sanctions regarding COVID-19

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).
The specific details of these sanctions are described here.

Broadly, general sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

--OhKayeSierra (talk) 18:34, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for repeated addition of unsourced content. 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 ~~~~}}.

El_C 15:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will add sources from the next edit. I only updated no of cases in ON. Glory.roda (talk) 16:31, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of two weeks for introducing information directly contradicted by the existing citation. 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 ~~~~}}.

Go read the entire citation before the block

Read the entire citation with numbyof cases of citation before performing an action. Don’t just read the headings like a fool. Glory.roda (talk) 20:46, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The number you claimed in this edit, 4619, does not appear in the citation provided at the time of your edit. I searched "4619", "4,619", "619". Compare with the number prior to your edit, 4622. That number does appear in the citation. Note that I expect the numbers will change quickly, but I verified the numbers when you made your edit matched the numbers provided in the article prior to your edit. --Yamla (talk) 20:51, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Total the number of cases by province and it will be 4,619. Glory.roda (talk) 21:40, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOR. I will not respond further. If you wish to be unblocked, make an unblock request. WP:GAB will explain how to do so. --Yamla (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. How should I unblock myself? Glory.roda (talk) 22:07, 27 March 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).

Glory.roda (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

To help provide people the informationGlory.roda (talk) 22:09, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:50, 28 March 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).

Glory.roda (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I posted correct information but was blocked as the total cases in the citation listed were incorrect, but I changed it to correct numbers in the table. The person who blocked me didn’t do the total himself and blocked me by blindly looking at the incorrect totals in the citation. Glory.roda (talk) 03:14, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

With this source, you cannot simply total the province counts; the grand total includes a small number of people that are not allocated to a province. I'm sorry, but given the subject matter, it would be best that you refrain for adding unsourced material or performing your own personal calculations. Since you seem to be unwilling to do this, or unable to understand this, I cannot unblock you. Kuru (talk) 20:15, 29 March 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.