User talk:Dweeby123

September 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Talk:Ruth Langsford has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. Anna Lincoln 08:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Last of the Summer Wine. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Redfarmer (talk) 17:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Redirects that aren't broken

Hi, just thought I should let you know about WP:NOTBROKEN as you seem to be "fixing" a lot of redirects that aren't broken. AnemoneProjectors 09:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

And that includes changing [[Businesswoman]] to [[Businessperson|Businesswoman]]. AnemoneProjectors 12:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at James May. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.118.178.137 (talk) 15:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to User talk:203.206.69.216 has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. You have given this anon user a level 4 warning for their first edit, and it is extremely arguable that it was vandalism at all - as for several other edits you have reverted with Twinkle as "vandalism". If you have some sort of problem with the original photos and captions on the James May and Jeremy Clarkson articles, and feel that your own favourites are preferable, then I suggest you take it to the article talk page and gain a consensus - it is you that is wanting to change it from the original picture, therefore the onus is on you. Halsteadk (talk) 17:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Here is what vandalism is not, from WP:VANDALISM: "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism."

You have plenty of templates on your talk page from other editors questioning your own edits. I suggest you familiarise yourself with the WP:FIVEPILLARS. I also suggest you find a better way of dealing with edits you don't like than to call them vandalism. Radiopathy •talk• 16:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Andy Gibb. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Radiopathy •talk• 16:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism redux

Regarding this, I strongly recommend that you stop calling edits that you disagree with 'vandalism'. If I see this again, you're going to WP:ANI, with the possibility of being blocked for your disruptive behaviour. Radiopathy •talk• 17:33, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did to Russell Grant, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.   — Jeff G.  ツ 03:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

?

I beg your pardon? --RobertG ♬ talk 13:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Tony Curtis Revert

Hello Dweeby123,
Could you please explain your big revert here?. An edit summary of 'revert' doesn't give any real reason behind your action. Some of the 'red' links probably needed to be returned, but you also removed some good links and some referenced text here?. Regards, 220.101 talk^\Contribs 13:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Lauren Crace

Do you have a source for her retirement or death? Otherwise, she's still "active". Thanks. Rodhullandemu 18:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

What You See Is What You Get (book)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Wikipedia:Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

"Vandalism" again still

This edit is not vandalism. Stop labelling edits inappropriately, and stop edit warring over this issue at Tony Curtis. Radiopathy •talk• 19:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

More mislabelled vandalism

This edit was not vandalism. In fact it was a completely valid edit, since the band Simply Red no longer exists, as it says at that article and in Mick Hucknall's infobox. Graham87 14:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Similarly this edit - it looks very much like a good-faith edit. See WP:VAND, lead section, first two paragraphs. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Likewise this. Wikipedia works on the basis that there is a presumption of good faith unless clearly otherwise. See WP:AGF. In this case it is perfectly reasonable the anon editor felt that £10m is now closer to $15m not $20m (Google says $15.9m - so the anon is clearly closer and with an appropriate level of rounding given timescale and currency fluctuations, the anon user is arguably correct). This edit is not vandalism. If the amount had been changed to 10p it would have been. Seriously, pack it in Dweeby, learn how to use Twinkle appropriately or stop using it at all, and get your own house in order (re the sections above and below) before being so quick to throw stones at other people. If it is not definitely vandalism, it is NOT vandalism. Halsteadk (talk) 19:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

October 2010

When adding links to material on an external site, as you did to Jeremy Clarkson, please ensure that the external site is not violating the creator's copyright. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website's operator has created or licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If you believe the linked site is not violating copyright with respect to the material, then you should do one of the following:

• If the linked site is the copyright holder, leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page;
• If a note on the linked site credibly claims permission to host the material, or a note on the copyright holder's site grants such permission, leave a note on the article Talk page with a link to where we can find that note;
• If you are the copyright holder or the external site administrator, adjust the linked site to indicate permission as above and leave a note on the article Talk page;

If the material is available on a different site that satisfies one of the above conditions, link to that site instead. Please do not link to Youtube or similar sites unless it is an official upload from the rights-owner. You referenced the name of the DVD which is sufficient. Halsteadk (talk) 10:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:AN/I

This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is here. Radiopathy •talk• 23:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I think your edits are well-intentioned, but you should be clear what is and what is not vandalism. I suggest that when using Twinkle, you revert edits as "good-faith" unless they are obviously vandalism; that will avoid any criticism in future. Rodhullandemu 00:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

What rod says :) NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

More pretend "Vandalism"

Removing a paparazzi image of Paul O'Grady grieving at his friend's funeral is hardly "Vandalism". Unless its release has been authorised, that image is in incredibly poor taste. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.11.140.186 (talk) 04:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for You've been repeatedly asked and warned to stop referring to edits you disagree with as "vandalism". These continued personal attacks fall afoul of our no personal attacks policy, and also demonstrate a lack of understanding of the collaborative Wikipedia process. All you need to do to get unblocked is to engage in dialog. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:14, 10 October 2010 (UTC). If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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).

Dweeby123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I am really really sorry, okay you win I promise to stop using twinkle, please guys just one more chance I'm begging you please, I am truly truly sorry —Dweeby123

Decline reason:

Per conversation here and at WP:ANI, and your apparently resorting to some truly lame sockpuppetry to evade this block and advocate for yourself Beeblebrox (talk) 18:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

---

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.

• I've placed your request on hold pending the resolution of the conversation at WP:ANI. If you have anything you would like to add to it you may post it here and it can be copied over. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you probably should stop using Twinkle for the moment, but it is more important that you understand what is and what is not WP:VANDALISM. Vandalism is editing done with the obvious intent to harm Wikipedia, not just any edit you don't happen to agree with. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:44, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Dweeby, it's not Twinkle that's the problem. Twinkle offers you three options when reverting - you can show that you know the edit was good faith (but maybe it broke the table formatting or something), you can revert and leave an edit summary (if you disagree with the edit) or you can rollback without leaving a message. The last option is ONLY for vandalism as defined in WP:VANDALISM, not for anything else. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I absolutely meant what I said, I will not or never use twinkle again as I don't want this to happen again —Dweeby123 07:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

You're missing the point - it's not using Twinkle, it's calling valid edits vandalism that's the problem. If you explain what you understand vandalism to be, you'll probably have more success at being unblocked. Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Well I hereby promise not to vandalise again, just please un-block me I'm sorry for how I behaved and acted —Dweeby123 10:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you missed what Elen was trying to tell you, so I'll repeat it for her: If you explain what you understand vandalism to be, you'll probably have more success at being unblocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:18, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism is for e.g. this type of edit, somebody said that The Stig was leaving so I reverted it, basically I reverted it because there was no source to suggest that he was leaving, so I do know what vandalism is I just want to carry on editing Wiki, I love this place it's amazing please don't "make me leave", now that I've explained myself please please unblock me :( Thanks —Dweeby123 06:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The example you give is not clear-cut vandalism. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay SO!!, What is it you expect me to do I have tried my best, I have apologised till I'm blue in the face, all I want is to be unblocked jesus I didn't think it'd be this flaming difficult!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Dweeby123 08:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It is indeed difficult, and probably rightly so. I see a long chain of friendly comments and other pieces of advice (above) that you never bothered to respond to. This basically gives the impression that you didn't give a damn until it was too late. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Please JPGordon, don't you think I've "stewed enough", I've I am said sorry offered to STOP using twinkle I mean prey tell me what it is you want me to do??, I mean no offence if you don't unblock me I'll only do this, I mean I don't want to but it maybe that'll I have to, and I'm sure no-one wants that do they?? well certainly not me anyways —Dweeby123 09:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Threatening to become a puppetmaster doesn't help your case at all. You need to relax and let this run it's course. The more policies you break, the harder you make this on yourself. Ishdarian 10:17, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I know Ishdarian, but as you can probably understand, I am getting ever so slighty cheesed off, all I want to do is be a Wikipedian, but how can I do that when i'm blocked the simple answer is I can't, so yeah I know I should'nt have said i'd be a puppetmaster, but like I said i'm just really really annoyed :( Dweeby123 11:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) With regard to the edit that you most recently gave as an example: your revert has, in the edit summary, "Reverted good faith edits" but also "Rvv, no source". Now, according to WP:ESL#Revert to a previous edit, "rvv" is generally held to stand for "revert vandalism". Describing something as both a "good faith edit" and "vandalism" is self-contradictory; if you had meant simply "revert", this would have been "rv", not "rvv".

To me, this particular case is a true good faith edit - there does not appear to have been any malicious intent by the IP editor: he may have simply "heard it somewhere" and decided to pop it in. See WP:VAND paragraph 2 "Even if misguided or ill-considered, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism.".

Contrast this with one of my own reverts, and see WP:VAND para. 1: "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. ... Common types of vandalism are the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, and the insertion of nonsense into articles." - in this case, I interpreted the edit as the addition of crude humor in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia, and that influenced my decision to label it as vandalism (using the "rvv" abbreviation mentioned earlier).

I hope this helps you to understand our concerns more clearly. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, many thanks for that Redrose64, but am I going to be unblocked or not?? that's all I want to know, I don't like all this pretence :( Dweeby123 11:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but since I'm not an admin, I cannot either unblock you or recommend that you be unblocked. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, well many thanks for the advice :( Dweeby123 12:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to add something I have just switched off twinkle in my "user preferences section" , and I ain't gonna turn it back on so please some just unblock me thanks Dweeby123 12:27, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I for one remained unconvinced that you understand what is vandalism and what is not. Whether you have twinkle enabled or not, this is an important distinction and if you cannot comprehend it I'm afraid you may lack the basic level of competence that is needed to edit Wikipedia effectively. I'm sorry to be so blunt about it but what vandalism is and is not has been repeatedly explained to you, and yet when you were asked to explain it back in your own words, you failed. Your further comments since then indicate that your focus is more on getting unblocked than on actually trying to understand why you were blocked in the first place. I think it may be time for you to consider the standard offer for blocked users. Take some time away from Wikipedia, maybe contribute at another Wikimedia site such as the Simple English Wikipedia, where the rules are a bit more relaxed, and come back in a several months. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

[Unindenting Beeblebrox for clarity] As a bystander who happened across this discussion while reading an unrelated ANI posting, I hope young Dweeby will —as Beeblebrox and others have suggested— actually pause a moment, and read the WP:OFFER article, and exhibit (not just talk) to everyone some inkling of self-control and discipline. I currently see nothing but impatience and temper-tantrum antics. Cheers. — DennisDallas (talk) 00:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Evidence of sockpuppetry while blocked

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/User:Dweeby123. Thank you. IP user 83.218.31.112 who managed to find and contribute to the discussion about you at WP:ANI and made a big point of not knowing you has strikingly similar edit summaries, and started editing around the time you were banned. Halsteadk (talk) 18:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

That's NOT me has it had never occured to you that, that IP Address could be shared?? Well it is because it's in a public library, so therefore anyone could have done those Emmerdale edits and commented on WP:ANI, but it wasn't me. Dweeby123 07:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you do this?

Can you simply refrain from using the term "vandalism"? Even if someone types "poo farts caca doo doo" in the middle of the article? Can you just revert and be done with it? Radiopathy •talk• 23:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

That would not be satisfactory in my book. If a user actually cannot understand the difference between blatant vandalism and edits that are possibly unhelpful but not malicious they shouldn't be reverting anything. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Well if that's what it takes to unblock me then I agree I have absolutely no problem with that whatsoever Dweeby123 07:05, 13 October 2010 (UTC)