Archives

Index Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 1.5 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Hello. It looks like I made a very big error earlier today in accusing you of using copyrighted text. That mistake came to light just as I was leaving Wikipedia for the evening, so my very hasty replies and typos at the Teahouse are not adequate at this time, and right now I can't quite work out what happened to lead me to the wrong conclusion. However, I will return and explain in more detail later tonight. Regards for now, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear DashDog01. I am sorry for the delay in responding in full to you (due to family circumstances at home). I have now looked into why I jumped to the conclusion that you had been responsible for adding copyrighted text to the article on Swordigo. I accused you – quite wrongly - of adding text after a tool we use to detect so-called ‘copyvios’ identified a YouTube description as the source, when almost certainly the reverse was the case. However, thanks to another editor here (Bonadea), it became clear I had not checked the page edits sufficiently thoroughly to appreciate you had simply added to pre-existing content in the article. It was very careless of me, and I now see that text had been there from the page’s creation in 2016, and that you had simply added enhancements of your own. Obviously, my insistence that you had done wrong by these edits - and that I was correct and you were not - was both immensely frustrating and very upsetting for you – and I respect you for continuing to challenge me. I think you are quite right to say that you are the one who should be disappointed in me and my reply on that occasion. I can fully understand why you might have lost faith with us – well me - here at the Teahouse when our sole intention always is to be as supportive and as helpful as we can to new editors like you. I hope you feel my previous attempts to support and answer all your detailed questions here were done in that spirit, and I am glad you have finally started editing some real articles, though I didn't get you off to a good start there, did I? For this mistake I can only apologise to you and hope that it doesn’t put you off contributing to Wikipedia articles in the future.

As you have probably now seen, I have reinstated the article text, corrected a few of the genuine issues I commented on when you asked for a review of your first edits, and struck out those elements of my response which I now fully accept were not correct. This might seem an odd way of doing things – why not just delete the text, you may wonder? That’s not what we do here in talk pages when we recognise we have said things that we later feel are not correct. Thus, my struck edits and this apology to you for impugning your good faith edits stand for anyone to scrutinise.  

I have always regarded the whole Wikipedia adventure as a huge and amazing learning experience, and in this case I hope I have learnt not to jump too quickly to conclusions about a user’s editing, and perhaps to be a little more careful in future. As I said in my original post, I am always willing to apologise for any mistakes I might make, and in this case you do deserve that full apology from me. I am posting this both to your question at the Teahouse, and to your talk page. Once again, sorry. Regards from the UK. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:30, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another example entirely: I had nominated an article for a "Did You Know." The reviewer did a copyvio check and alerted/warned me that text matched website content elsewhere. With a bit of sleuthing I was able to prove that the other site had plagarized (sic) what I was in an article I has worked on, rather than the other way around. Stuff happens. David notMD (talk) 22:33, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nice userpage! (saw you like tea) Bobherry Talk Edits 02:55, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Theroadislong. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, Beach Buggy Blitz, 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! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 07:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep your communications with other editors professional and reasonably formal. This comment to GorillaWarfare [1] is far too personal and is inappropriate on Wikipedia. Please confine your interactions with other editors to those associated with improving the encyclopedia. Comments like the one you made can be construed as in intrusive personal attention, especially when directed at female editors. Acroterion (talk) 12:10, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course thanks for heads upDashDog01 (talk) 12:13, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's more like a warning.

I see a grand total of two article space edits and hundreds of edits to userspace from this account. Go work on articles, that's what we're here to do, and it's how you learn to become a productive user. Userpace edits can wait. Acroterion (talk) 12:16, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, with edits solely to userspace, what are you going to use all those scripts for? I am strongly minded to protect your userpage and script subpage so that can actually find time to edit the encyclopedia as it is intended, rather than curate a walled garden of userspace. Acroterion (talk) 15:06, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at List of WildTangent games, 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. Theroadislong (talk) 19:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't move other peoples' userpages unless they ask you to. It's disruptive and annoying. Second, do not just blank sections of ANI that are about you. That is totally unacceptable and I will block you if you do it again. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:27, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Am what warning oh you should know I just caught my brother with my tablet sorry for whatever he did what did he do DashDog01 Let's Dash🔥⚡⏳ (talk) 00:29, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I find that difficult to believe. I'm trying to assume good faith here, but frankly as Acroterion pointed out above, you have TWO encyclopedia edits and hundreds of userspace edits. What are you doing on Wikipedia if you're not working on content somehow? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:34, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. 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 ~~~~}}.

You have engaged in various forms of disruptive editing and there is little evidence that you are here to build this encyclopedia. Once your block expires, focus on substantive improvements to encyclopedia articles. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:35, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry for any disruptions I have cause sometimes I get bored and tend to find something to do but now I see some of the things I do isn't right so can you enable back my account please promise you won't happen again i will start making useful or senseful contribution sDashDog01 Let's Dash🔥⚡⏳ (talk) 00:53, 15 April 2018 (UTC) DashDog01 Let's Dash🔥⚡⏳ (talk) 00:53, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I mean not all all of us are nerds and geeks or uptight rightDashDog01 Let's Dash🔥⚡⏳ (talk) 00:55, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is now a checkuser block.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:07, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TPA yanked. GAB^gab 01:43, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]