User talk:DaveySeagull

Warning

Please stick to one account. Acroterion (talk) 13:29, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't wish to sound funny or anything, but I only have one account... Can you explain this please?— Preceding unsigned comment added by DaveySeagull (talk • contribs)

You reverted the removal of a reference that has been widely spammed by an editor with a conflict of interest, without explanation. That causes us to look closely. You have a brand-new account immediately after the editor was warned for COI, and this is your only activity. Acroterion (talk) 13:37, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, this does make sense, I see why you'd think that, I have begun making other changes in the meantime. Will I be punished if I only edit aviation-topics? I only know about aviation in all honesty... (EX-USAF, commercial pilot etc.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by DaveySeagull (talk • contribs)

Hello @DaveySeagull:. I second the warning about not using multiple accounts to edit Wikipedia. You will definitely be blocked if you continue. If you stick to 1 account, everything should be fine. Last important detail, the International Aviation HQ website is clearly not a reliable source, please don't use it. --McSly (talk) 14:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I second Acroterion and McSly, see User_talk:Elnencatala#avoid_pushing_your_publication and User_talk:Elnencatala#Managing_a_conflict_of_interest. Honestly, trying to push the popularity of some wanabee-site through spamming wikipedia is not the best way to become a WP:RS. Put your energy in writing good articles and producing good insight, not paraphrasing press releases, and in a few years you may be acceptable as a WP:RS. --Marc Lacoste (talk) 14:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, and try to have verifiable biographies for your writers.--Marc Lacoste (talk)

February 2020

Please do not add or change content without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. - Samf4u (talk) 14:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears!"

"What do you got in that bag?" "Ears". - BilCat (talk) 21:08, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of List of political websites

The article List of political websites has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This topic would be better handled (and is handled, iirc) by a category. A list article would never be complete.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:38, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

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

Request reason:

I haven't got anything to do with User:Spazna who has been blocked for self promotion

Decline reason:

This account is not directly blocked. If you are unable to edit, please exactly follow the instructions which appear when you attempt to do so. Yamla (talk) 13:26, 30 March 2020 (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.

So, how did you come to notice the block of Spazna? Acroterion (talk) 13:30, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to edit and it said I was blocked because apparently I share an IP with Spazna. Apologies for the confusion. --DaveySeagull (talk) 13:32, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I am unable to edit still. The only action is that I have to request help. --DaveySeagull (talk) 13:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As Yamla says, please follow exactly the instructions presented when you attempted to edit. Acroterion (talk) 13:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know what Yamla has said, but there aren't any instructions other than to contact an administrator! Sorry. :( --DaveySeagull (talk) 15:51, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Digital Media Company has been nominated for renaming

Category:Digital Media Company, which you created, has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'd be happy for it to be renamed to what it is proposed as. --DaveySeagull (talk) 13:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems reasonable to me! (For whatever my opinion means!) --EtaPravda (talk) 13:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]