User talk:1wikideb1

1wikideb1, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi 1wikideb1! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Please join other people who edit Wikipedia at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space on Wikipedia where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Theopolisme (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:16, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, 1wikideb1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! MisterUnit (talk) 14:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

International Debutante Ball

I have cleaned up the International Debutante Ball article by addressing several issues:

Puffery, including terms such as "prestigious" and the like that are not neutral.
Formatting, including the use of heading levels where a simple list will suffice.
Unverified facts, including the use of references to verify quotes where the references do not, in fact, verify the quoted material.

You are free to undo these edits (again), but before you do, please consider the Wikipedia policies and guidelines to which I have linked and determine if your edits truly improve the article, or simply make it more your own. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you reverted my edits again, without discussion. Please understand that Wikipedia has a consensus process, and that you do not own this article. If you are unwilling to enter into discussion about these edits, your edits may be viewed as disruptive. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Either enter the discussion, or be reported for disruptive editing. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 04:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, 1wikideb1. You have new messages at Talk:International Debutante Ball.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, 1wikideb1. You have new messages at WikiDan61's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Join the discussion or don't

Are you going to join the discussion at Talk:International Debutante Ball or not? You complain that I act without waiting for consensus, but then you don't add anything to the conversation on which to build consensus. Either comment on my proposed changes, or allow them to happen without comment. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources

Please do not attempt to cite material on Wikipedia with articles that very clearly quoted the Wikipedia article in the first place (as you did in this edit to International Debutante Ball, citing this article that quotes the article verbatim for two entire paragraphs). Please rely on more reliable sources. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Change of meaning

With this change you have altered the meaning of the sentence. Is it your intention to say that all of these people are currently chairmen of the Ball, or that they have served in that capacity at some time in the past (which was the original meaning of the sentence)? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:33, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You never answered my question, so I reverted your edit to the prior version. I note that you have just reverted me again, so I ask the question again: are all of the listed people currently chairmen of the ball? How many chairmen does the ball have? Generally, organizations function best with only 1 chair person. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:08, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, you have not responded, so I have restored the original wording (chairmen have included). Placing this sentence in the present tense implies that the listed names are still chairmen of the ball, which is quite impossible given that at least one of the people listed (Mamie Eisenhower) is dead. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:52, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citations should actually verify facts

You added a link to this article in Vanity Fair to cite a statement in International Debutante Ball that says: "The International Debutante Ball has also been dubbed as 'the ultimate debutante ball for young society ladies' presenting the next generation of eligible accomplished socialites." While the cited article is about the International Debutante Ball, it says nothing about it being "the ultimate debutante ball for young society ladies". As a matter of fact, the VF article paints a rather unflattering picture of the debs as spoiled socialites who run amok at the hotel. I'm not sure this is really the citation you want to add to the article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

September 2013

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Emma Watson. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Elizium23 (talk) 00:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October 2013

Your recent editing history at Audrey Hepburn shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. MarnetteD | Talk 17:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nov 2013

Where would *elsewhere* be? User:D is for... — Preceding unsigned comment added by D is for... (talk • contribs) 14:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

November 2013

Hello, I'm Eyesnore. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Talk:International Debutante Ball, with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Eye snore (pc) 01:50, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further removal of content, including specific removals of references to yourself in the discussion, as you did here can only be seen as a bad faith attempt to hide past misdeeds. Please do not remove content from article talk pages, or edit other users' comments. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:59, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IntDebBall

It looks like we both ran afoul of this editor. I wanted to let you know that jpgordon blocked WrappedInBlue, as well as Prettyinkypink, Roysdeb23, BYEHIHIBYE and HIBYEBYEHI as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:31, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know Beyond My Ken --1wikideb1 (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstars

Barnstars are a really cool way that one Wikipedian can show appreciation to another Wikipedian for their hard work in making or keeping Wikipedia the awesome source of information that it is. Awarding them to oneself is not strictly prohibited, but doesn't really follow the spirit of the whole thing. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:32, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

High Society

		The Society Barnstar
		For your contributions to high society pages Robedia (talk) 19:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --1wikideb1 (talk) 19:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Robedia (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:26, 27 January 2014 (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).

1wikideb1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

May I know exactly why I have been blocked indefinitely? I also have no idea why I am being associated with the user: Robedia. I request to be unblocked as I have mistakenly been associated with another user. I have made a lot of edits over a long period of time to pages I felt that needed improving with more information. I find it very harsh that I have been blocked 'indefinitely' because I have been wrongly associated with another user. 1wikideb1 (talk) 1:33 am, Today (UTC+0)

Decline reason:

Technical and behavioural evidence strongly suggests otherwise. Yunshui 雲‍水 08:31, 28 January 2014 (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.

You sure? An SPI filed under your name at [1] led to you and many other accounts being matched. It wasn't only technical evidence; a lot of behavioral evidence was too coincidental. Thekillerpenguin (talk) 03:50, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am very sure. Just because I previously received a message on my talk page from another user (as that is the only time I have heard of a user: Robedia) does not justify accusing me of being linked to that user. It is very harsh that a block has immediately been put on me based on an incorrect accusation.--1wikideb1 (talk) 13:32, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What about user:Wikinow1? Are you by any chance related to that user? MisterUnit (talk) 16:04, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a 'sock puppet' of any account mentioned. All of these accusations are ridiculous.--1wikideb1 (talk) 19:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1wikideb1, you are invited to the Teahouse

Welcome!

International Debutante Ball

Talkback

Talkback

Join the discussion or don't

Reliable sources

Change of meaning

See also

Citations should actually verify facts

September 2013

October 2013

Nov 2013

November 2013

IntDebBall

Barnstars

High Society