User talk:Dominic Pringle

September 2023

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Stefan Molyneux, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 23:29, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, those are facts

He has said so himself Dominic Pringle (talk) 23:31, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Writer. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Box of wolves (feed) 01:42, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

what I added was true and important Dominic Pringle (talk) 02:00, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Writer, you may be blocked from editing. Materialscientist (talk) 01:46, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry, but who are you? You seem to be following me around....anyway, in both cases, I added things that were objectively true Dominic Pringle (talk) 01:51, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia needs verfiability, not truth. Please refrain from changing any other articles without providing citations to a reliable source. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:30, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Peter Tosh, you may be blocked from editing. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:29, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What I said was true, he was born out of wedlock, he says so himself in his Red X biographical documentary for example....I’m not sure who YOU are to dispute it

And anyway, I’ve studied him for years

I’m not sure why you think you know better than me about him, whoever you are Dominic Pringle (talk) 18:41, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you know better than me, that's fine! However, any reader must be able to verify the information that you add — we can't just take your word for it. Please don't change content without providing a source again or you may have to be blocked. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 18:43, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not every little minor edit has to be quoting a journalist

Often, you can’t just take a journalist’s word for it! Dominic Pringle (talk) 19:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Keemstar. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:23, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The information I replaced wasn’t even sourced Dominic Pringle (talk) 20:38, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is About several edits by Dominic Pringle. Thank you. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 19:57, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave me alone. My last edits were verifiable Dominic Pringle (talk) 20:36, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to be left alone, WP is not the place, since it's full of other people, and WP:COMMUNICATE can be a necissity. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 06:23, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}. RickinBaltimore (talk) 11:57, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who exactly are you? An admin told me I was close to being blocked, and I said I wouldn’t make anymore edits for a while

Why do YOU need to come and block me indefinitely? Dominic Pringle (talk) 12:21, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Come on Rick

I haven’t done anything to you Dominic Pringle (talk) 14:56, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Admins often shouldn't even block an editor for doing "anything to" them. Instead a lot of the time it's better to let some other admin do it since they may be WP:INVOLVED. Admins instead are supposed to block editors when the editors actions are harming Wikipedia, and blocking seems to be the only way to stop this editor from continuing to harm Wikipedia. It's unlikely our policy on WP:RS and WP:Verifiability will change, so simply stopping editing for a while isn't going to help if you will still do the same thing whenever you do come back. And your responses at ANI strongly suggested you intended to continue the same behaviour whenever you did resume editing. If at any time you're ready to resume editing while properly our verifiability requirement and other policies and guidelines, I suggest you read Wikipedia:Appealing a block and probably also Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks. Then make a request to be unblocked based on your new commitment, which would also mean demonstrating an understanding of why your past behaviour was a problem. Nil Einne (talk) 19:24, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I made no more edits between when Ivanvector warned me, and when this other guy came and blocked me

I had heeded the warning

I just mentioned that not EVERY edit I made needed a source, because some were harmless and unlikely to be challenged Dominic Pringle (talk) 10:10, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ivanvector told you that you were close to being blocked because you were not complying with the verifiability policy. Instead of saying 'OK, sorry, I'll read that and make sure I follow it in future', you continued to defend your edits as uncontroversial and not needing sources - a block was inevitable. Assertions that are self-evident to everyone, like the sky being blue, don't need sources. Stuff that requires specialist knowledge, like the details of someone's parenthood or personal relationships, absolutely need sources. Now, you have repeatedly referred to things like 'establishment media'. I don't really know what you mean by that, but the guidance about acceptable sources is at WP:RS. We don't need a source to be written by 'the establishment', but we do need it to be reliable (not a random blog). If you want to contribute to this project, follow the instructions at WP:GAB, and undertake to abide by the guidance you have been given. Girth Summit _(blether) 08:54, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK

i was planning to provide sources for things likely to be challenged Dominic Pringle (talk) 10:05, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't really the test you need to apply. Ask yourself whether any random reader with no knowledge of the subject would already know what you are adding. If the answer is no, cite a source. You also need to consider whether inclusions are WP:DUE - is a random factoid worth mentioning in the article? That's a harder call to make, but the test we usually apply is whether secondary sources mention it. If there is something a subject has said about themselves, but secondary sources don't make mention of it, we usually leave it out - another reason why it's good to cite sources. Girth Summit _(blether) 13:39, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The next time I edit, I’ll cite sources

Now can someone please undo what that misguided individual from Baltimore did to me?

I shouldn’t have to go through a whole formal block appeal thing when I should never have been blocked in the first place Dominic Pringle (talk) 15:17, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I already told you that the block was inevitable, I don't know why you still think it shouldn't have happened. I'm not going to be the one to undo it, your attitude concerns me. Girth Summit _(blether) 09:05, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When I was warned, I said I’d stop making edits

And I did Dominic Pringle (talk) 11:40, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A fundamental element to getting unblocked is understanding what you did wrong. With your repeated insistence that you should never have been blocked, it's plain that you have no such understanding. As long as that remains the case, it's highly unlikely that you won't be unblocked. You stating that you wouldn't make more edits has no bearing on any of that; blocking is to ensure there is no further damage to the encyclopedia, not as a punishment. Ravenswing 11:45, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I now understand that edits that are likely to be challenged need a source from the establishment media, and that the edits I made that have been reverted are the ones that were likely to be challenged

My edits were pretty minor and I hope they didn’t do much damage

I was planning to cite sources for my next edit anyway Dominic Pringle (talk) 12:16, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't know what you mean by 'establishment media'; your adherence to it after I gave you links to the reliable sourcing guidelines is not giving me confidence. Girth Summit _(blether) 08:37, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Something like CNN or the BBC....those would be reliable sources right? Dominic Pringle (talk) 09:54, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, yes, those are two reputable news organisations, although there are always other factors to consider. Factual news reporting is one thing, editorials and opinion pieces are another - it's never as simple as saying 'it was produced by such-and-such, so it's reliable'. Secondary scholarship is the gold standard, and generally preferred over the output of news organisations. I still don't understand why you're calling them 'establishment media', what do you mean to imply by using it? Girth Summit _(blether) 11:34, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well anyway, I was planning to explicitly cite the BBC as a source for my next edit, because I understand this edit will be likely to be challenged 😁 Dominic Pringle (talk) 13:34, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll reply to your email here. We don't care about "establishment media". Please, read over WP:RS. That is what we care about. If you post something, source it properly. That's it. As for myself, I had no involvement whatsoever until I read the thread on ANI. The actions to me warranted a block. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I understand the WP:RS....if I post something likely to be challenged, I’ll source it properly, and I’ll be more careful next time

Now can you please undo your mistake....when I was warned I was close to being blocked, I said I’d stop making the problematic edits, and I did....my arguments afterwards were only hypothetical Dominic Pringle (talk) 18:04, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the thing. It wasn't a mistake. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:26, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, misunderstanding would be a better word....I didn’t make anymore problematic edits after I was warned by Ivanvector, and I wasn’t going to, I was going to be more careful about what is likely to be challenged, as per the WP:RS 😁

Please give me my account back, it took effort to get it established Dominic Pringle (talk) 14:05, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want your account unblocked, follow the information here: WP:GAB. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:01, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I could’ve just done that in the first place

What has even been the point of this conversation? Dominic Pringle (talk) 18:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those instructions are literally in the block notification, and have been pointed out to you numerous times. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 21:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All right, well I’ll mention that you guys are vouching for me

I thought Rick could unblock me as easily as he blocked me Dominic Pringle (talk) 21:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I urge you to recognize that engaging in a discussion with you is not necessarily "vouching" for you. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 21:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ohh....

Btw, Keemstar is a journalist

He has engaged in a hell of a lot of journalism, during his career as a YouTube-based journalist

Cant believe mentioning that was the thing that sent squirrel boy scurrying to the admin board to squeal about me, and ultimately got me banned 🤣 Dominic Pringle (talk) 22:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your incredible stupidity has messed everything up for me

Ive waited for a over a month to be unblocked Dominic Pringle (talk) 17:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

please unblock me

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).

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

Request reason:

I WAS here to build an encyclopedia, I just wasn't careful enough with providing sources for information that is likely to be challenged. I was warned I was close to being blocked by one admin, so I heeded the warning and stopped all editing. But then another admin came and just blocked me anyway. Ive taken some time away to reflect, but now it seems its been long enough, and time that my block was lifted. Next time, I will be more careful about what is likely to be challenged, and provide reliable sources. Dominic Pringle (talk) 17:38, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

It's concerning that when your edits are challenged the first thing you do is accuse people of "stalking" you. Criticism of you is not stalking you- this is offensive to people who are actually stalked in their lives, putting them in physical danger. Please tell how you will change your reaction to criticism of your edits. Please also provide an example of a well sourced edit you would make to an article. 331dot (talk) 18:37, 5 October 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.

Declined? Really?

Alright, stalking was probably the wrong word, the guy was following me around from page to page and watching everything I was doing though.

I wasn't gonna make many more edits anyway, and when I did, I was gonna provide sources from the BBC.

please don't decline my unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

I won't make similar reckless unsourced edits like I did, and I understand why many of those were criticised - they were likely to be challenged, so they couldn't go unsourced. Next time I was going to provide reliable sources, such as the BBC for example. Dominic Pringle (talk) 20:22, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Confirmed sock puppetry via CreepyStepdad (talk · contribs). The standard offer is pretty much your last chance now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:06, 29 October 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.

I'm sorry....I waited a month to be legitimately unblocked, but resorted to sockpuppetry because it looked like that just wasn't gonna happen, and they were just gonna keep failing to unblock me

please give me my account back, it took effort to get it established

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).

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

Request reason:

As I've mentioned, I won't make similar reckless unsourced edits like I did, and I understand why many of those were criticised - they were likely to be challenged, so they couldn't go unsourced. Next time I was going to provide reliable sources, such as the BBC for example. An indefinite block is unnecessary. Dominic Pringle (talk) 14:15, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

One open request at a time, please. A volunteer administrator will get to your initial request (which I have left open) if they find it compelling / when they have time. SQL ^{Query Me!} 04:57, 13 October 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.

Dominic Pringle (talk) 14:15, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]