User talk:Dodgechris

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.

Coronation Street

Now, now, now. What do we have here.. Hello Dodgechris. I assume you are editing soap opera articles this time around - like before? Can you remember me? (Maybe as a once useless Corrie editor)RaintheOne ^BAM 22:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. So quite a few things have changed and we have managed to clean a lot up. Perhaps Corrie hasn't thrived as much, but there is still differences. So I looked over Alf and references, they need publisher adding to them. The Guardian is published by Gaurdian Media Group, Digital Spy is by Hachette Filipacchi UK, The Independant is by Independent Print Limited. With the DS reception, concerning Sue Nic, it would be more suited to character development. So perhaps you could have said "Sue Nicholls opined that the decision to marry her character off to Alf, may have contributed to Audrey's longevity. Otherwise she may have been just another 'tart with a heart passing through.'" Also newspapers mentioned in the prose need to be italicised. The first time a character is mentioned, remember to wikilink them once and the actors name in brackets afterward.RaintheOne ^BAM 23:19, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've confused you a little - I should have explained better. In the ref it needs work=The Guardian|publisher=Gaurdian Media Group - work=Digital Spy|publisher=Hachette Filipacchi UK - Also The Sun you linked takes you to the actuall Sun in the solar system article. You need to pipe the link from "The Sun (United Kingdom)" which would read like this - The Sun - but take you to the correct article. Then the Sun is published by News International. If I've confused you again, just let me know. :)RaintheOne ^BAM 22:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nah you haven't confused me again, but could you please correct my mistakes please (I'm a bit confused there -_-). Thanks, and I'll remember what you've said. Dodgechris (talk • contributions) 22:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extra note - should be "Guardian Media Group" not "Gaurdian Media Group". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How did I make the same typo twice, yet spell "The Guardian" right! I must be losing it. Yeah sure Dodgechris, I'll fix it, so just look what I do to the refs on Terry's article.RaintheOne ^BAM 22:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, You've already done it.RaintheOne ^BAM 22:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I managed to figure out what you meant. Dodgechris (talk • contributions) 22:31, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed the ref wasn't from The Sun, it was the Daily Mirror. So I changed that for you. Trinity Mirror is their publisher. I usually put the publisher in brackets, but some people dispute doing so. Another thing is that the author needs to read differently. So with Daniel Kilkelly from Digital Spy, it needs to be Kilkelly, Daniel. "first=Daniel|last=Kilkelly" and leave out "author=" - this will easily solve that for you each time. Also only newspapers and magazines need italizing. So you can leave DS normal. Then that is everything you need to know about refs. :)RaintheOne ^BAM 22:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have made some changes to the Des Barnes article - hopefully I have done it right this time! Dodgechris (talk • contributions) 09:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply. You have mastered the ref style! :D Quick learner then. (You must be because I am pretty crap at explaining things lol) Now are you familiar with writing development sections? Also Inside Soap is a great little tool to have for all of the interviews. I'm not sure how big of soap fan you are, so you might already buy it. Obviously DS has so much info for the recent Corrie characters.RaintheOne ^BAM 23:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I'm not so good with development sections - great with Reception though. Erm no I don't buy Inside Soap because I don't like to spoil it for me too much XD. Dodgechris (talk • contributions) 10:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have just cleaned up/expanded Fred Elliott's article and, based on the edits I've made, I think I've pretty much got the hang of it now. Thoughts? Dodgechris (talk • contributions) 13:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the cookie... and some advice

Thanks for the cookie! And welcome back. I see my guesstimate of your age was wrong by about four years, that's amusing. You should probably read Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors, although hopefully most of it won't be new to you by now. I have one other suggestion, but I'll email that (when I get round to it).

Under the circumstances, it's also worth being very careful about the security of your account. Making absolutely sure that it's not ever accessed by someone else, is important. Also, even after you log out, close any windows showing talkpages or articles that you've been working on, if there's any possibility of someone else using the computer. In addition, be careful not to edit while logged out. And of course, don't forget you are restricted to editing only from this one account, under any circumstances. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:31, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. Sorry I took a long time to reply, my Internet has been down this week! Did you think I was younger or older than your guess? Dodgechris (talk • contributions) 15:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Internet went out right after being unblocked? Wow, that must have been annoying. Fate was trying to teach you patience or something :-)

Based on some of the account names of the former socks, I had assumed that you were about 18 now and about 15 at the time of the various problems. Although I'm well aware that there are (and have been) lots of 11 year olds editing Wikipedia, it's not always the first thing one expects. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts, violating terms of your unblocking. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. TN X Man 14:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I don't know what I've done wrong.

Decline reason:

User talk:Dodgechris/archive#Unblocked says, my condition of unblocking you is that you are limited to using this single account. You didn't adhere to this condition; hence, you were reblocked. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:45, 18 August 2011 (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.

What's your relationship with User:Mysandboxaccount? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:28, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's the account I use for testing because I don't want to clog up my edit history. Dodgechris (talk • contributions) 20:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some part of you are limited to using this single account that is in some way ambiguous or vague? --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 20:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think creating an account that was not used to edit mainspace Wikipedia and just userspace would matter. My block is not necessary because, as per WP:BLOCK, blocks are to protect Wikipedia from disruption - I wasn't causing any disruption. Dodgechris (talk • contributions) 20:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the edits of his sandbox account, they are all in user space and they are all being used to improve wikipedia. I can vouch that Chris has been doing good work on wikipedia since he was unblocked, at least from his main account. Is there evidence that any other accounts have been used to edit main space since the unblock? If not then I think an indefinite block is too harsh, and that Chris should just be told to confine all his userspace edits to this account in future.GunGagdin ^Moan 00:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again: "Is there some part of you are limited to using this single account that is in some way ambiguous or vague?" This user has a severe history of abusing multiple accounts and removing the old block was completely contingent upon him not repeating old behavior. While he hasn't edited disruptively yet, considering his history I don't think it's much of a stretch to imagine he "tested the waters" with this new account in order to ascertain the likelyhood of him being caught socking. I know we're supposed to assume good faith, but this user has been very sneaky in the past and he should have known that his editing was restricted to one account - no exceptions. He should have known this because it was made quite clear when he was unblocked. N^oformation ^Talk 08:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understood that I was not to edit under any other account, but I didn't think that included an account completely dedicated to editing userspace. It is definitely clear now that I am not to edit with any other account under any circumstances. In future I will save articles I am writing to Microsoft Word and preview them in Wikipedia, rather than saving it in an alternate accounts userspace. Dodgechris (talk • contributions) 09:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about Huzunited (talk · contribs) and Ctorrance111 (talk · contribs)? You were operating those accounts as well. TN X Man 11:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope Huzunited is my friends account and Ctorrance111 was made by my friend in my name ages ago. Dodgechris (talk • contributions) 11:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I cant believe I've been blocked again, it's really frustrating especially since I've hardly done anything wrong :S Dodgechris (talk • contributions) 15:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Yes but that was a good three years before I was unblocked - since then I haven't abused the unblock conditions.

Decline reason:

If you haven't abused the unblock conditions since, I'm confused why checkusers are coming up with an ever-growing list of other accounts that have been used from your computer. The explanations you give for these are straining the limits of my good faith as well. I've two more accounts to add, by the way: explain User:SpideyFan09 and User:Wuzzupbob. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:27, 19 August 2011 (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.

Those accounts were discussed and things were settled before I was unblocked last month. Dodgechris (talk • contributions) 15:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dodgechris, surely you must have known it was a bad idea to create another account. I mean seriously, after all the work you had to do in order to return. I would point out some of these guys are pulling up old accounts and claiming them as part of an ever growing list... not that it really matters.RaintheOne ^BAM 15:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "not that it really matters"? Dodgechris (talk • contributions) 15:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think a temporary ban of a week or two would suffice instead of an indefinite ban, so he learns a lesson, but is not completely alienated. I dont understand DC's desire to open all these accounts, especially as most of them contain no edits, but regardless, the fact remains that none made since his unblock have been used for vandalism from what I can see; predicting that they will be used for vandalism in the future is penalising for something that has not happened. The editor has been showing that he wants to make valid contributions to wikipedia; I genuinely think this should be considered here, otherwise we are likely to push him down that route by being overly harsh, which would be a headache for everyone and entirely avoidable. I suggest that he continues to be monitored; any other accounts opened from henceforth will not be tolerated regardless of their purpose and will result in a permanent ban, without the option to appeal.GunGagdin ^Moan 17:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Huzunited and Ctorrance111 aren't actually me. Dodgechris (talk • contributions) 17:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Huzunited account looks pretty weird Chris I have to say as an unblock was requested on it yesterday, and you surely must be aware how many times admins have heard "it wasn't me it was my friend/brother" excuse. see WP:BRO.GunGagdin ^Moan 17:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but assuming I am telling the truth - how am I supposed to convince them that? Dodgechris (talk • contributions) 17:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think you can prove it. Your best bet is to show evidence of any good work you have been doing since you were unblocked, and also show what you were using the sandbox account for. Diffs of improvement may help, so that admins can see you've been making valuable contributions. I suppose all you can do is hope that other users will believe that you being blocked would be a an overall loss to the project. Once bitten, twice shy. They are being cautious and that's understandable given your history.GunGagdin ^Moan 17:26, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's the Huzunited and Ctorrance111 account that they are more bothered about, not the sandbox. Dodgechris (talk • contributions) 17:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I think my block should be reviewed again. Refer to the above discussion. Here are links to some of the improvements I have made to Wikipedia: [1] [2] [3] [4]

Decline reason:

After being repeatedly blocked for abusing multiple accounts, starting over three years ago, then continuing to abuse multiple accounts, then being unblocked on the condition that you use only one account, when you used another account you had gone past the end. Any pleas of "yes, but I didn't think it counted because..." or "yes but he didn't use the account disruptively" might have carried weight under different circumstances, but as it is, enough is enough. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:19, 20 August 2011 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I have caused no disruption whatsoever since I was unblocked last month. Please give me a chance to get reinstated once again on Wikipedia. If I am unblocked, I will take what has happened into account and limit myself to this account only, which means I won't make extra accounts used like I have used them before (from sockpuppets to sandboxes). If not, I can assure you that you haven't seen the last of me.

Decline reason:

No. As user Noformation says below, threatening to break the encyclopedias rules if we don't comply with what you want shows that you haven't changed. For that reason the unblock request is declined and I'm now going to revoke access to your talk page too. 5 albert square (talk) 22:30, 20 August 2011 (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.

"If not, I can assure you that you haven't seen the last of me." You pretty much just guaranteed that you'll be blocked indefinitely. Threatening to break our rules if we don't do what you want shows that you haven't changed a bit. I concur with the last blocking admin that talk page access should be revoked as well. N^oformation ^Talk 20:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I respect users like Frickative and Gungadin because they welcome me to Wikipedia on the condition that I edit constructively. Quite frankly, I hold little respect for some of the admins here who indef block good users who break the rules slightly. Therefore, they are holding the project back. I am just stressing my personal opinion and don't mean to be nasty in any way. Based on what you've said, Noinformation, do you think there is any way forward? What would you suggest I do next? Dodgechris (talk • contributions) 20:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[After receiving email:] Given what's here on this talk page, and despite the claim that you've "hardly done anything wrong", I don't think there is anything that I can or want to do. You can email one of the blocking admins, or one of the ones who denied to unblock. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 19:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also after receiving email: one would think Dodgechris would, after this, have the sense to stop socking, but apparently not; at the same time he's begging via email to be unblocked, he's creating new accounts such as User:GrahamCrusty and User:Yoogeeoh. I'm cutting off access to email; this is now becoming simply abusive behavior. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:55, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And now he's also created User:DodgechrisWithaQuestion. What can you say? --Orange Mike | Talk 20:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That one was created in response to the blocking of Tellow (talk · contribs). Same unblock requests; although he's threatening to create more throw-away accounts. Kuru (talk) 20:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Sour Susan for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sour Susan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sour Susan until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 02:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC) Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 02:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Simon barlow.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Simon barlow.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Perfect Peter for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Perfect Peter is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perfect Peter until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:56, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Morton family

The article Morton family has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG.

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. TTN (talk) 18:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]