User talk:Dappy373

September 2023

Hello, I'm Knitsey. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Stockton Rush have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Knitsey (talk) 10:36, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 2023

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Stockton Rush. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 17:29, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page

It is not acceptable to delete conversations or discussions from the talk pages of articles such as at Talk:Stockton Rush. We ARCHIVE discussions that are no longer relevant so that they are preserved for future editors. Removing them to prevent them from being archived or from being commented on is not allowed. See WP:TALK for details₢ on acceptable edits to the talk pages of articles. Additionally, you were already warned against removing talk pages sections here. Generally, when someone reverts your edit, you should consider talking to them at their talk page before repeating the same removal. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:17, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I dont care you silly ass Dappy373 (talk) 18:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may not call others "silly ass": please refrain from any further personal attacks or you will be blocked.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And I care because? Tried to co-operate, instead they wanted to use cheek because they cannot communicate properly. And I am my own person, Ill do what I want. Dappy373 (talk) 19:06, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This WP:IDHT attitude is going to quickly lead to your getting shown the door. Please consider changing your attitude. There was nothing improper about the way the communicated the warning. Thanks for abiding by the talk page guidelines. I don't see much evidence of "cooperation" in your recent edits.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:12, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at Talk:Stockton Rush, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. That's the last straw. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 18:52, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And I care because? Do you think youre intimidating? Im trying to fix a copyright issue, the current image being used does not belong to whoever has uploaded it and is in fact stolen from a video. Dappy373 (talk) 18:54, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What is your evidence that it was stolen from a video? Based on the current upload information, it was taken from a video that was licensed under Creative Commons. CC licenses are irrevocable. —C.Fred (talk) 18:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The image belongs to OceanGate, and the licensing is ominus. The image does not belong to you, it belongs to the OceanGate YouTube channel. The fact that the image was "taken" from a video that does not belong to you suggests the poor thinking and lack of legal knowledge. Dappy373 (talk) 19:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "ominus" licensing? The video was reviewed, before it went private, and the Wikimedia Commons reviewer confirmed that the video was under a Creative Commons license. With all due respect, I put far more faith in the reviewer's opinion about the licensure than yours. —C.Fred (talk) 19:09, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Stockton Rush shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You must immediately cease editing the article until you achieve a consensus in support of your edits, which you have the opposite of at this time. Jasper Deng (talk) 19:16, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. —C.Fred (talk) 19:16, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Fred: I'm not sure they had a fair chance to see and read my warning above, which was issued in the same minute as their revert. But I think a block for a combative approach is justified.--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:18, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jasper Deng I was about to leave a message that any admin may unblock if the user acknowledges the need to edit collaboratively and work toward consensus and agrees to accept a 0RR restriction on the Stockton Rush article for the duration of the 72 hours. —C.Fred (talk) 19:20, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you revert my block, then I will discuss it without disputes. Dappy373 (talk) 20:18, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be pedantic but, it isn't really possible to "discuss it without disputes" as this is a dispute. You should be explicit about accepting C.Fred's unblock conditions in their comment.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:21, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt ask you to get involved. Dappy373 (talk) 20:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not as if User:C.Fred, or anyone else for that matter, will say anything different. If you wish to formally request unblock, the instructions are in the block notice.--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at Talk:Stockton Rush, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You've already been warned about this. 🛧Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 12:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indef for same thing; any further personal attacks will result in loss of talk page access as well

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 12:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]