User talk:Danjwilkie

Welcome!

Hello, Danjwilkie!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, Jprg1966 ^(talk) 18:14, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks! Looking forward to working closely with you in the future. Cheers! Danjwilkie (talk) 14:56, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit reversion

In this edit here, I reverted some information that appears to be a violation of our copyright policy.

I provided a brief summary of the problem in the edit summary, which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. This should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask.

I do occasionally make mistakes. We get hundreds of reports of potential copyright violations every week, and sometimes there are false positives, for a variety of reasons. (Perhaps the material was moved from another Wikipedia article, or the material was properly licensed but the license information was not obvious, or the material is in the public domain but I didn't realize it was public domain, and there can be other situations generating a report to our Copy Patrol tool that turn out not to be actual copyright violations.) If you think my edit was mistaken, please politely let me know and I will investigate. S Philbrick (Talk) 16:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So to avoid copyright violations, should I reference sources, from I took the information, or paraphrase sentences entirely? I read Wikipedia guidelines about that and maybe as an experienced editor provide me with some useful advice. Danjwilkie (talk) 10:15, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sphilbrick, I think I get the problem now. The section in which I wrote about the Oregon Treaty was actually from a website and I acknowledge it as a grieve mistake. I didn’t actually paraphrased any of the information on the subsection on Europe. I actually wrote it out of an essay I was working on British Foreign policy at University. Danjwilkie (talk) 10:24, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Henry Addington

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Henry Addington, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 15:47, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Henry Addington

added links pointing to Pepper, Alcohol, Treaty of Bassein and Battle of Delhi

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:DantheWikipedian per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DantheWikipedian. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

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 ~~~~}}. Spicy (talk) 23:10, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have appealed according to the guidelines that you have put forward and have stated my reasons. I hope you find it acceptable and reasonable to unblock me. Thank you. Danjwilkie (talk) 10:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding My Account

I do not understand why I am blocked and is completely shocked because of this. This must be an confusion because I do not ever have had an another or multiple accounts in that regard. I joined Wikipedia three months ago and couldn’t have ever done any of those things, that the user that I’m being accused of being. This must be an mistake and I ask you kindly to look into this investigation and re-examine the information regarding this. Danjwilkie (talk) 10:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An Appeal For Unblocking

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).

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

Request reason:

I am very confused by this situation and as a matter of good faith, I would humble myself to admit to wrong doing. When I joined Wikipedia for first time three months ago, I did also create the account Wikicommodre as a second account because sometimes I log out of my original account and often the latter for underage when logging back is unavailable. I also want to admit that it is very wrong and dishonest of myself to say that there was only one account. Also, if any sources or information that are incorrect or have anything in regard to past edits by others who have misused used them, I apologise for that. Unsourced material, incorrect information or any mistake that I have made, for that I am sorry. I also apologise sincerely for being dishonest about myself and account, for which I take full responsibility. If you find this appeal reasonable, please consider unblocking me and forgive my past mistakes.unblocking Danjwilkie (talk) 10:25, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This isn't just about Wikicommodore; it's also about a half-dozen other accounts. You're going to have to address those if you want to be unblocked. --Blablubbs (talk) 17:14, 22 December 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.

Danjwilkie (talk) 10:25, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A New Appeal

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).

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

Request reason:

The only explanations that I have for the previous accounts is that I have created the two accounts for minor purposes only and not for large-scale edits. As for the other half-dozen accounts that you have mentioned, the only answer I have is that when I got this phone that I’m currently using, there were other accounts created by the phone’s previous owner on Wikipedia. As the phone was previously used, the owner had not cleared any of his personal data and browsing history to a full degree and I had to cleaned the phone’s history. Despite that, websites such as Wikipedia still has the same IP address and some of the same accounts that the previous owner used. Therefore that is the most plausible and most honest explanation I can give to you, in terms of good faith and honesty. If any mistakes or inconveniences were done by me as an editor, for that I apologise as well as for creating multiple accounts in violation of Wikipedia guidelines concerning its usage, for which I take full responsibility and which I understand as damaging because I have used it while avoiding block evasion. So I ask again that you kindly review this appeal and please unblock for the reasons I truly have stated in good will. Thank you. Danjwilkie (talk) 06:01, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It appears to me that it wasn't just one IP.

This explanation doesn't address why you were also editing the same articles in the same manner that the phones previous owner was as well. SQL ^{Query Me!} 19:02, 23 December 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.

Danjwilkie (talk) 06:01, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Second New Appeal

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).

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

Request reason:

I can explain that as well, the reasonable answer to that is I did not specifically knew what articles previous owner had edited and I did not had much contact with the owner regarding his phone, which I’m using right now, regarding his habits or behaviour. There were other IP addresses and accounts, I admit, but recalling the fact that the phone’s user it did not clear any of his data or browsing history, it is problematic enough to differentiate between the same IP addresses used by two very different people who never knew each other. I also want to address your question on why I edited the same articles, well, it is not because those were my favourite Wikipedia pages or something like that and also in that regard it is reasonable for me to say that I did not knew or heard what articles the previous user edited or which sources he cited. As for the manner in which the edits were performed, it is also the same answer that I gave before, I do not know the manner in which the previous user have edited or any thing, because I did not had further much contact with him after I bought the phone. Since I gave every plausible explanation and everything I know to you as a sign of honest discourse, please review this appeal again without irritation. The sole reason is because I want to contribute to Wikipedia as much as anybody else and I want history and people who made history to be remembered properly through great free encyclopaedias like this, which everyone can edit and improve. So I kindly and most sincerely I ask you again to unblock me for the reason that I have already understood and acknowledged my mistakes, apologised for my disruptive behaviour and ask forgiveness for my dishonesty. So if you find this explanation plausible please unblock me, all I want is that and nothing more, I will be a more useful and good editor without any flaws. Thank you.Danjwilkie (talk) 8:41 am, 24 December 2023, Sunday (19 days ago) (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

Please concisely and clearly describe hy you were blocked and what you would do different. Thanks-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:10, 12 January 2024 (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.

A Third Appeal

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).

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

Request reason:

I was blocked for being a sock puppet of a certain user who had caused trouble on this site for a while and it is the reason why I am currently blocked. What I would do different is that I won’t create multiple accounts for editing and only use one account, would refrain from using misinformation and would acquire information by means in accordance with Wikipedia policy, use correct wording, reliable sources and references in editing major articles.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2024 (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.

@Spicy: Is this sufficient to unblock? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or should user appeal via User:DantheWikipedian (talk · contribs)? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:41, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deepfriedokra, by my count they are WP:3X banned and would need to appeal at AN. Besides that, I find the unblock request vague and unconvincing. It doesn't address the copyright issues that led to the block on their original account. Spicy (talk) 22:03, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Danjwilkie: I don't know why we are here and not your original account. Please address the copyright issues dead led to the block on your original account. Spicy points out you banned, and will need your appeal carried to WP:AN Thanks -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can’t carry my appeal there because I am blocked indefinitely, therefore, I cannot raise a issue or a notice for administrators concerning my situation. I can only post an appeal here because this the only place I am permitted to edit my user page and I would have gone to WP:AN long ago if I’m not blocked. Danjwilkie (talk) 18:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Fifth Appeal

Alright, I will address this matter again: The block is unnecessary and irrelevant because I did not cause any disruption or contributed any inconvenient information nor did I ever write copyright sources on Wikipedia and never continued any copyright because I joined Wikipedia five months ago from this year. But I would bear full responsibility for copyright violations or any other offence that happened because of me and also the original account that your referring to, is not created by me instead it was created by the previous owner of this phone that I am currently using to write this. I bought it six months ago and I have stated many times that the previous owner of this phone did not clear his browsing history or original accounts, so that is why this phone has that many accounts to begin with. So even if there are copyright violations previously I take full responsibility for that and admit it is very wrong of me to do something like this and also I understand very clearly why I am blocked. Most importantly, I would not continue to disrupt Wikipedia or cause damage to any articles and stop adding misinformation and unreliable sources. And finally I will promise that I will make useful contributions like before and always, seeking to improve articles at every opportunity. Thank You. Danjwilkie (talk) 18:41, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Fourth Appeal

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).

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

Request reason:

Alright, I will address this matter again: The block is unnecessary and irrelevant because I did not cause any disruption or contributed any inconvenient information nor did I ever write copyright sources on Wikipedia and never continued any copyright because I joined Wikipedia five months ago from this year. But I would bear full responsibility for copyright violations or any other offence that happened because of me and also the original account that your referring to, is not created by me instead it was created by the previous owner of this phone that I am currently using to write this. I bought it six months ago and I have stated many times that the previous owner of this phone did not clear his browsing history or original accounts, so that is why this phone has that many accounts to begin with. So even if there are copyright violations previously I take full responsibility for that and admit it is very wrong of me to do something like this and also I understand very clearly why I am blocked. Most importantly, I would not continue to disrupt Wikipedia or cause damage to any articles and stop adding misinformation and unreliable sources. And finally I will promise that I will make useful contributions like before and always, seeking to improve articles at every opportunity. Thank You.

Decline reason:

Per below. It doesn't look like this is working. — Daniel Case (talk) 07:12, 25 January 2024 (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.

Danjwilkie (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been cleaning up after this sockfarm for the past few months and can confirm that the claims in this unblock request are soundly refuted by an abundance of behavioral evidence. I recommend a decline and TPA removal. — Callitropsis🌲[talk · contribs] 03:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Daniel Case (talk) 07:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]