User talk:Dodgechris

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.

Coronation Street

Now, now, now. What do we have here.. Hello Dodgechris. I assume you are editing soap opera articles this time around - like before? Can you remember me? (Maybe as a once useless Corrie editor)RaintheOne ^BAM 22:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. So quite a few things have changed and we have managed to clean a lot up. Perhaps Corrie hasn't thrived as much, but there is still differences. So I looked over Alf and references, they need publisher adding to them. The Guardian is published by Gaurdian Media Group, Digital Spy is by Hachette Filipacchi UK, The Independant is by Independent Print Limited. With the DS reception, concerning Sue Nic, it would be more suited to character development. So perhaps you could have said "Sue Nicholls opined that the decision to marry her character off to Alf, may have contributed to Audrey's longevity. Otherwise she may have been just another 'tart with a heart passing through.'" Also newspapers mentioned in the prose need to be italicised. The first time a character is mentioned, remember to wikilink them once and the actors name in brackets afterward.RaintheOne ^BAM 23:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've confused you a little - I should have explained better. In the ref it needs work=The Guardian|publisher=Gaurdian Media Group - work=Digital Spy|publisher=Hachette Filipacchi UK - Also The Sun you linked takes you to the actuall Sun in the solar system article. You need to pipe the link from "The Sun (United Kingdom)" which would read like this - The Sun - but take you to the correct article. Then the Sun is published by News International. If I've confused you again, just let me know. :)RaintheOne ^BAM 22:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nah you haven't confused me again, but could you please correct my mistakes please (I'm a bit confused there -_-). Thanks, and I'll remember what you've said. Dodgechris (talk • contributions) 22:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extra note - should be "Guardian Media Group" not "Gaurdian Media Group". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How did I make the same typo twice, yet spell "The Guardian" right! I must be losing it. Yeah sure Dodgechris, I'll fix it, so just look what I do to the refs on Terry's article.RaintheOne ^BAM 22:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, You've already done it.RaintheOne ^BAM 22:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I managed to figure out what you meant. Dodgechris (talk • contributions) 22:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed the ref wasn't from The Sun, it was the Daily Mirror. So I changed that for you. Trinity Mirror is their publisher. I usually put the publisher in brackets, but some people dispute doing so. Another thing is that the author needs to read differently. So with Daniel Kilkelly from Digital Spy, it needs to be Kilkelly, Daniel. "first=Daniel|last=Kilkelly" and leave out "author=" - this will easily solve that for you each time. Also only newspapers and magazines need italizing. So you can leave DS normal. Then that is everything you need to know about refs. :)RaintheOne ^BAM 22:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some changes to the Des Barnes article - hopefully I have done it right this time! Dodgechris (talk • contributions) 09:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply. You have mastered the ref style! :D Quick learner then. (You must be because I am pretty crap at explaining things lol) Now are you familiar with writing development sections? Also Inside Soap is a great little tool to have for all of the interviews. I'm not sure how big of soap fan you are, so you might already buy it. Obviously DS has so much info for the recent Corrie characters.RaintheOne ^BAM 23:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I'm not so good with development sections - great with Reception though. Erm no I don't buy Inside Soap because I don't like to spoil it for me too much XD. Dodgechris (talk • contributions) 10:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have just cleaned up/expanded Fred Elliott's article and, based on the edits I've made, I think I've pretty much got the hang of it now. Thoughts? Dodgechris (talk • contributions) 13:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the cookie... and some advice

Thanks for the cookie! And welcome back. I see my guesstimate of your age was wrong by about four years, that's amusing. You should probably read Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors, although hopefully most of it won't be new to you by now. I have one other suggestion, but I'll email that (when I get round to it).

Under the circumstances, it's also worth being very careful about the security of your account. Making absolutely sure that it's not ever accessed by someone else, is important. Also, even after you log out, close any windows showing talkpages or articles that you've been working on, if there's any possibility of someone else using the computer. In addition, be careful not to edit while logged out. And of course, don't forget you are restricted to editing only from this one account, under any circumstances. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. Sorry I took a long time to reply, my Internet has been down this week! Did you think I was younger or older than your guess? Dodgechris (talk • contributions) 15:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Internet went out right after being unblocked? Wow, that must have been annoying. Fate was trying to teach you patience or something :-)

Based on some of the account names of the former socks, I had assumed that you were about 18 now and about 15 at the time of the various problems. Although I'm well aware that there are (and have been) lots of 11 year olds editing Wikipedia, it's not always the first thing one expects. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts, violating terms of your unblocking. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. TNXMan 14:07, 18 August 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

I don't know what I've done wrong.

Decline reason:

User talk:Dodgechris/archive#Unblocked says, my condition of unblocking you is that you are limited to using this single account. You didn't adhere to this condition; hence, you were reblocked. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:45, 18 August 2011 (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.

What's your relationship with User:Mysandboxaccount? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's the account I use for testing because I don't want to clog up my edit history. Dodgechris (talk • contributions) 20:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some part of you are limited to using this single account that is in some way ambiguous or vague? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think creating an account that was not used to edit mainspace Wikipedia and just userspace would matter. My block is not necessary because, as per WP:BLOCK, blocks are to protect Wikipedia from disruption - I wasn't causing any disruption. Dodgechris (talk • contributions) 20:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the edits of his sandbox account, they are all in user space and they are all being used to improve wikipedia. I can vouch that Chris has been doing good work on wikipedia since he was unblocked, at least from his main account. Is there evidence that any other accounts have been used to edit main space since the unblock? If not then I think an indefinite block is too harsh, and that Chris should just be told to confine all his userspace edits to this account in future.GunGagdin ^Moan 00:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again: "Is there some part of you are limited to using this single account that is in some way ambiguous or vague?" This user has a severe history of abusing multiple accounts and removing the old block was completely contingent upon him not repeating old behavior. While he hasn't edited disruptively yet, considering his history I don't think it's much of a stretch to imagine he "tested the waters" with this new account in order to ascertain the likelyhood of him being caught socking. I know we're supposed to assume good faith, but this user has been very sneaky in the past and he should have known that his editing was restricted to one account - no exceptions. He should have known this because it was made quite clear when he was unblocked. N^oformation ^Talk 08:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understood that I was not to edit under any other account, but I didn't think that included an account completely dedicated to editing userspace. It is definitely clear now that I am not to edit with any other account under any circumstances. In future I will save articles I am writing to Microsoft Word and preview them in Wikipedia, rather than saving it in an alternate accounts userspace. Dodgechris (talk • contributions) 09:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about Huzunited (talk · contribs) and Ctorrance111 (talk · contribs)? You were operating those accounts as well. TNXMan 11:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope Huzunited is my friends account and Ctorrance111 was made by my friend in my name ages ago. Dodgechris (talk • contributions) 11:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I cant believe I've been blocked again, it's really frustrating especially since I've hardly done anything wrong :S Dodgechris (talk • contributions) 15:24, 19 August 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

Yes but that was a good three years before I was unblocked - since then I haven't abused the unblock conditions.

Decline reason:

If you haven't abused the unblock conditions since, I'm confused why checkusers are coming up with an ever-growing list of other accounts that have been used from your computer. The explanations you give for these are straining the limits of my good faith as well. I've two more accounts to add, by the way: explain User:SpideyFan09 and User:Wuzzupbob. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:27, 19 August 2011 (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.

Those accounts were discussed and things were settled before I was unblocked last month. Dodgechris (talk • contributions) 15:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dodgechris, surely you must have known it was a bad idea to create another account. I mean seriously, after all the work you had to do in order to return. I would point out some of these guys are pulling up old accounts and claiming them as part of an ever growing list... not that it really matters.RaintheOne ^BAM 15:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "not that it really matters"? Dodgechris (talk • contributions) 15:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

I think my block should be reviewed again. Refer to the above discussion.

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 think my block should be reviewed again. Refer to the above discussion. |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 think my block should be reviewed again. Refer to the above discussion. |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 think my block should be reviewed again. Refer to the above discussion. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

I think a temporary ban of a week or two would suffice instead of an indefinite ban, so he learns a lesson, but is not completely alienated. I dont understand DC's desire to open all these accounts, especially as most of them contain no edits, but regardless, the fact remains that none made since his unblock have been used for vandalism from what I can see; predicting that they will be used for vandalism in the future is penalising for something that has not happened. The editor has been showing that he wants to make valid contributions to wikipedia; I genuinely think this should be considered here, otherwise we are likely to push him down that route by being overly harsh, which would be a headache for everyone and entirely avoidable. I suggest that he continues to be monitored; any other accounts opened from henceforth will not be tolerated regardless of their purpose and will result in a permanent ban, without the option to appeal.GunGagdin ^Moan 17:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Huzunited and Ctorrance111 aren't actually me. Dodgechris (talk • contributions) 17:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]