User talk:DonutsAndBakewells

Welcome

Hello, DonutsAndBakewells, and welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! JACKINTHEBOX • ^TALK 13:11, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Introduction Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Finding your way around
Table of contents Directories and indexes Department directory
Editing articles
How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help
Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Our new user help forum, the Teahouse The Help Desk, for more advanced questions Help pages Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
How you can help
Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

November 2018

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! (UK series 18), did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Copy-paste move Matt14451 (talk) 15:19, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An extended welcome

Hi Malique Thompson-Dwyer. I hope you don't mind if I share some of my thoughts on starting out as a new editor on Wikipedia: If I could get editors in your situation to follow just one piece of advice, it would be this: Learn Wikipedia by working only on non-contentious topics until you have a feel for the normal editing process and the policies that usually come up when editing casually. You'll find editing to be fun, easy, and rewarding. The rare disputes are resolved quickly and easily.

Working on biographical information about living persons is far more difficult. Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons policy requires strict adherence to multiple content policies, and applies to all information about living persons including talk pages.

If you have a relationship with the topics you want to edit, then you will need to review Wikipedia's Conflict of interest policy, which may require you to disclose your relationship and restrict your editing depending upon how you are affiliated with the subject matter.

Some topic areas within Wikipedia have special editing restrictions that apply to all editors. It's best to avoid these topics until you are extremely familiar with all relevant policies and guidelines.

I hope you find some useful information in all this, and welcome again. --Ronz (talk) 16:59, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! (UK TV series). 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.
You have not discussed the content, and if you continue to restore it despite violating policy, you will be reported. -- Alex^TW 23:26, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. -- Alex^TW 23:38, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DonutsAndBakewells: This response [1] at AN3 is probaby the most flippantly obnoxious comment I've seen in a long time on that noticeboard. If you address anyone that way again, you'll be blocked, and I strongly advise you to strike it through and provide a response that isn't peurile. Acroterion (talk) 02:30, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does this report need to be re-filed? -- Alex^TW 12:39, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! (UK TV series)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IAC

My edit was as mentioned on the show "Managed 16 days..." IWI (chat) 23:12, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain what you mean, do not begin to edit war again or you will be blocked. IWI (chat) 23:16, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the previous series. And every series before that. Each year the number of days Ant/Dec say they spent in camp doesn’t represent the number of days they’ve spent in camp.

okay. Whenever you revert, if you don’t give an understandable reason, you’ll be reverted. IWI (chat) 23:19, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Will do.DonutsAndBakewells (talk) 23:19, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Time It Takes moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, The Time It Takes, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:52, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thetimeittakes.jpeg

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Thetimeittakes.jpeg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Thetimeittakes.jpeg. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:50, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Death on the Tyne moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Death on the Tyne, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. DannyS712 (talk) 16:54, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 2018

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Please do not revert to the depreciated Template:Big Brother endgame after consensus has been found to replace it Template:Infobox television season. Thank you. TheDoctorWho (talk) 01:54, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley McGuire moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Ashley McGuire, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Sheldybett (talk) 07:49, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Death on the Tyne moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Death on the Tyne, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Please do not just move this back into mainspace without addressing the problems. DannyS712 (talk) 06:16, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:CelebrityCoachTrip.jpeg

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:08, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Celebrity Big Brother 2 (U.S. season), did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 20:34, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Celebrity Big Brother 2 (U.S. season) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 03:09, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Celebrity Big Brother 2 (U.S. season)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 01:18, 20 January 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

I believe I should be unblocked. Admittedly the account User:Chocolatebuttonz is my SPARE account but it’s not against the rules to have more than one account, I read this. I’ve made nearly 800 edits, and 99% of my edits are constructive. The account User:Brooklynglassey123 however is NOT my account, the CheckUser evidence has clearly tracked an account that maybe had the same IP Address. Other than this, the only reason I created a spare account was so I could continue with my Coach Trip edits until the block had expired. I made a mistake and this will not happen again. I can remove the other account if necessary. Thanks.

Decline reason:

You shot the sheriff but not the deputy? OK, for the sake of argument, let's say we ignore the whole thing with Brooklynglassey123. I'm willing to grant that it could be a false positive. That still leaves us with Chocolatebuttonz. This is not a "spare account"; it's a sock puppet created to evade your block. What I think we need to see from you, at the very minimum, is an understanding of when legitimate alternate accounts are allowed and what makes them legitimate. After that, maybe we can try to resolve the Brooklynglassey123 thing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:36, 22 January 2019 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

@NinjaRobotPirate: Thank you for responding to my earlier request. Yes I agree, I have read the legitimate account page and understand that other accounts can be created and used to edit whilst you are blocked. That’s just me being impatient I think! I think I’ve learnt not to edit war even if I believe I’m correct and I’ll make sure I’ll take things to the talk page in future. In regards to the sock puppet account, I sincerely apologise for my impatience and block evasion. When unblocked, I can assure you this will not happen again, would it be possible for the account User:Chocolatebuttonz to be deleted. Thanks DonutsAndBakewells (talk) 16:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficiently convincing for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. Yamla (talk) 12:02, 6 February 2019 (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 assume that's supposed to be "other accounts can't be created and used to edit whist you are blocked". After reading WP:SOCK#NOTIFY, is there anything you would do with regard to your alternate account? Sorry to keep going on about this, but I think that we need to establish that you understand the policy before this progresses. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:51, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did mean can’t. After reading WP:SOCK#NOTIFY would an idea be to change the name of the account and make the name similar to my own to show other wikipedians that this is an alternate account. I do understand the policy and will ensure this doesn’t happen again. Thanks DonutsAndBakewells (talk) 20:21, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, labeling alternative accounts is good enough. For example, one might use {{User alternative account}}. OK, that leaves the matter of being of sock puppet of Brooklynglassey123 (talk · contribs). @Bbb23: I think it's possible that the connection to Brooklynglassey123 is a false positive – although both editors are interested in Hollyoaks, there isn't a lot of crossover. The same is true of the technical evidence; the only match happens on a very busy IP range. What do you think? If you don't like the idea of unblocking, maybe we could change the block to expire in a week or two. If DonutsAndBakewells impulsively created a sock puppet and admitted to it, that's a bit different than long-term socking. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: I'm opposed to unblocking this user or changing the expiration to a shorter time. The best I'm willing to do is the standard offer of six months, at which point I would consider unblocking. First, this user was blocked twice for edit-warring before being indeffed for socking. Second, you don't need to know policy to know that when you're blocked, using another account to edit is wrong - it's common sense. Third, I believe that Brooklyn is operated by the same person. We're not talking about a lot of edits by any of the accounts, and yet there is article intersection on four Hollyoaks pages, and that doesn't include topic intersection otherwise. Could the results be a "false positive"? Sure, but the probability, given the behavioral evidence, is they're not, and the user's failure to acknowledge the account is problematic. This is a recurring problem where a sock admits to some accounts but not others. Part of unblocking is understanding what one did wrong, and I don't see any reason in these circumstances to give the user the benefit of any doubt. Finally, if this user is ever unblocked, I can't see any justification for them having other accounts, declared or not.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: I will not admit to an account that I have not operated. I think to assume that all users are aware that not using more than one account is ‘common sense’. My original block was for edit warring, something I have apologised for and will make sure I take to the talk page when I’m unblocked. The account User:Brooklynglassey123 is a false positive, would there be a point in denying this if I was lying, as this accounts edits haven’t been involved in any edit wars, whereas I was involved in an edit war on the account I admitted to User:Chocolatebuttonz. I think there should be an improvement in the CheckUser system. A Six month block seems very excessive considering 99% of my edits have been constructive. Please consider this before you make a decision. Thank you DonutsAndBakewells (talk) 15:56, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You can appeal to ArbCom if you want. See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Ban appeals. ArbCom might be in as good a mood as me – who knows. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:15, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If any admin is still reviewing this there may have been a WP:BLOCKEVADE with the account GypsyChristina. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 02:28, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Death on the Tyne

Hello, DonutsAndBakewells. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Death on the Tyne".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Lapablo (talk) 13:59, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:CelebrityCoachTrip.jpeg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:CelebrityCoachTrip.jpeg. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:28, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]