User talk:DanMan3395

Welcome!

Hello, DanMan3395, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for helping us build a great free encyclopedia. We have five basic principles, but other than that, we advise that you be bold and edit. If you ever have any questions or need help, feel free to leave a message at the help desk, and other Wikipedia editors will be happy to assist you.

Thanks again and congratulations on becoming a Wikipedian!

P.S. New discussion threads for you will appear at the bottom of this page.

Heather Harmon

Hello DanMan3395,

It seems to me that an article you worked on, Heather Harmon, may be copied from http://www.backdrop.net/sm-201/index.php?title=Heather_Harmon. It's entirely possible that I made a mistake, but I wanted to let you know because Wikipedia is strict about copying from other sites.

It's important that you edit the article and rewrite it in your own words, unless you're absolutely certain nothing in it is copied. If you're not sure how to fix the problem or have any questions, there are people at the help desk who are happy to assist you.

Thank you for helping build a free encyclopedia! MadmanBot (talk) 21:20, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Heather Harmon

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Heather Harmon, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.
It appears to be a clear copyright infringement. (See section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. However, even if you use one of these processes to release copyrighted material to Wikipedia, it still needs to comply with the other policies and guidelines to be eligible for inclusion. If you would like any assistance with this, you can ask a question at the help desk.
It appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), individual animal, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. (See section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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. Safiel (talk) 21:22, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

Hi DanMan3395! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Tim Pool that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Thank you. – notwally (talk) 02:05, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at New Tang Dynasty Television. 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. Isi96 (talk) 05:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Disruptive editing by User:DanMan3395. Thank you. Isi96 (talk) 23:23, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to Falun Gong, 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 special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

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.

Stylez995 (talk) 07:36, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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 and 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. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:33, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Tim Pool. 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. – notwally (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been reverted by at least four other editors, including me, for your WP:Tendentious editing on the Tim Pool page in the past week [1] [2] [3] (not including the IPs that have tried removing the exact same edit as you and have also been reverted). You have also been warned about your edit warring on another page, which appears to be a similar dispute. You need to stop your behavior, or else you may face administrative action, including being blocked from editing. – notwally (talk) 21:06, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I have stated to other users who have continuously been engaging in [WP:Tendentious editing], including yourself. The content being removed violates the Wikipedia policy on neutrality [Wikipedia:Neutral point of view] which is exceptionally strict when dealing with personal biographies: [biographies of living persons policy]. I have provided ample argument that the content in question is of low quality and even cited [Questionable Sources] many times.

The hand full of you that have decided to push your personal bias or are engaged in paid editing for propaganda purposes are very much in the wrong. I am not aware of the other IP address editors, but you should be aware there are multiple threads on some social media sites pointing out this ridiculous claim and asking volunteers to fix it.

PLEASE STOP VANDALIZING the tim pool page with your personal opinion. I cannot be more polite and direct than that. Thanks

Dan DanMan3395 (talk) 02:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have not read the article myself, but it's extremely unlikely a BBC news article is questionable source, especially for something like this which is not an area where we might need to take care (e.g. science especially medicine where WP:MEDRS could apply or maybe trans issues). Normally, I'd suggest you take source disputes to WP:RSN but frankly opening a thread on RSN about the reliability of the BBC is almost definitely just dumb. Nil Einne (talk) 11:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Falsely accusing others of vandalism is itself a violation of WP:NPA. I suggest you drop the matter. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:08, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC article in question is not actually about Tim Pool or his political views. It has a single sentence where the articles author claims he is far right as a matter of opinion. I am not challenging the validity of the BBC in general, I am correctly asserting, after having read the article that claim that this source is a valid citation for the claims made is false.

Additionally, for my claim of vandalism to be false, the person performing the vandalism would have to not be doing so, which they are... DanMan3395 (talk) 18:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You'll have to take it up with the article author. We stick with what the sources say, not the opinions of people who just don't like what they say. MiasmaEternal☎ 04:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
so any author can articulate any opinion under the BBC banner and it is as fact for wikipedia? DanMan3395 (talk) 04:16, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

October 2024

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. MrOllie (talk) 20:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, you may be blocked from editing. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at Tim Pool. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:19, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for edit warring.

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 ~~~~}}. Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:22, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank god for VPN's and bots I guess. Great job ruining an amazing site. DanMan3395 (talk) 23:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you use other IP addresses to evade your block, the IP addresses in question will also be blocked. If the Tim Pool page is vandalised repeatedly, it may be protected from editing by unregistered and new users. You would be wasting your time. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:26, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating. You are protecting the vandals and allowing the page to be in violation of Wikipedia's policy on living persons. You are the problem, congratulations. DanMan3395 (talk) 15:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]