Jump to content

User talk:Dweeby123

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dweeby123 (talk | contribs) at 07:24, 15 October 2010 (→‎Blocked: trying again with unblock req.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

?

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
What rod says :) NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 00:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[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).

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)[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 is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

I am hereby requesting that my block be lifted as I feel I wasn't given a chance, to correct my mistakes —Dweeby123

Notes:

  • In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
  • Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I am hereby requesting that my block be lifted as I feel I wasn't given a chance, to correct my mistakes —[[User:Dweeby123|Dweeby123]] |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I am hereby requesting that my block be lifted as I feel I wasn't given a chance, to correct my mistakes —[[User:Dweeby123|Dweeby123]] |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I am hereby requesting that my block be lifted as I feel I wasn't given a chance, to correct my mistakes —[[User:Dweeby123|Dweeby123]] |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

[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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
But why would Clarissa MacDougall, who has come in to do her school homework, edit an article with precisely the same edit summaries as you, even down to the misspelling, AND comment on your case at ANI? You were blocked because the IP sounds just like you, not because a checkuser has confirmed that its the one your account edits from. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:51, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No Dweeby, it didn't occur to me on the basis that the edit history evidence is so strong, as a number of editors have agreed, compared with the sheer improbability of your explanation above. The only way someone using the same public PC as you could see your account's edits and find you on WP:ANI is if they trawled through the web browser history to see which pages had been visited. The chances of them doing that AND then making a string of similar edits to you with similar characteristics over several sittings over 2 days (that do not look like edits by a first-time user), AND then finally commenting on your case at WP:ANI is unlikely beyond any reasonable assumption of good faith. As Elen says, no check has been made that your account edits from the same IP address, as no check is relevant (it won't prove or disprove anything either way). You would be better off taking the WP:OFFER you've been given than arguing with people who know what they're doing and have seen this all before. You clearly have something useful to offer the project, so go and contribute to another Wiki for a bit and come back in a couple of months. Halsteadk (talk) 12:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Put up another Unblock template, say what your mistake was and what will be different if you're unblocked, and let's see what happens. Radiopathy •talk• 23:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One Final Chance

If I may add something here, yeah you've blocked (nothing I can do), but let me just say I created these pages (Trevor Baines) and (What You See Is What You Get (book)), now tell me why I would do that hey??, well it's because I like being a Wikipedian, and I created those articles, for the benefit of others not because I was bored but because I'm passionate about Wikipedia, let's say for e.g. in 10, 20, 30 years time I'm a multi-millionaire businessman right well let's say Jimmy Wales declares himself bankrupt (I apologise if you're reading this Jimmy), and as a result has to close Wiki down well he wouldn't have to because I'd buy it..... so you see how much I love Wiki, that is what I would do for it now as for the block could you not look into your heart of hearts, and give me one FINAL chance Please guys that's all I am asking..... just one final chance to prove that I can be a good Wikipedian.. For now anyways Dweeby123 07:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you are asking for an admin to review this I can tell you my answer is still no. You seem to be searching for the magic word or phrase that will get you unblocked. As I pointed out before, you are more focused on just getting unblocked than you are on understanding the reasons for the block and learning to avoid the type of behaviors that led to you being blocked. Again I suggest you try editing another project for a while, see how that goes and come back and request unblock here after several months have passed. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to say that I've found Dweeby123 to be a good, well-intentioned editor. His only "crime" is using the word "vandalism" incorrectly. I know it's wrong to do that, but I think blocking him just for that is a little bit harsh. He's promised to stop, and to be honest I don't think making him wait a few months is going to help. I think we should consider allowing him another chance. He knows he's done wrong and he doesn't want to be blocked again. AnemoneProjectors 23:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anemone, since Dweeby brought it up — and you called him a "good...editor" — I have to take issue with both his examples.
Each of these consists of only a one sentence lead (not counting infoboxes), both poorly-worded. The Baines sentence uses past tense ("had an estimated fortune") as if the man is dead or bankrupt, which he is not (according to the refs). The phrase amassed an estimated fortune would be more appropriate, since the "article" text makes no mention of the notable Wall Street scandal and subsequent legal woes. The two Baines bullet-point External Links run into the infobox when rendered on screen, and are missing the needed Header. There are no {{cite web}} tags on the other links.
And the WYSIWYG book lead is actually two run-on sentences (full stop after Alan Sugar) with 3 other glaring errors:
  • it's an autobiography,
  • tells not tell's, and
  • founding not finding the company.
For just two sentences that he seems so proud of, that's a lot of cleanup for someone else to catch & fix.[Yeah, yeah, I'll be nice & go fix 'em now.] — DennisDallas (talk) 01:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He hasn't been blocked for bad grammar. AnemoneProjectors 02:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True, but he is now trying to tie his unblock appeal to specific contributions, and it seems they are of a rather poor quality. He opened the door, Dennis just walked through it. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look guy's please just unblock me I've been left more than 48 hours to stew (and believe me I have done), it's like what AP said, I'm new to Wiki, and I don't really know the pros and cons, of it so basically I admit it I went in all Guns blazing, but now that I've had time to read the T&C's I fully understand..... So come on guy's what do you say one final chance???????? Dweeby123 08:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think two days will remedy much. You've had multiple editors leave questions on your talk page, and you are just now responding to some. You constantly flagged good faith edits as vandalism. You even resorted to using an IP address to get around your block. You were originally blocked to get your attention for not responding to anyone. You need to spend less time begging to be unblocked and more time addressing what you did to recieve the block. Ishdarian 09:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have already made myself perfectly clear as to what should happen next, so I won't repeat it again. If you want to post a new unblock request it will be reviewed by someone else, I'm unwatching this page as of now. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael J. Jackson amendments

Why did you revert my changes and label them as vandalism? I corrected two dates that were wrong and you reverted this and labelled it as vandalism, when it is clearly nothing of the sort. Please explain or leave the corrections alone.

Guineapig1974 (talk) 08:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Because, you didn't provide a reference Dweeby123 08:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How is that vandalism? Where is your reference for changing the dates in the first place, e.g. when he started teaching? My reference would be his fansite http://michael-j-jackson.tripod.com but fansite links are not allowed. Trust me, the dates I've put in are the correct ones.

Guineapig1974 (talk) 09:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okey dokey mate, fair play you found a source which I spose is better than nothing Dweeby123 10:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK thanks, but you haven't answered my question. Where is your source for your changes? And you still haven't explained how changing a date is vandalism. Please don't take this the wrong way but are you a child? I really don't think you have the aptitude to be making changes in a place like this. Sorry but it had to be said.

Guineapig1974 (talk) 10:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheek!, no I'm 18!! actually and my source is Internet Movie Database, it say's he started acting in 1973 and he "last acted" in 2008, so therefore 1973 - 2008 is correct and as for his teaching career well it states he started in 2008, shortly after he last acted in anything Dweeby123 10:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IMDB is not always up-to-date. Since 2008 he has done theatre and TV work and is currently in Emmerdale. It doesn't state anywhere on IMDB he started teaching in 2008. Someone wrote on here that he is currently teaching at a school in Liverpool since 2008. That's when he started at Calderstone's School. In fact he has been teaching for many years before this, in various schools in the north west. I don't know when he started teaching but it was long before 2008, hence my amendments. Hope this clarifies things. Guineapig1974 (talk) 10:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okies, sorry for being a knob Dweeby123 10:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference: IMDb is generally frowned upon as a source around here. Radiopathy •talk• 23:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I have to sympathize with Beeblebrox's recent sigh. The exchange above merely underscores that Dweeby just doesn't get it. — DennisDallas (talk) 23:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dweeby123&oldid=390836838"