User talk:Thedamneditor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Hello![edit]

Just wanted to leave you a quick message to say thank you for your edits to Matt Edmondson. Useful little edits don't go un-noticed and are appreciated. I hope to see you editing more and more.. leave me a message on my talk page if you have any questions or need any help with anything. ツStacey (talk) 18:02, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

July 2016[edit]

Information icon Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Leader of the Conservative Party (UK). Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Neveselbert 16:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Whilst Cameron is Prime Minister until Wednesday evening, Theresa May was declared Conservative leader by Graham Brady, who organised the election, as of today. It isn't up to Cameron. Specto73 (talk) 18:45, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

ok — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaj Taj Mahal (talkcontribs) 16:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Thedamneditor. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Thedamneditor. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

January 2018[edit]

Information icon Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to BBC Radio 1, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Just be aware that among the rules, WP:NOTRADIOGUIDE is clear that encyclopedic articles should not contain TV/radio schedules. That's why editors are removing your long list of radio schedules. Please do not keep reverting this content as other editors will just remove it again, and it will just get frustrating for you. Thanks. Cnbrb (talk) 10:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit Warring[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on BBC Radio 1. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.Davey2010Talk 17:24, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Stop icon
Your recent editing history at BBC Radio 1 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. –Davey2010Talk 17:24, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

January 2018[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at BBC Radio 1 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.
Bear in mind that sockpuppetry is also not acceptable Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 18:00, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Acroterion (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Thedamneditor (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribscreation logchange block settingsunblockfilter log)


Request reason:

No further reverts were made after receipt of warning. Furthermore, other users are still continuing to breach Wikipedia terms on the same page. Thedamneditor (talk) 1:06 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

Not only were you edit-warring, but you also used a sockpuppet. Both of these are blockable offenses, and even more so together. Please read WP:NOTTHEM, too. GABgab 22:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

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.

I completed the template to enable this appeal to be properly formatted. I note that your sockpuppet has not yet been blocked. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 18:09, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
You were issuing edit-warring notices as retaliation and to gain an advantage. You're not entitled to edit-war, and you're not immune to blocking if you've stopped. You were continuing your disruption by other means. Acroterion (talk) 18:10, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Block extended to 72 hours for sockpuppetry. [1] Acroterion (talk) 18:14, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Acroterion Could you close Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Thedamneditor too, Cheers, –Davey2010Talk 18:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Nvm already done lol, –Davey2010Talk 18:18, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
I was issuing edit-warring notices because other users were edit-warring, plain and simple Acroterion, which is not too dissimilar to what you're currently doing now. Your extension of the block will have no impact on me whatsoever. However, do you have any proof of this alleged sockpuppet's existence please? And also where in Wikipedia's terms does it say one individual is not entitled to more than one account too please. A response would be appreciated before this issue gets taken further. Thanks.
edit-warring notices because other users were edit-warring Multiple people reverted you, mostly only once each.
which is not too dissimilar to what you're currently doing now. Actually, it's not even in the same ballpark as blocking you for disrupting the project.
Your extension of the block will have no impact on me whatsoever. I'm sure the admins will all decide to be completely clueless and choose to believe that this isn't a threat to engage in more socking. That was sarcasm, by the way.
However, do you have any proof of this alleged sockpuppet's existence please? It's in the struck out comment above yours. Not that you actually need proof, having created that account yourself.
And also where in Wikipedia's terms does it say one individual is not entitled to more than one account too please. WP:TOS doesn't say anyone is "entitled" to anything, but you can read our policy on sockpuppetry at WP:SOCK. Using an alt account to try to influence an argument is a textbook case of prohibited alt account usage.
A response would be appreciated before this issue gets taken further. "Taken further" to what, I wonder... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:07, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


MjolnirPants, if you honestly believe that multiple people are incapable of being at war then your powers of discernment are even more deficient than I initially thought, and that is saying something. The only people "disrupting the project" here are you 'dedicated' individuals who quite frankly have far too much time on your hands. Again, I'm not seeing any evidence of the existence of this alleged account, so if you'd care to show me some proof to support your accusations then you might find me taking a more amicable approach to the resolution of this conflict. Interpret it however you like, I'm not really bothered either way to be honest. What I am bothered about is upholding the integrity and consistency of the articles of this site, which is why the two reverts occured in the first place. And as for your 'taken further' query, I'll take it to Jimmy Wales himself if needs must. You have no idea who I know.
You have no idea who I know. This.... This really made my day. Thank you for the laugh riot. Good luck with your appeal. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:26, 29 January 2018 (UTC)


MjolnirPants Pleased to be of assistance! Have fun scrolling through articles.
The appearance of a brand new account that appears to support an editor who is being vigorously warned about edit-warring, and which exactly mirrors that editor's conduct in furthering that edit war, is never a coincidence. Nobody else exceeded 3RR, and your sockpuppet account brought the revert count to five. You were disrupting the project, and you're blocked. Acroterion (talk) 23:48, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Acroterionb I asked for evidence, not your life history. I'm not interested in whether you perceive it to be a coincidence or not, I want proof. Cold hard proof that the sockpuppet account you speak of has anything to do with me. If you'd care to generate that proof then I'm all ears. In the mean time please see WP:GET FUCKED.
Cold hard proof: Checkuser  Confirmed and blatantly obvious. Talk page access revoked for the duration of the block to prevent further groundless appeals. You can use WP:UTRS if you want to make a WP:GAB-compliant unblock request.--Jezebel's Ponyobons mots 23:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

BBC Radio 1[edit]

No snark please [2], and any reverts will earn a block. Acroterion (talk) 16:16, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Acroterion Have I reverted anything? You need to get out more. Thanks for your comment anyway, your input is greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedamneditor (talkcontribs)
Did I say you'd reverted? I want to keep you from further difficulties. In that vein, please reconsider your approach to collaboration with other editors. Acroterion (talk) 17:32, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Radio 1's Weekend Breakfast Show moved to draftspace[edit]

An article you recently created, Radio 1's Weekend Breakfast Show, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 13:05, 12 August 2018 (UTC)