Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved, as you did to It – Welcome to Derry, without good reason. They should have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. Wikipedia has some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. GSK (talk • edits) 03:19, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GSK This is more accurate, to a reader it will display as It: Welcome to Derry which is the most accurate. The article was titled It - Welcome to Derry for technical reasons, not a consensus or naming convention. DotesConks (talk) 03:20, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But you didn't use a standard character. For example, It: Welcome to Derry does not link to the article in question, but It꞉ Welcome to Derry does. This can create issues in the long run, and I'm willing to bet that your move will be undone by an administrator fairly quickly. This should have been discussed first. GSK (talk • edits) 03:24, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You should familiarize yourself with WP:TSC and WP:NC-COLON. The character you used is not on a standard keyboard, and it is the prefix for the Italian Wikipedia. This is why a hyphen was used instead. GSK (talk • edits) 03:39, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
I know I just gave this to you for similar reasons, but once again, thank you for bringing attention to vandals who try to deface my user page, as you did here. I highly appreciate your contributions. JeffSpaceman (talk) 11:51, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article was due to be deleted today as a Proposed deletion (WP:PROD). Why on Earth did you remove the PROD tag and send it to AFD if you just were seeking its deletion? Now there must be at least an additional week or two of discussion about it. I can understand doing this if you wanted to keep this article but it makes no sense at all if you are seeking its deletion when the article would have been deleted a few hours from now. Please do not work in administrative areas that you don't understand.
@Liz I wasn't trying to keep the article, I just saw that it was PROD. I thought after the 7 day PROD and consensus formed not to keep it, it would go to AFD. That is why I chose to skip the PROD process (or what I believed it was) and just send it to AFD. I apologize for the error DotesConks (talk) 18:46, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are getting deeply involved in the administrative part of this project which is very unusual for an editor that is as inexperienced as you are. This has resulted in a quite a lot of User talk page messages which unfortunately you choose to quickly remove from your talk page. I recommend leaving them up for at least a week or longer in case multiple editors have similiar concerns.
I recommend that you only nominate articles for AFD discussions where you know something about the subject so you know where you could look for additional sources. Relying on your personal knowledge and just "Googling" is not sufficient for an AFD nominator. If you work in subjects where you are familiar with the content, you can present a more thorough and persuasive deletion rationale. Already I'm seeing some pushback against your editing and it's important here to make allies among your fellow editors. What is most respected here is solid content creation and also knowledge of policy and guidelines, there is quite a lot of policy pages and no one can master them all so it can be most advantageous to focus on a specific area of the project to work in, it will be easier to meet other editors who share your interests and it sounded like that was one of your goals.
If you ever have questions about Wikipedia's policies or guidelines or you just want a second opinion or support, I encourage you to visit the Teahouse where experienced editors can help you with any problem you encounter. Good luck. And remember, ASSUME GOOD FAITH. LizRead!Talk!04:29, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Jlwoodwa was:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:GameGuardian and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Hello, DotesConks!
Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! jlwoodwa (talk) 05:11, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
looking at Special:Diff/1282364676, Special:Diff/1282380539 and Special:Diff/1282384014, you need to stop dealing with administrative issues; it's becoming harmful and if I see more of that, I'll block. Perhaps from the Wikipedia namespace, perhaps from all namespaces because the disruption has now entered the User Talk namespace too.
Trying to help at the Administrators' Noticeboard and learning about the existence of WP:PERM/R in the process is a bad sign. Telling someone they don't need a page you've learned about less than two hours ago isn't helpful either. Telling someone that the Ombuds Commission is "the global Arbitration Committee for behavior" is where this stops. You may have mixed this up with the WP:U4C, I don't know. Just stop.
@ToBeFree Hi ToBeFree, I'm not dealing with administrative issues. I'm simply helping the guy report administrators. You are correct in that I mixed up the Universal Conduct Committee with the Ombuds Commission, but other than that I am simply trying to help. DotesConks (talk) 23:52, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it's dealing with administrative issues or trying to help, please don't (yet). Attempting to help without being able to help is worse than staying silent and waiting for someone to provide a helpful reply. When you answer questions in the way shown in the three diffs above, the recipient may fail to notice that the answer comes from a person on their experience level rather than the group of users they were seeking help from. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:10, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also I saw you reverted my edit on another users talk page. That user posted to the talk page for the article United States of America and said it was no longer a liberal democracy and the entire article should be upheaved to call it a "semi-dictatorship" or something along those lines. DotesConks (talk) 00:14, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by SafariScribe were:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Illinois Education Association and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
I've donated some nifty sources for this draft. Thank you for taking any of my previous critique patiently. I appreciate your finding work in what we both consider important pagespace! It's exactly the sort of subject we should have articles about. BusterD (talk) 13:31, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well I am really happy now since it looked like I was going to get blocked, will definitely continue working on the articles I have created. DotesConks (talk) 17:55, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey there! We may still block you, but we'll appreciate the good work you've done (so we may put sanctions off to see how worthy you'll turn out to be in pagespace). That was sarcasm, btw. Congrats on your new extended confirmed status! Your choice of this subject impressed me. Expect to get more of these CT warnings (as below by our friend Doug Weller) as you enter such arenas. Part of BOLD is being willing to accept feedback, so welcome to Wikipedia (again)! BusterD (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BusterD I don't have extended confirmed status and I was also surprised that I hadn't received more introductions yet. I do have an interest in trade unions and American school systems so that is why I write about education unions and schooling DotesConks (talk) 20:05, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot, you'll get your EC permissions when April 3 comes around (30 days/500 edits). BTW, there are legendary wikipedians some consider WP:Unblockables. Editors who make so much high-quality pagespace that they (and their sycophants) consider themselves well-supported in their assertions, even when dead wrong. Don't end up being one of those. BusterD (talk) 20:09, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Eric Corbett was an example of one such unblockable. One of the finest page creators on the pedia ever. One of the finest page collaborators on the pedia ever. One of the finest mentors on the pedia ever. One of the most positive and rigorous reviewers on the pedia ever. His works are like post-grad literary essays. Unfortunately, also one of the biggest drama queens on the pedia ever. Under several screennames, Corbett eventually made himself such a nuisance behavior-wise, ArbCom felt compelled to remove him from the community. Doesn't end up that way very often. BusterD (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BusterD It was certainly an interesting read to go through Eric Corbett's user page and see everything that went down. And he did seem to have a lot of followers though in the end he wasn't untouchable DotesConks (talk) 21:03, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(BTW, it's unnecessary to ping an editor every time if you're already talking.) For contrast, observe User:Hawkeye7's consistent and lengthy civility. Another of our finest; much easier to get along with. Has been the lead coordinator for the WP:WikiProject Military History for several years. Hundreds of good article-class pages. Hundreds of DYKs. Scores of Featured pages. Literally thousands of reviews of others' works. No exaggeration. Another very positive example to emulate is admin User:Hog Farm. If you see an article about the American Civil War on Wikipedia's home page, it's likely he either wrote it or reviewed it. It was Hog Farm who demonstrated to me what I call the GA test. "Can I make a GA-class article out of this subject?" He doesn't commonly start an article unless he thinks he can raise it to GA class. It takes a strong knowledge of Wikipedia's social norms and reviewing process to make that happen. And mountains of effort. And lots of reviewing of others' pages. BusterD (talk) 21:14, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Introduction to contentious topics
You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
It's not your job to be a WP:SUPERHERO. If it's extreme, start a new topic on your user talk page. I think there are enough people who can't look away from this train wreck, that someone will act quickly! Though is bludgeoning ever extreme? And hang on - I can only find a couple of posts he's made on Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr.. And really ... the hill you want to die on is your nonpolicy-based statement that calling RFK Jr. a conspiracy theorist and anti vaccine is hurtful to him? Please read Wikipedia:NOTCENSORED and perhaps the many, many articles about his anti-vaccine stances, [1], [2], and [3]. Though my suggestion is just stick to something like baseball pages for a couple of weeks, and completely stay away from contentious topic like US politics. And I say this to stop the inevitable, because we all know where this is heading otherwise ... and I don't like losing editors unnecessarily. Nfitz (talk) 00:02, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Surely, if you support him, that's reason enough to tread lightly on such pages. Why even do respond to a dead RFC that failed - let alone ask someone take a legitimate response to WP:ANI from which you are blocked. Though I'm not sure that announcing that you support a fringe anti-vaxxing conspiracy theorist with blood on his hands and disowned by virtually the entire Kennedy family is really going to help here - that's pretty fringe! Nfitz (talk) 00:16, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nfitz Are you implying that the community hates people on the right side of the wing? The RFC wasn't closed and comments are still being posted hence why I posted a comment. I think its pretty saddening that you would try to say my political beliefs are wrong when RFK is pro-safe vaccine, not antivax. DotesConks (talk) 00:23, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what this has to do with hate, and the right. RFK has spent most of his political life on the left, promoting his anti-vaccine conspiracy theories. Anecdotally I know more anti-vaxxers on the left than the right - though from those I know on both sides, it was more on the view of personal freedoms than where RFK is coming from - which is complete opposition to the actual science - which I've really heard little mention from otherwise. Also Covid vaccines were both funded and required by a right-wing government in some countries. This has nothing to do with left-right. And everything to do with the person and their blatantly false and deadly claims. You try and whitewash his fringe science by saying he is pro-safe vaccine rather than anti-vaccine. And yet he's even cast doubts on extremely safe vaccines such as for measles, with very false and specific claims! Nfitz (talk) 00:33, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I don't do email. I just want to dismiss the very notion that anti-vaxxing is particularly a right-wing position or that RFK was ever right-wing when he was a vehement anti-vaxxer. If anything, he's toned down his anti-vax position a bit since switching from the Democrats to the Republicans. And his positions on artificial food additives and healthy eating are laudable, universally-supported, and science-based. I'm not sure why the notion of right or left would ever be a factor in any discussion here. ~~ Nfitz (talk) 00:58, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nfitz Can I get sources that prove RFK Jr is an anti vax? And not from CNN, NBC, or those news sources. Truly independent news sources that aren't funded by billionaires. DotesConks (talk) 01:31, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Two of the three articles I linked were from The Lancet, a peer-reviewed general medical journal and one of the world's highest-impact academic journals! The other wasn't even American. I'm concerned that you read those three references and thought they were CNN and NBC. I'm really concerned that you do seem to politicize stuff here, and claim that there's anti-right discrimination when the receiver of this has been a well-known centre-left politician for decades. We had virtually the same debate about this at Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr./Archive 7#RfC: description of RFK Jr's views on vaccines etc. in March 2024 when RFKJ was running as in independent. And the one before that at Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr./Archive 5#RFC on use of terms in first sentence when he was running against Biden for the 2024 Democratic nomination. But you have the gall to claim this time that the debate is anti-right? Where was the outrage and the WP:REICHSTAG from you about that? Nfitz (talk) 01:50, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nfitz How about we use right wing sources and see how the perception changes? Fox news getting disallowed from being used in politics was the end of neutrality on controversial issues on Wikipedia. DotesConks (talk) 02:12, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Lancet is neither right nor left. It's a peer-reviewed medical journal. And how are references to RFK's anti-vax ideas when he was a prominent Democrat - anti-right wing? This isn't a right-left issue - why are you trying to politicize stuff that isn't political. Besides there's plenty of right-wing sources about his anti-vax views. [4], [5], [6].Nfitz (talk) 02:51, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Secondary just means not WP:PRIMARY. But WP:NOR depends on how the source is (mis)used, not whether it's primary, secondary, or tertiary (another encyclopedia for example). Nor does secondary by itself satisfy WP:RS. But I think that's what you're getting at. So I won't interfere, but it seemed helpful to go over the differences in terms, reasoning, and conclusions/justifications one could draw or present. Boring, technical, and important. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 19:30, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello DotesConks! The thread you created at the Teahouse, How to find sources on a popular cheating tool, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Randompersonediting were:
This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Illinois Education Association and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Disappointing. Was hoping the extra citations and sections would lead it to acceptance. I'm going to sleep for the night and hoping to find more tomorrow to expand the article. DotesConks (talk) 05:44, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I'd normally admonish any editor for refactoring another contributor's talkspace, here I'm going to make an exception, since it appears User:DotesConks misunderstands the purpose of archiving talk, and I believe User:Nfitz is correct for pursuing the unfinished discussion. A user should not generally immediately archive anything, especially if it's clear the discussion doesn't seem concluded (by all contributors). Readers have a reasonable expectation that a user talk page isn't unduly scrubbed of active discussion. If a user wishes another user to refrain from editing their talk page, requesting that is generally in-bounds, but blanking the talk page within minutes of the last comment gives the appearance to the community of intentionally preventing others from following such discussion. Members of the community are likely to draw their own conclusions in such cases. BusterD (talk) 03:07, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Novem Linguae and I have manually archived the removed discussions for DotesConks. The archived advice from Freedoxm regarding talkpage discussion removal is still relevant; DotesConks has heard this before. I did replace the block notification, which with its discussion should probably stay until it expires. It's recent, ongoing, relevant, but not forever so archive it later. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 03:23, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JFHJr The warning was issued for just blanking the talk page, not using it to get rid of discussions. I figured since I owned my talk page, and Nfitz made his point, to no avail since it didn't convince me, I could just remove it and forget about it due to my bad day here on Wikipedia. And I am hoping tomorrow will be better and I won't rack up warnings and have an AN/I thread opened about me. DotesConks (talk) 03:42, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I hope so, too. The best way to make it happen is to avoid two things: living people and contentious topics. Boring, I know. But there's a lot to learn. Watching and asking questions at places like WP:BLPN and WP:RSN (not WP:ANI), without actually arguing or even editing the articles under discussion, are good ways to learn what flies here. It helps not to care very much personally about the topic or article subject, at least not enough to get worked up. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 03:56, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JFHJr Its funny you reference WP:RSN as I wanted to inquire into two particular news sources but I can't. I do agree in that I get worked up at times but the good thing about Wikipedia is that its text based allowing me to slow down and think about my responses instead of resorting to personal attacks or something worse. DotesConks (talk) 04:06, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You'd only get discussion links from me. Not summaries. I'm not doing your reading for you. And I certainly can't do your learning for you. But since you don't want the links, I'll leave the discussion right here. You're capable of finding them anyway. JFHJr (㊟) 04:38, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For Fox News, check out what's written at WP:RSP. There you will find links to the discussions. Their deliberate and knowing pushing of disinformation is just one of the things that has gotten them into trouble. The Dominion Voting Systems v. Fox News Network case is very revealing. Everyone at Fox, from the top to the bottom, knew that there was no election fraud at all, that there were no real problems with the machines, and that Joe Biden won fairly, and they talked about and admitted these things to each other behind the scenes, yet the talking heads like Carlson kept pushing those lies to keep their viewers. It cost them $787.5 million, the largest known media settlement for defamation in U.S. history. The discovery process was an eye-opener that revealed everything. They are one big right-wing propaganda and lying machine that deliberately and calculatedly lies to its viewers. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:23, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Buster. The reason I restored it, is because it was blanked, and not archived (as far as I can tell) (and literally, I was in the middle of a sentence!). I see the discussion has been wiped again - incidentally I won't restore, but going back to the discussion, I looked at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, and the claim that news on Fox was disallowed is false. RSP is clear that there's no restriction on the normal terrestrial Fox, but for a USA speciality cable channel called Fox News. Similarly there's no limitation on most Fox channels, such as Fox Sports, or Fox's Tubi; perhaps that's a bit pedantic - but the only news I ever see on Fox is from the local news room in Buffalo on their terrestrial station - I don't get their Cable TV channels.
I am concerned however about an editor who believes that a Wikipedia user-page discussion that has been going on for many years, originally about a prominent Democrat, is anti-right wing (surely if there was a political bias it was anti-left wing when it started). I'm also concerned that they'd dismiss the 200-year old esteemed medical journal The Lancet with the opinion that it's not a non-"independent news sources that aren't funded by billionaires"! Wikipedia's own explicit policy on The Lancet is that it's "WP:RSPMISSING" because "the source is a stellar source, and we simply never needed to talk about it because it is so obviously reliable (as) is the case for some of the most prestigious academic journals in the world, like Nature, The Lancet and Science".
So policy is that The Lancet is literally the archetype of reliable sources on Wikipedia, and we have an editor who has dismissed it, implying it's biased against the right-wing and that it's a non-independent billionaire-funded news source (unlike the independent non-billionaire-funded USA Fox News cable channel perhaps). Nfitz (talk) 05:21, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nfitz, I appreciate your concerns and I agree. But this user previously removed the usertalk discussion as unwelcome. Let's assume this discussion will also be archived quickly. So where is a better forum, and what remedy fits the situation? There are enough admins watching right now that WP:ANI would be redundant. Just an observation, but this editor is responsive to feedback, as well as the cessation of feedback and administrative actions. Extended arguments with this editor are not productive. The editor hasn't learned how to stop those cleanly yet. This editor can read and learn. I hope you'll consider patience, the grace of dropping the stick first, and/or taking it to some forum that won't want to avoid/archive the confrontation. Fist bump. JFHJr (㊟) 19:50, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough JFHJr. I feel trying to pretend that unimpeachably neutral The Lancet was unreliable, not neutral, and funded by billionaires, and anti-right - when they were criticizing a prominent left-wing conspiracy theorist ... was crossing a line. But you are correct, there does seem to be potential - hence my earlier comments. So I'll just keep quiet for now - assuming there's no more of this kind of stuff. Nfitz (talk) 20:02, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh good grief, @JFHjr - they've blanked their talk page again, without archiving. Even though there's a bot in place. Despite being asked not to on more than one occasion. Despite agreeing not to. Nfitz (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the belated notification. I thought it was done and archived. But I just hadn't done it. Apologies! JFHJr (㊟) 23:53, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When I got a WP ban sometime last decade, I asked if it applied to WT as well (as I used to help keep WT:WikiProject Football deletion notices up-to-date - a very mundane task), and I was warned that obviously the spirit of the block included WT, and that I was free to test that by posting to WT. Now that was before there was a physical block coded in the Wikipedia software. Nfitz (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that a partial block from the Wikipedia namespace would be interpreted nowadays as a topic ban from the Wikipedia talk namespace. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:29, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Alalch E. Theres really no need for a block from Wikipedia talk. I was done with the MMAGodBox discussion anyway since people wont listen to me and that I've made my arguments. I'm more focused on my drafts that I have created now. DotesConks (talk) 02:34, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the notifications. Mh. I intentionally left Wikipedia Talk open, but I didn't think about it much. I thought there might be situations in which adding an edit request for a noticeboard may be something I shouldn't technically prevent. For example, DotesConks could technically still file a request for arbitration without relying on me copying it from here for them. Or whichever other unlikely scenarios someone could think of. I don't think the diff necessarily shows a need to extend the block; we're currently on a good way out of the whole drama with an article draft being close to being accepted as it appears to be about a notable topic and the reviewers provide helpful feedback and even sources. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:02, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fighting a short two-week block isn't necessarily a great look. A better look might be reflecting on the reasons that you got blocked and taking that feedback onboard, then waiting for the block to expire. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:20, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The temporary block is what it is. It's not a topic ban; I think perhaps maybe Nfitz means it went against the spirit of the block. I think posting requests on WT can be reasonable. Placing orders is odd. And when it's unreasonable stuff nobody will do, the block has worked and was appropriate. JFHJr (㊟) 05:40, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, against the sprit of the block. I believe our language has shifted over the last decade or so. We used to call these bans, because there was no autoblock in place, which I assume is actually blocking someone from ever editing those specific spaces. Which is (was) a very good idea! Nfitz (talk) 05:49, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the meantime, as a temporary workaround, feel free to put your comments here on your talkpage as a separate section (so it's clear what you want ported). I'll be happy to put them into the discussion as links. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 03:33, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1.) Lots of Wikipedians have administrative intent and while it may be unusual for a newcomer to get this active in the administrative parts of Wikipedia, I can explain why. I was watching a documentary on Wikipedia Vandalism and that documentary basically substituted reading the policy pages for Wikipedia. So because of that I got interested in editing the site and the administrative workings of essentially, the largest direct-democracy site. Though I still write articles on interesting subjects that haven't been covered.
2.) ANI is basic for any Wikipedian who even devotes a little bit of time to this site. Same with BLP articles. There are hundreds of thousands of editors on the site and its quite obvious that there will be people interested in the same subjects. For warns, I thought it was pretty interesting you put that there as what am I supposed to do when I see a vandal? Ignore it? Well obviously not. And I don't believe I exhibit pseudo-admin behavior, though again I will try my best to change disruptive behavior as I want to contribute to the encyclopedia. Onto your final point of me being "self-referential", I have no idea what that means. Self-ref as in I am referring to vandals while being a vandalizer? I don't know what you mean by that but I will say that my comment expressed there stands. I am a very firm believer in freedom of speech.
3.) I did start editing as an IP user. I became worried about people tracking a general sense of where I live because of a user @Freedoxm who let me know of the security risks in having a IP address disclosed.
4.) Alt or alternate accounts is used in social media to refer to when a person has multiple social media accounts. Sock is only used on Wikipedia and I'm more used to calling things alts rather than socks.
5.) I blank my user talk page as I don't want it to get clogged and its not a wall of shame.
6.) I am pretty sure I am competent, as I can write this detailed response to you and I don't believe my age matters when it comes to Wikipedia, that is in contradiction to the mission statement of the WMF, and there are incompetent adults. DotesConks (talk) 03:58, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The main reason why SPI cases are created without notification of the reported user is that "self-defense" is as pointless as tempting there and just complicates things. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:08, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
DotesConks, it's not about namespaces; you frequently take part in administrative/meta action such as here, but you do so with a lack of understanding that makes the actions less helpful than if you had done nothing. If you could focus on article work rather than administration, that would be great. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:40, 4 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You'll be free again to post at WP:ANI about behavioral problems when your block expires. Wednesday afternoon or evening in the US. Between now and then, it would be best to read and digest the instructions and policies/guidelines/essays linked there. As well as WP:BOOMERANG. If you're in a disagreement, it's easiest and best to end it without ANI: stop interacting. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 00:26, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@JFHJr Its about COI editors. The undisclosed paid editors work for Reptun which is a Wikipedia editing service. That is what I need to report. I'm not getting into a hot conflict and being aggressive where it could boomerang on me. DotesConks (talk) 00:59, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello DotesConks, regarding the edit summary of Special:Diff/1284506958, it's all good. I'm happy about pings whenever there's a question for me, as I sometimes don't notice messages on my watchlist, or might simply not have watchlisted the page. I usually check my watchlist for user talk messages on any page I recently edited, but I won't be notified of messages elsewhere unless I'm pinged, and I do like such pings. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:27, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
United States added note
This says you're blocked, but you just made an edit to the United States page, so I'm confused. I hope you'll see this. I appreciate the note you added and think that's a good way of making the distinction that some think is relevant without adding more text to an already bloated lede. However, I had to edit it as it was not accurate. First, the U.S. is not a "they", but more important the U.S. is only the 50 states and Washington, D.C. The other areas you listed are territories. As for Hawaii, while some sources deem it part of Oceania, most sources determine it is not part of any continent. Since there's disagreement on that, it seemed best not to include Oceania in the note. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 05:09, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ghost writer's cat I don't think I referred to the US as a "they". The U.S. is a country. Onto your main point. I believe you have misunderstood what I meant. I was not talking about just Hawaii, I was also talking about overseas territories (Guam, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, etc). They may not be states of the United States but they are de jure and de facto operated, owned and managed by the United States. It is land that belongs to America. Therefore this gives them a presence on the 3 continents. And finally, it is true, I am blocked. But I have gotten around it. DotesConks (talk) 05:29, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What you wrote was "Due to its overseas territories, they have land in Oceania, Asia, and South America." The sentence the note is on is, "The United States of America (USA), commonly known as the United States (U.S.) or simply America, is a country located primarily in North America." The subject is the United States, so if that isn't the "they" you were referring to, please explain.
Hawaii is the only part of the United States that is not geographically part of North America. Again, Guam, Puerto Rico, etc, are U.S. territories. Please review the subject page on U.S. territories before reverting the note again. Ghost writer's cat (talk) 05:46, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ghost writer's cat Can you please be generous and link to the discussion you refer to?
"Please review the subject page on U.S. territories before reverting the note again" part. The territories are apart of the US so I don't see why the US is not considered apart of ASia, OCeania, and South America. Thank you. DotesConks (talk) 05:54, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
April 2025
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Donald Trump and fascism, did not appear to be constructive and have 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 your 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. Please avoid deleting material derived from multiple peer-reviewed academic reliable sources even if you personally find the findings distasteful. Please do not make any further such mass deletions without first discussing why those sources should not be included at article talk. Simonm223 (talk) 11:54, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are too suspicious
You appear to be a highly suspicious account. There is no plausible way a genuine new user with over 200 edits would behave in this manner. Your actions strongly suggest that you are either a previously banned administrator or an experienced agency account operating under a new account.
Your administrative level actions have already received multiple warnings. No legitimate newcomer would be making major, disruptive changes to high profile pages like Wikipedia or United States in the way you have, especially when you are being banned for disruption.
Furthermore, you've deliberately blanked a significant number of warnings from your talk page in an attempt to conceal your vandalism. The fact that you mentioned a Wikipedia agency in your earlier messages raises the possibility that you're a competitor engaging in intentional disruption to get the attention.
There is no need for me to explain my behavior as I've already explained why I act the way I act. Rather I'd like to know who is making these comments against me. Its obvious by how much you know about me and your use of particular words that you are an editor who has been tracking me since the beginning and resents me. If you forgot to log on, that is fine. But I would like to know who despises me so much they feel the need to overanalyze everything I do and complain. DotesConks (talk) 23:41, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Introduction to contentious topics
You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any page within this topic.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Theofunny (talk) 16:13, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Theofunny If you read through my edit, you will see I added more content and put that in the edit summary. Also I personally thought the one person describing AIPAC as "the most powerful lobbying groups" was undue weight in the article. DotesConks (talk) 00:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to give you one and only one warning. Your edits to WP:COIN speculating on the identity of two editors is WP:OUTING and is considered harassment. I have redacted and suppressed that section. Do not add it again. Outing is blockable on sight, but I'm going to give you a break as a newish editor and give you this one warning: do not add that speculation again, and do not speculate on-wiki about the identity of any editor who has not disclosed their identity and/or a connection to an offsite entity. If you do, you'll be indefinitely blocked. Katietalk22:58, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter who gave you that information – those two editors did not disclose it themselves on Wikipedia. They have to do it themselves. If you do not understand or agree to abide by our policy, which is long-standing and uncontroversial, you should not be dealing with COI reports.You can report undisclosed paid editing to the COIVRT team at paid-en-wpwikipedia.org. If you have any doubt, do not post it publicly; email us instead. Katietalk01:36, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry
Hello DotesConks, I hope I can be forgiven for the analogy in Special:Diff/1285295546; I failed to get the point across without using such a rather unfitting comparison. If it's too absurd for your liking, please let me know and I'll remove it instead of archiving the thread. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:16, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @ToBeFree, its fine. As for the wider discussion, there was certainly some fault on me for getting a little bit heated during the discussion but I tried in the best way I could to convey such an argument to her. DotesConks (talk) 21:22, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello DotesConks! The thread you created at the Teahouse, AFC drafts never being reviewed again, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk·contribs) 04:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Freedoxm wait how did you add this notice here? You tagged for G5 and the notice says because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic.. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 20:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What's odd is first the notice says "This has been done under section G5 of the criteria for speedy deletion" then "because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising..." Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 20:26, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This Confederate reference to Dixie (song) also squares with the revdeled content at User:Amber Solace. The behavior overlaps with older socks whose master has a significant and behaviorally similar history. The likelihood of two similarly disruptive editors holding a fixation on the rather obscure Confederate States of America is rather low. JFHJr (㊟) 20:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Dotes has got a global lock now, and can't edit anywhere (even here) or use email. The socks are also dry cleaned. JFHJr (㊟) 19:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by S0091 was:
Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at North Korean defectors instead.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:North Korean defection methods and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Hello, DotesConks!
Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! S0091 (talk) 14:46, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
