User talk:Dotyacd

Welcome!

Hello, Dotyacd, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! RJFJR (talk) 17:08, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

edit warring on Michel Chossudovsky

Your recent editing history at Michel Chossudovsky shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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. See BRD for 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 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.

Also, as already explained to you, the text you're adding is not encyclopedic. We don't just go into an article and insert our own personal feelings about its content up on top. Volunteer Marek 00:00, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV

Given edits such as this one, I question your neutrality: you're not just giving editorial commentary and praising the subject, but you're also inserting spam links to Amazon. Each of these individually could be reason to deny you the ability to edit Wikipedia. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:05, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My point is to alert readers to the defamatory bias of the article.

You can't make that point in article space--and how your making that point is helped by a link to Amazon, well. Drmies (talk) 03:19, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Amazon link lists his publications. It is a legitimate source for them.

No it is not. You don't understand the rules here for sourcing, and if you can't tell the difference between sourcing and promoting, maybe you need a block per WP:CIR. Drmies (talk) 02:57, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Michel Chossudovsky‎ for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. —Paleo Neonate – 02:55, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the September 11 attacks, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Callannecc and PaleoNeonate - Please come right out and tell me specifically what is bothering you about what I am doing and why you have authority to communicate with me in this manner.

I assert that the administrators (you, e.g.?) are acting as involved parties (i.e., not impartial and for which I have requested arbitration) and that the result in the case of the Michel Chossudovsky page does not achieve Wikipedia's stated purpose and violates each of the following five pillars:

The fundamental principles of Wikipedia may be summarized in five "pillars":		Shortcuts WP:5P1 WP:5P WP:PILLARS
	Wikipedia is an encyclopedia
	It combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, an indiscriminate collection of information, or a web directory. It is not a dictionary, a newspaper, or a collection of source documents, although some of its fellow Wikimedia projectsare.
	Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view	Shortcut WP:5P2
	We strive for articles that document and explain major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence in an impartial tone. We avoid advocacy and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view". All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is on living persons. Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinionsdo not belong.
	Wikipedia is free content that anyone can use, edit, and distribute	Shortcut WP:5P3
	Since all editors freely license their work to the public, no editor owns an article and any contributions can and will be mercilessly edited and redistributed. Respect copyright laws, and never plagiarize from sources. Borrowing non-free media is sometimes allowed as fair use, but strive to find free alternatives first.
	Wikipedia's editors should treat each other with respect and civility	Shortcut WP:5P4
	Respect your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree. Apply Wikipedia etiquette, and don't engage in personal attacks. Seek consensus, avoid edit wars, and never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Act in good faith, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming to newcomers. Should conflicts arise, discuss them calmly on the appropriate talk pages, follow dispute resolution procedures, and consider that there are 5,521,083 other articles on the English Wikipedia to improve and discuss.
	Wikipedia has no firm rules	Shortcut WP:5P5
	Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions. Be bold but not reckless in updating articles. And do not agonize over making mistakes: every past version of a page is saved, so mistakes can be easily corrected.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dotyacd (talk • contribs) 12:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an administrator. My above message was about WP:TPG. The other message sent by Callannecc is one which can be sent to anyone editing in relation to a topic where arbitration committee established arbitrary sanctions exist (that banner is not a threat and includes the text It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date). —Paleo Neonate – 15:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you two are just users who disagree with my point of view?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dotyacd (talk • contribs) 16:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI thread notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

This is also an opportunity to discuss the issue with administrators. —Paleo Neonate – 22:54, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for ignoring all warnings and persisting in disrupting Talk:Michel Chossudovsky. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | talk 23:42, 28 November 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

my comments are reasonable, not disruptive, and do not violate WP policy

Decline reason:

You are kidding, right? This is in no way reasonable. I considered extending your block to indefinite, as we require competence here. But I decided against it. Think very hard before making your edit unblock request or, once your block expires, your next edit. Yamla (talk) 15:22, 29 November 2017 (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.

Yamla, this editor has returned and is now doing the same vandalism that he was temporarily blocked for initially. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:33, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeap. --Yamla (talk) 22:36, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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).

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

Request reason:

I was blocked because I edited the Michel Chossudovsky page again after have been warned previously. I maintain that my edits are enclyclopedic corrections of entries which are not encyclopedic. I also maintain that MS is a reputable scholar and not a conspiracy theorist. Dotyacd (talk) 10:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your unblock request is not an appropriate place to continue your content dispute, it is a place to address the behaviour that led to your block. You will not be unblocked if you do not provide a convincing explanation of why your approach to content disagreement was wrong, that you understand how Wikipedia editors should address content disagreements, and how you will change your approach to such disagreements if unblocked. (I'll give you a clue on that last one - it's not by edit warring to force your preferred article version through.) Please carefully read the guide to appealing blocks before you make any further request. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:42, 15 March 2018 (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'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).

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

Request reason:

I understand that the edits I made were identified as warring because they were repeated and that this behavior on my part will not be tolerated. I will not repeat this behavior and will consult with administrators.

Decline reason:

Administrators are not here to settle content disputes you are in or pre-clear your edits. You need to tell us how you will work through disputes you are in(hint). 331dot (talk) 16:16, 10 September 2023 (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.