User talk:Elie goodman

Welcome!

Hello, Elie goodman!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, Julietdeltalima (talk) 15:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 2023

Hello, I'm Bojo1498. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Brittle (food), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. (bojo)(they/them)(talk) 16:45, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing it out, Im new to editing wikipedia and indeed a sorce was missing, in a retrospective what I added was like a summary from source which I read and after looking into it, I am not sure if this was the right thing to add to the article.

So I need to thank you for reverting as well :) Elie goodman (talk) 05:41, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or significantly change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did with this edit to Brawl Stars. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Materialscientist (talk) 05:04, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for pointing it out, will add a soruce now,

I really like the game and once I saw the Wikipedia page for it I wanted to improve it greatly, if you are available to go over my edits and provide feedback, please do, I will make sure to do my best Elie goodman (talk) 05:17, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at The Elder Scrolls Online, you may be blocked from editing. Please stop using unreliable sources, like Fandom and other Wiki sites. User generated sources are unreliable. -- ferret (talk) 19:29, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for your reply, I actually worked pretty hard on writing the paragraph as I played the game, and then found no official source, I was hoping that for a game these sources might suffice. Elie goodman (talk) 19:31, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fandom is never acceptable as a source, nor are any other community edited wikis. -- ferret (talk) 19:31, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for clearing that up. Elie goodman (talk) 19:34, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: DuckbearLab (October 23)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Dan arndt were:

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
reliable
secondary
strictly independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:DuckbearLab and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Dan arndt (talk) 07:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Elie goodman! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Dan arndt (talk) 07:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IUCN Redlist refs

Please note that you are often adding a duplicate IUCN redlist reference in the edits you are making, and in an inferior manner to the existing IUCN Redlist refs already existing in the articles. Please check the existing refs in an article when adding a new one to see if what you are adding already exists. Thanks! - UtherSRG (talk) 14:38, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Thank you for pointing this out, I honestly haven't noticed.

I will make sure to check from now on, this is probably due to me being relatively new to Wikipedia.

Appreciate you reaching out :) Elie goodman (talk) 15:13, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:55, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 2023

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.

firefly ( t · c ) 22:17, 18 November 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

I'm surprised and confused by the accusation that my account has been used abusively. I joined Wikipedia to contribute positively and do not have any other accounts. I'm unsure why this happened and would appreciate it if you could check again, as I am certain this is an error. I would also appreciate understanding the process followed when blocking me, as I have received no warning or explanation about what I have done wrong.

Please include a decline or accept reason.

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.

Elie goodman (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an admin, but you were blocked for using multiple accounts illegitimately, not just gaming the system. Ca ^{talk to me!} 00:37, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply,

but how can I prove I don't have multiple accounts? this is a very hard to disprove allegation and I honestly don't have any other account Elie goodman (talk) 05:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They should be able to run a program that will confirm that nobody else edited from the IP addresses that you used. Dovidroth (talk) 06:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I should start with editting the unblock request as I misunderstood it, at first I saw a mention of my username and accusations of gaming the system, only after Ca's kind response I even understand the allegations Elie goodman (talk) 06:10, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Elie goodman Since this ban depends on private information, you should make an appeal at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Ban appeals, since normal admins do not have access to such information. Ca ^{talk to me!} 12:58, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I contacted the committee via the attached email, waiting for their reply.

Honestly Im still confused from all of this.

Thanks again for pointing me in the right direction in all of this :) Elie goodman (talk) 13:12, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ca - Normally, in such a case, there should be an investigation in WP:SPI with some sockpuppetry evidence presented, but I can't find one, which is strange. I wonder if the protocol was properly followed here. 06:38, 19 November 2023 (UTC) Marokwitz (talk) 06:38, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This block is a checkuser block, so there is technical evidence to support it, evidence that only checkusers have access to. 331dot (talk) 07:48, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the checkuser expected to specify which other accounts this user used illegitimately and what behavior was considered abusive? Marokwitz (talk) 11:18, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's not much point in complaining about Firefly without pinging them. There, now I've done it, in case you want to comment, Firefly (not on my account, I'm good with your block notice). Bishonen | tålk 16:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC).[reply]

I have nothing against Firefly, I am honestly unsure what is even the procedure, is tagging Firefly enough to let him know? I noticed I can't leave a message on his talk page because my account is banned Elie goodman (talk) 16:50, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Marokwitz: No, its down to the individual checkuser as to whether they specify or not. Lavalizard101 (talk) 16:48, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and while it is typical for Checkusers to specify which account or SPI the account(s) they're blocking are tied to, there are sometimes good reasons that they cannot do that. In this case however I simply forgot. As we're here - in my opinion "Elie goodman" is in my opinion

Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely) technically, and well-enough connected behaviourally to this SPI. I will not go into more detail publicly in order to prevent giving the game away, however any admin can email me and I will share the publicly available details. firefly ( t · c ) 17:17, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Firefly, After I have done some reading, it seems that an IP check is the traditional way to check these kinds of things, can you please request that it will be done? I will happily comply with anything you request of me. Elie goodman (talk) 17:31, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefly I'm not an administrator and cannot see the evidence; however, if you think there is a potential for error here, I recommend undoing the block. We don't want to drive away newcomer editors, and they deserve the benefit of the doubt. This user has not been found to engage in any disruptive editing or edit warring, correct me if I'm wrong. Marokwitz (talk) 22:04, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was falsely blocked for sockpuppetry once so it is possible. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 22:19, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If this was a genuine mistake from Firefly, I hope this does not drive you away. Cheers, Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 02:47, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefly: I'd like to see what you have. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@UtherSRG acknowledged - will send it today. firefly ( t · c ) 13:33, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging a few checkusers on this: Barkeep49, Beeblebrox, and Blablubbs. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 16:40, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are you looking for? Is there any question or evidence that Firefly has actually made a mistake or do you just not believe them? Numerous CUs have already looked. -- ferret (talk) 17:09, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I didn't know that. Thought only Firefly had looked. Well, I won't ping on this from now on. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 17:21, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ferret, does this mean there is no chance for me to get my account unblocked?

I honestly have no idea why has this accusation came up, this is my only Wikipedia account ever and all of this came as a complete surprise Elie goodman (talk) 17:27, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to get a few more checkusers to verify this. Also on the fact that it is reported as a possilikely, and not confirmed. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 17:28, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The block was placed on the sum of technical (i.e. Checkuser) evidence and behavioural evidence - it is a common misconception that "anything other than technically confirmed means they're not socks". Essentially a potentially positive technical finding (which is what this was, albeit not as strong as "confirmed" or "likely" would be) is a point in favor of blocking, but is not enough to block on its own. However, this, combined with behavioural evidence was - in my opinion - sufficient. firefly ( t · c ) 18:10, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Firefly @Ferret is there any non public information I can provide to prove that I am indeed me and not someone else?

if there is, provide me with a way to contact you Elie goodman (talk) 17:54, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am declining this procedurally as the user is in contact with the Arbitration Committee. Izno (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up

Hey Elie goodman, any updates on this? Thanks, Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 01:53, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For now I have sent an email to the arbitration committee and got a reply that it is being looked at, but at this point I am waiting for the commitee's decision Elie goodman (talk) 06:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see. It's been a while and I hope the committee gets back to you as soon as possible. Best of luck, Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 15:39, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Following up on this,

The committee decided to decline my unblocking,

Thanks for checking up on me Elie goodman (talk) 20:00, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and I'm sorry to hear. I hope you enjoyed the time editing on Wikipedia and I wish you the best in your future endeavours.

With regrets, Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 20:55, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:DuckbearLab

Hello, Elie goodman. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:DuckbearLab, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 08:05, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:DuckbearLab

Hello, Elie goodman. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "DuckbearLab".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]