User talk:DorsetTiger

Welcome!

Hello, DorsetTiger, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!--MollyPollyRolly (talk) 21:06, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:10, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Warren Beatty. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges on that page. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. Code Pending (talk) 02:49, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This list has been up for a long time to the point that people on Twitter have made reference to its content. This is NOT vandalism. Looking back, this section has been up for years, and when previously removed, it has been reverted and brought back. Why is it now removed? DorsetTiger (talk) 02:53, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is an excellent question to ask on the Article's talk page, Talk:Warren Beatty. Code Pending (talk) 02:55, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think that people discussing something on Twitter makes it worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia? If that is what you think, then you are not competent to edit biographies of living people on Wikipedia, which has vastly higher standards than Twitter. It is now removed because editors and administrators who actually understand the relevant policies and guidelines have become aware of it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rude. DorsetTiger (talk) 16:29, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 2021

Thank you for contributing to the article The Vamps (British band). However, please do not use unreliable sources such as blogs, your own website, websites and publications with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight, expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, as one of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. If you require further assistance, please look at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the Teahouse. Thank you. Kuru (talk) 23:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at The Vamps (British band). Kuru (talk) 11:54, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Vamps

I think all 4 band members need separate pages. --Annamargarita0 (talk) 15:00, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. shanghai.^{talk to me} 15:11, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Boyz (Jesy Nelson song). Maxwell King¹²³³²¹ 00:33, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 2021

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}. Kinu ^t/_c 03:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request.

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

127.0.0.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Block message:

original block message

Blocking administrator: not provided (talk • blocks)

Decline reason: You are blocked directly and need to convince us you won't continue adding poorly-sourced or blatantly false information. Yamla (talk) 15:47, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How do I convince you?

WP:GAB goes into some detail. It will be hard, as it appears you were introducing false information. There's not likely a way for you to come back from that, given the direct harm you were causing the entire project. --Yamla (talk) 15:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is the IP address permanently blocked or just this account? Could other people still edit with their accounts on this WiFi or without an account or does this just affect DorsetTiger?

Blocks apply to the person. So, you are personally blocked. Until the block on this account is lifted, you are not permitted to edit. For more information, see WP:BLOCK, WP:EVADE, and WP:SOCK. --Yamla (talk) 16:33, 18 October 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

I believe I was blocked in relation to the ‘Boyz’ by Jesy Nelson & Nicki Minaj article, but the time stamp of my blocking was many hours after my last edit. Many others had edited, and edited inappropriately, since my contribution, so I think perhaps I may have been blocked by mistake. The content I added was to the ‘critical reception’ section and perhaps some of the sources were not 100%, so I do apologise, but there was absolutely no intention of vandalism at all. I would greatly appreciate being unblocked, as I mainly edit the ‘2021-22 EFL Championship’ page and if I remain unblocked it will remain out of date. Thank you. DorsetTiger (talk) 04:36, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There is no mistake here. Due to the risk that inappropriate edits will continue, we will have to get by without your contributions to other articles until you can demonstrate that you will no longer engage in inappropriate edits. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 08:47, 19 October 2021 (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.

Reblocked

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

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 why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.