User talk:Dwpaul

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Please Read

If I have nominated your article for deletion, removed your content or reverted your change and you would like to know why,
please review the following Wikipedia policies and guidelines, among others that may be mentioned in a message I left on your Talk page:

If none of these pages addresses your concerns,
you can leave me a note.

If you do, please sign and date your post by typing four tildes ~~~~.

Disruptive Editor--Interesting Technical Issue[edit]

Greetings. You warned someone with the IP address, 2601:A:3680:CAD:4924:24DC:B3F:444E about disruptive editing of a wrestling article at this "talk" page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2601:A:3680:CAD:4924:24DC:B3F:444E. The editor subsequently made an unsubstantiated POV edit @ Denis Tsargush, which I undid. Nearly a month later, a similar but not identical IP address, he made a similar edit, which I've undone. It seems to me that both addresses are candidates for blocking at this point, and your substantial credentials make you look like someone to get the ball rolling.

Whatever happens, I've never seen an address like it, and if you know what it is (and I'm betting on that), I'd appreciate you sending me a brief explanation, thank you. Also note: this individual was 'clever' enough to use a slight variant of the 'original' address to make the second bogus edit.

Ironically, I'm a fan of the wrestler he's talking up in the 'Tsargush' article, and I suspect he's correct--but unwilling to abide by the rules. The wrestler in question is a 'Jersey boy,' like me. Go figure.

Thanks for all the good work you do here. Regards Tapered (talk) 06:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

@Tapered: The user identified by 2601:A:3680:CAD:4924:24DC:B3F:444E is just an unregistered user identified by an IPv6 address, not really different from any conventional IP user. IPv6 addresses are intended to eventually replace conventional IPv4 addresses, for which they are running out of unique addresses. IPv6 addresses for the same terminal can change/be reassigned just like IP (v4) addresses, and the user (generally) cannot "choose" a specific address in order to deliberately alter the address that appears here (though they could request that a new IP be assigned, or may be using multiple terminals, which could include cellular devices). The article in question seems to have been targeted for WP:BLP violations, so I keep a close eye on it. Dwpaul Talk 15:57, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
@Dwpaul: There's been more disruptive editing @ Denis Tsargush by both of the IP addresses above, as well as 72.236.192.238, which also has a history of disruptive edits and bans. Looks to me like it's time for a liberal imposition of bans, but I leave it to your judgement. Regards Tapered (talk) 03:54, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I will request temporary page protection on Denis Tsargush, but the volume of inappropriate edits is actually rather low and appears to be limited to one editor using multiple IPs (some of which are IPv6). The IPv4 address you mentioned, 72.236.192.238 happens to be one that was also recently used to make what was clearly a disruptive BLP violation on Kyle Snyder (wrestler), the article I am watching closely. So I do not doubt that the edits are disruptive, but I'm not sure they rise to level of a block (yet). Also, the user seems to IP-hop so it will be tough to address this with a block. Dwpaul Talk 04:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
@Tapered: Received this reply at WP:RFPP:
I blocked the IPv6 range responsible for most of the disruptive edits. If the disruption continues from other IPs, let me know. Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps that will give both of us some relief from this disruptive editor (or at least force them to use the IPv4 address, which is somewhat easier to track) for the three-month duration of the range block. Dwpaul Talk 04:55, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
User 64.134.26.72 has made POV/disruptive edits to both Denis Tsargush and Kyle Snyder, the same pattern as those 2 blocked IPv6 editors--so it's probably the same individual. Another editor left a message about the Snyder article, and I left a Level 3 warning at his user page, but it seems to me it's time for a block. Thanks for your time & Regards. Tapered (talk) 05:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

thank you![edit]

while correcting the page on Pit Bulls, I accidentally deleted a paragraph. Editing on mobile is no fun! I also forgot to put in my source. you corrected it before I did! I just wanted to thank you for politely correcting my error, and I wanted to reassure you that I made an honest mistake. Teenageanxietyqueen (talk) 04:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)taq

@Teenageanxietyqueen: Please stop editing the article Pit bull, replacing reliably sourced information with unsourced opinions. Of all the articles on Wikipedia, the article on pit bulls is among the most extensively discussed (going back to 2003 -- see Talk:Pit bull) and the text of the article is the one that has achieved consensus among many editors with knowledge of the subject. While further improvement is certainly possible, wholesale removal and replacement of the sourced information presented with your unsourced opinion is not an improvement by any measure, and if you continue will result in your being blocked from editing. Dwpaul Talk 04:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

My edits[edit]

Dear Dwpaul

I would like to apologize for my irresponsability and disrespect in my actions. I should have known better. I would like to ask for your forgiveness for screwing up those articles and I promise not to vandalize the articles nor to present falsified information. I greatly appriciate you calling me out on my immaturity and undoing my actions. In the future, I promise to present information that is correct, relavent, and helpful to preexisting articles.

I am sorry for consuming your time. I hope to have better encounters with you in the future.

Have a good day!

CMFHERO — Preceding unsigned comment added by CFMHERO (talkcontribs) 02:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I edit wrong thing in Chris Christie[edit]

Dear Dwpaul

I am sorry for what I did to Chris Christie. Because I plan to edit with Indonesian Languange. But I did wrong. I use Indonesian languange in English Wikipedia. But now it has been replaced by the same meaning. Thanks. Nikolas.Sudarpo (talk) 08:31, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Please return edits.[edit]

The edits I made to Doug Gabriel, Derek Higgins, and Juan Montoya are all correct. I am preparing to reference them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BabyBoiFredo (talkcontribs) 01:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The only one of your edits I reverted was to Doug Gabriel. Unless you include citations when you make edits to biographical articles, they are likely to be reverted, especially if controversial (as that one was). I will not "return" the edits; they are in the article history for your review, and you can make them again (with, and only with, citations of reliable sources) if you choose to do so. You'll need to discuss your other edits with the editors that reverted them. Dwpaul Talk 01:43, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Britney Jean[edit]

Britney Jean (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please stop editing what I wrote in Britney Jean's wikipedia page, because it is true and it is reliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.120.36 (talk) 21:16, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Assuming that "you" are Lourenzo Gouveia (you are not currently logged in), you have been repeatedly warned that your edits to this (or any) article require citation of reliable sources. Simply saying "according to iTunes" is not a citation. See WP:BURDEN. You have been asked politely several times now to take the time to review Wikipedia's policies concerning verifiability, citation and reliable sources. If you continue without doing so, you will likely be blocked from editing. Dwpaul Talk 21:21, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Ben Bruce's Age Discussion[edit]

Ben Bruce (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi there, I have seen you made several edits on the article of Ben Bruce and I'd like to make a request, since there is such a huge dispute regarding Bruce's birthday I was hoping someone would contribute to the discussion regarding this topic on the talk page since no one else is willing enough to do so, I have links to support both 1991 and 1988 but I need more opinions on the matter, hope you can contribute! - SilentDan (talk) 21:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

@SilentDan297: I can only say I think the combination (synthesis, really) of the move from Dubai in 2008 and his statement that he was 17 at that time, both already documented on the talk page, make a pretty convincing argument. But then I can't account for the tattoo. Dwpaul Talk 22:07, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you not[edit]

Can you not remove my content on the Reference Desk? I cannot see what particular guideline I am supposed to have broken, this is a genuine question and for you to remove it and describe it as 'nonsense' is frankly quite insulting. I would have expected a website as well known as Wikipedia to present a slightlier more friendly approach to someone asking a question. Please, if you have a problem with my question, can you explain what it is because just deleting it is very rude. Panic richard (talk) 16:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

See your Talk page. Wikipedia, and specifically the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities, is not an advice column. Dwpaul Talk 16:43, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Kray Twins[edit]

Kray twins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Charles Salvador (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jack McVitie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

All of the sources provided are extremely flimsy and the majority of sources used are blogs. If you try to verify a source you'll find circular sources. I have not been able to find any real historical record of the Kray Twins (despite the ridiculous claims of infamy)... or any of the fictitious characters which are directly connected with the 2014 movie "Bronson" or the new movie being made about the Kray Twins. This isn't the first time a wikipedia hoax was used to hype up a movie.

I suggest you dig a little bit deeper, try to truly verify the sources and check out the source's sources before denying it's a hoax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.31.184.102 (talkcontribs) 01:53, 13 November 2014‎ (UTC)

@174.31.184.102: Considering that among the articles' references are the Web sites of the BBC, The Guardian, and the Biography Channel, it would have to be a very good hoax indeed. And the existence of those references evidently disproves any notion that these are hoax articles. As Wikipedia editors, it is not our job to prove or disprove the conclusions of reliable sources, of which those certainly are examples, and to do so we would need to engage in original research, a violation of one of Wikipedia's core principles. If you can uncover some evidence (in the form of citations of reliable sources) that disproves anything reported in the article, by all means please add it; or flag any specific citations you think are "flimsy" with the appropriate tag ({{Better source}}), including your reasoning. In the meantime, stop adding {{hoax}} tags to well-sourced articles. If you continue to do so, your actions will be regarded as vandalism and incur appropriate consequences. Dwpaul Talk 02:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Also, you might note (by reviewing the articles' history [1][2][3]) that the Wikipedia articles in question were created between 11 and 8 years ago, and have survived review by many editors since their creation. If they are merely part of an elaborate hoax, it was clearly one that was very long in both planning and execution. Dwpaul Talk 02:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
The BBC sources are from either external links or mirrored websites because they are not from the official BBC news website. The BBC publishes pieces on external links for reasons such as "entertainment" and doesn't claim responsibility for the validity of external links. The other sources are pure trash. If you take a look at the edit history for these pages one thing becomes apparent: the general idea for these hoaxes (more like publicity/media manipulation tools) were sketched out a few years ago and suddenly filled up in 2014. Film scripts/novels take a while to write and get published-- it's understandable that the pages would be a few years old (mainly 2006). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.31.184.102 (talkcontribs) 02:54 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Really, when did http://news.bbc.co.uk/ cease to be an "official BBC news website"? Likewise, when did http://www.telegraph.co.uk and http://met.police.uk cease to be official? And would you please sign your edits by typing four tildes (~~~~)? I'm growing tired of doing it for you. Dwpaul Talk 03:03, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
And, perhaps as evidence in support of my suspicion that you are not actually taking the time to read what you are seeing, no: two of the three articles in question were created in 2003, only one in 2006; and either one being more than "a few years old". Dwpaul Talk 03:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────It ceased to be reliable when it became news.bbc.co.uk instead of THE OFFICIAL BBC WEBSITE www.bbc.com. I think you need a refresher course on domain names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.31.184.102 (talkcontribs) 03:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

And you are mistaken, as news.bbc.co.uk is a subdomain of bbc.co.uk and is the domain owned and used by the BBC for its news operations since 1996. Done discussing this with you, friend. Continue to add {{hoax}} tags inappropriately as you were doing, and I will continue to treat it as vandalism, and we'll see which one of us is blocked from editing first. Dwpaul Talk 03:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
www.bbc.co.uk seems to be owned by the BBC but news.bbc.co.uk doesn't seem to be related if not for links to the bbc website. The guidelines for publishing editorials on the BBC website states that the author should be known-- so why doesn't that "news.bbc.co.uk" article show the author? As I said earlier, the bbc warns of external links on their website: they say they do not produce, maintain, and can not change external links... but news.bbc.co.uk is not even accessible from bbc.com (as long as your computer isn't being redirected that is.).
Done. See above. Dwpaul Talk 04:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Sandra Williams[edit]

As you can see from the account's block log it is a sockpuppet of long-term banned sockmaster User:OSUHEY, who has an interest in the Ohio legislature. As a banned editor their edits can be reverted on sight by anyone, and it is good practice to do this even if the edits are otherwise productive. In the case of OSUHEY there is the additional factor that this editor has a long history of serious copyright violations, so any of their contributions would have to be thoroughly checked for potential copyright violations before being allowed to remain anyway. Hut 8.5 22:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, understood. Any reason I shouldn't take their edits and (after checking that they are not copyvios) recreate them on at least a few articles of interest to me? Dwpaul Talk 22:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
You can as long as you're prepared to assume responsibility for the content yourself. You will certainly need to check for copyvio and I suggest you rephrase any prose anyway to be safe (copyright violations can be extremely hard to spot if the person adding them knows what they are doing). Bear in mind though that restoring their changes is likely to lead to OSUHEY making more edits in defiance of the ban. Hut 8.5 22:56, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Boys Choir of Harlem[edit]

Boys Choir of Harlem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello i am now an new and active member of the new boys and girls choir and I edited the page with real events that really happened and you removed it and said it wasn't correct please I can I edit the page with these events because I don't think it is fare that the information for the choir is not up to date what do I have to do to make sure my edit is seen by others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadiahisroyalty (talkcontribs) 04:06, 14 November 2014‎ (UTC)

Please see the message I left on your Talk page for an explanation of how to provide a citation of a reliable source for the information you added. It is because your edit did not include such a citation that it was removed, not because it was not correct,. Dwpaul Talk 04:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

You removed my link[edit]

" Hello, I'm Dwpaul. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the page Emergency light, because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. Dwpaul Talk 04:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)"

You just removed my link. I placed my link there because the content that was there previously was a broken link and I had the best resource comparative to that URL. If the link for the content where the resource is from does not work, and you will not accept mine, then please remove all the content that came from that original link on the Wiki page, because without a source that content could be considered plagiarized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emergencylights (talkcontribs) 04:22, 14 November 2014‎ (UTC)

Read the warning messages on your Talk page and the policies linked within them. Your persistent introduction of promotional links, including modification of others' comments on a Talk page, have brought you within a hair's breadth of being blocked from editing. Please do not continue. Dwpaul Talk 04:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Mac and me[edit]

Curious about your undoing of the edit of Mac and Me. You hold it's one of the greatest movies of all time? Citation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.99.49.236 (talkcontribs) 16:25, 14 November 2014‎ (UTC)

See the message on your Talk page. I did not just revert your change, I reverted to a previous edition in order to remove other vandalism performed by the IP who edited the article before you. Dwpaul Talk 16:27, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Thanks for the clarification. I'll redo my one individual change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.99.49.236 (talkcontribs) 16:28, 14 November 2014‎ (UTC)
Not necessary, your change will have been included in the changes made in the reversion. (Please sign your edits by typing four tildes ~~~~ after your comments on any Talk page.) Dwpaul Talk 16:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. 209.99.49.236 (talk) 16:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Kill Dil[edit]

Kill Dil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

what was wrong with my editing? the film pretty much sucked and you're writing it received good critical reception which is false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lilcritic (talkcontribs) 21:36, 14 November 2014‎ (UTC

@Lilcritic: You replaced sourced content with a single sentence that was completely unsourced; then you did it again with a paragraph that contained no sources. You must cite reliable sources, especially if you intend to quote them. Dwpaul Talk 21:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Also, the opinions of critics belong in "Critical reception", not "Boxoffice reception" (which is where the boxoffice statistics go), and you cannot quote entire paragraphs from a reviewer here, as that is a copyright violation. Only brief fragments may be quoted here verbatim to support paraphrasing of the critic's reaction. Dwpaul Talk 21:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Lastly, I'm not writing that the movie "received good critical reception" or anything else (that would have been one or more editors that came before you and me); I'm only preventing you from introducing unsourced content to the article. I have no clue about the quality of the movie, and frankly I don't care; but I do care about the quality of the article here, and about upholding Wikipedia's policies concerning sourcing of content. Dwpaul Talk 21:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Nazi concentration camps revert[edit]

This page was neither in reference to a British-English person or thing, but nor was it in reference to an American-English person or thing, so my question is (no offence intended), why was the section of text reverted back to American-English from the British-English translation? Is it that there is a lot more American-English Wikipedia users or articles published by them, or the preference stance of Wikipedia, or whether the page was originally in American-English?(in that case, I duly respect that) Sincerely, An anonymous Wikipedia viewer - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.217.35.51 (talkcontribs) 05:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)‎

Apparently you didn't read the notice I left for you on your Talk page. Please do. Among other things, it tells you not to change words from one national variety of English to another if you are unsure of the variety of English that is appropriate for a given page. Obviously, from your comments above, that applies here. American English was the variety originally used to write the article, and there was no reason for you to change a word to its British English variant. See WP:ENGVAR. And please sign your edits on any Talk page using four tildes (~~~~). Dwpaul Talk 06:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'm sorry Dwpaul. I am new to Wikipedia and did not know the way things are done at Wikipedia. I recognize these faults and errors and how important different variants of English mean to people like yourself. I will not do it again.

                                                     203.217.35.51 (talk) 07:10, 15 November 2014 (UTC) Sincerely, 
                                                                     An anonymous Wikipedia viewer.
                                                            (P.S. Is this the correct way of signing an edit?)

Sorry[edit]

I'm sorry I changed something on your page. I was trying to serve a point that you can change something on Wikipedia sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RUSHxCRUSH (talkcontribs) 04:33, 16 November 2014‎ (UTC)

Do not vandalize articles here just to make a point. You will be blocked from editing just as readily for that as for any other kind of vandalism. Dwpaul Talk 05:10, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I messed up on the external links section[edit]

Hello, Dwpaul! I hope you are well.

I tried to update the external links section with a link to the Authors on the Air page for The Authentic Woman, and I thought I had deleted the extra sub-links in that section (that are actually sources to verify a statement in the next to last paragraph on the [Shannon Fisher] page), but they are still there in the external links section. Perhaps the problem is that the sources have not yet been approved? Or did I do something wrong? (I'm assuming it is the latter - LOL)

I also removed the orphan note at the top of the page because the Shannon Fisher page is now linked from the [UniteWomen.org] page twice (I had permission to update it, and I added several things to their page). I hope it is okay that I removed the orphan note.

Thanks so much, and have a great day!

(CuriousGeorgiaLou (talk) 19:32, 16 November 2014 (UTC))

I removed the "offending" entries, which were typed explicitly in the References section and, since they were not matched to <ref> tags, automatically shifted (when the article was viewed) to the External links section, with this edit. Dwpaul Talk 19:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Barnstar of Reversion Hires.png The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
A barnstar for you this evening! livelikemusic my talk page! 02:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Oops....[edit]

You deleted my post here inadvertantly: [4]. Can you fix that and return my post in the appropriate place? --Jayron32 03:34, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that was inadvertent. Sorry, 'been fixed. Dwpaul Talk 03:41, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Hey Dwpaul, I just wanted to say thanks for helping explain the WP:LISTPEOPLE on Morningtv13's talk page. I know what I'm saying, but am a horrible explainer which may lead to some people being confused. Although, I think some of us have tried to explain it to him once before about the Notable people situation. So I just wanted to say thanks for helping! Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 23:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks! It's not just you; there was a long discussion and edit war (with notices earlier on their Talk page) about Al Roker in which a similar and similarly persistent lack of understanding was evident. I think some (but not all) may be related to the editor's primary language not being English (not that I know what it is). Dwpaul Talk 23:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I took part in that as well, but backed out because I saw you commented and decided to leave it to the more experienced user. I'm not sure what s/he's language is, but hopefully they will understand it in the end. Corkythehornetfan (Talk) 23:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)