User talk:Ohwrotcod

May 2013

Welcome to Wikipedia. Might I suggest you take a look at some important Wikipedia policies. Firstly, there's WP:AGF about how we interact with each other. Then there's WP:3RR, which tries to minimise edit warring. Lastly, there's WP:PROD that explains how the proposed deletion tag and mechanism works. A key thing about proposed deletions is that you should never re-add a proposed deletion tag that someone else has removed. Bondegezou (talk) 16:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

+1 to those thoughts. Generally, it is important that you not re-add prods after they have been removed by another editor, instead, you should nominate that article through Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion. Sadads (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Bondegezou (talk) 17:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who (New Adventures) articles

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from All-Consuming Fire, which you proposed for deletion, because its deletion has previously been contested or viewed as controversial. Proposed deletion is not for controversial deletions. For this reason, propose deletion are disallowed on articles that have previously been de-{{prod}}ed, even by the article creator, or which have previously been listed on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article, but feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! —C.Fred (talk) 17:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, You seem inadvertantly to have reverted the article Cold_Fusion_(Doctor_Who) four times in the space of less than half a day, in clear breach of Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule#The_three-revert_rule. This can lead to a 24 hour block on your account, so it might be best to leave the page as is for now and discuss any problems you have on the talk page? Cheers. StuartDouglas (talk) 14:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ohwrotcod, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Ohwrotcod! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Technical 13 (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cold Fusion

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. Bondegezou (talk) 13:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, probable multiple account abuse, and disruptive editing, as you did at Cold Fusion (Doctor Who). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 18:06, 24 May 2013 (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).

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

Request reason:

I broke the 3-revert rule without knowledge of it. After I was told about it, I stopped ceased to point out that a "source" did not actually verify an article. Look here. Article: Cold Fusion (Doctor Who), and the so-called "Reliable Source": [1]. Where is that mentioned in that source? Ohwrotcod (talk) 13:41, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The very first line at this top of this page explictly points out the 3RR rule to you; most, if not all, of the edit warring took place after the policy was pointed out to you. Looking at the edit summaries, I see no evidence to support your claim of vandalism. This simply appears to be a content dispute. I would encourage you to limit yourself to the article's talk page until the dispute is resolved. Kuru (talk) 13:57, 25 May 2013 (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 was specifically blocked for the 3-R rule for the article Cold Fusion (Doctor Who). Here is the edit history of that article. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cold_Fusion_(Doctor_Who)&action=history]. Note my last edit, and where User:StuartDouglas points it out. And here's User:Stuart Douglas pointing it out on this page. [2]. Note the times.

PS. How do you contest the fact that a source does not actually include any information about the article? Clearly giving it a "not in source" tag leas to getting blocked. Ohwrotcod (talk) 14:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I first edited as an IP. After a PROD tag was removed, someone suggested I take an issue to AfD. I did. I also explicitly stated that this account and the IP are one and the same(me). After logging out, I edited again, but forgot to log in at first. I then logged in and never attempted any sort of deception. Ohwrotcod (talk) 14:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Answering the PS first: Every article has a related talk page. If you try to make an edit and it gets reverted, rather than change it back, your first stop should be the talk page. There you can explain why you want to make the change. In this case, you could have said something like, "Hey, we shouldn't use source X, because it doesn't mention the subject anywhere in the article." Other editors would then reply with, for instance, how they see the subject is mentioned, and you could discuss the issue from there to find common ground. —C.Fred (talk) 14:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did mention it, on the article discussion page, in my edit summary and at the article's relevant AfD page. i asked people to state exactly what was stated in the source that was relevant to the article. Instead I got reported, and blocked for 3 day.s Ohwrotcod (talk) 14:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[3]. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

By the way the tag was removed [12] [13] [14] by [15], the same person who warned me about the 3RR. Ohwrotcod (talk) 15:05, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you did participate in the talk page discussion. The problem is that each time, you went back and edited the article again, instead of waiting for consensus to emerge on the talk page. (Talk page comment at 13:05, revert at 13:08; talk page comment at 13:30, revert at 13:31.) (And I checked the talk page: there isn't consensus, at last check.) That's the behavior that, from my perspective, got you blocked: continuing the edit war in the article instead of discussing the matter at the talk page. And again, for purposes of considering your block, we're only looking at your actions, not the actions of others. Do you see why your behavior let to your account being blocked? —C.Fred (talk) 16:45, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of Monarchs of the United Kingdom by previous title for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Monarchs of the United Kingdom by previous title 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/List of Monarchs of the United Kingdom by previous title 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. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:08, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked?

I have been blocked for 72 hours. Apparently Bondegezou reported me for stating that one of the irrelevant "citation"s he/she added does not actually contain what he/she is claiming it is a reference for. He/she kept reinstating it, getting very rude about it. And then reported me. So I am blocked while he/she gets away with disruptive editing.

I discovered I was blocked because I wished to add sources to the article Zagreus (audio drama). Specifically from Doctor Who Magazine Issue 33 pages 10-18, Doctor Who Magazine Issue 340 Review section and Lance Parkin/Lars Pearson's Ahistory (3rd edition)(ISBN:978-193523411-1) Pages 34-35, 133, 176, 208, 223, 488, 534, 672, 680, 694, 696, 698, 737-738. Unfortunately I am blocked for 72 hours, thanks to my being reported for pointing out two "sources" on the Cold Fusion (Doctor Who) article have no actual connection to the article they are supposed to be referencing. Ohwrotcod (talk) 13:36, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...actually it's the same irrelevant "source" used twice. Ohwrotcod (talk) 13:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll respond here, but I'm responding mostly to your unblock request as what you state just above is content-related and therefore largely irrelevant to your misconduct. You objected to the fact that you weren't warned about edit warring and that you did not revert after being warned. That is correct and I mentioned it at WP:ANEW. If violating 3RR had been your only problem, I might have let it go. However, you were disruptive in other ways. It looked to me like you were using an IP address as well as using your registered account. For that reason I blocked User:41.132.117.15. Sock puppetry is a serious problem at Wikipedia. You were also restoring WP:PROD tags after they were removed. That is a violation of policy. Indeed, you edit warred about it at Toy Soldiers (Doctor Who). And that was after the IP attempted to "delete" the article by a redirect. If anything, you're lucky I did not impose a longer block, and if you continue any of this behavior after your block expires, you will be blocked for a longer period.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:06, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Improving Doctor Who Articles

It seems you are concerned about articles related to Doctor Who audio plays being removed from wikipedia. Once your cooling down period has ended, can I ask for your help in improving these articles so they meet the standards? I feel doing this is the best way of defending these articles against possible deletion.

For example, all Big Finish plays that have been broadcast on BBC7/Radio 4 Extra could be supported by adding a broadcast section. I've been working through them doing the work, but could use some help if you are willing to give it.

Also several articles have plot sections that go on and on and on, while others consist of two lines. Some editing to even the balance would be great.

Finally few spin off articles have a proper reference section and the primary source (the BF website) is not linked by proper in line references. If you could work through the Big Finish arts and sort that out it would be a big help.

TIA

Rankersbo (talk) 12:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zagreus (audio drama)

Thanks for the work done in finding sources. The two Big Finish Productions books are good sources that back up the text, but they are primary sources as they are from the same company. What we need now are one or two secondary sources to back up the primary sources (the Starburst review is a good one IMO) Rankersbo (talk) 10:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With Starburst, scifionline and DWM, I reckon that's enough to prove notability. One thing possibly worth fixing is the tagging of section headers (which then show up in the Contents list) - I could be wrong but I thought that sort of tagging was frowned upon (also partially redundant?) I won't change it for fear of allegations of revertion but worth considering? StuartDouglas (talk) 10:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Increased block

I have increased the duration of your block to two weeks from now for block evasion/sock puppetry by User:41.133.1.164.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You know what Bbb23, in all honesty, I find your behaviour to be immature and totally inappropriate for a Wikipedia administrator. . I have a dynamic IP range. You know that, but you choose to pretend that I am attempting some sort of trickery. I NEVER for one nanosecond EVER pretended I was not the IP. In fact, I have explicitly stated on more than one occasion that I am the IP. As for "block evasion" , well, I forgot that I wasn't logged in. AFTER I made helpful comments(unlike you in this matter), I remembered to log in. It was only THEN that I discovered that someone(ie. you) had blocked me for pointing out that A SO-CALLED "RELIABLE SOURCE" MADE NO MENTION WHATSOEVER OF THE ARTICLE IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A CITATION FOR. It is clear that you have some irrational grudge towards me. You can not possibly deny bias against me, and you can not possibly deny that you have abused your privileges as an admin. Your unfair and personally motivated block has removed me from discussions simply because what I had to say doesn't gel with your personal prejudices. And your simpering little cabal of Stuart Douglas, PhilPh and Bondegezou(who are almost certainly less than 3 people in real life) have done far worse than I have. Stuart Douglas broke the 3RR rule, Bondegezou took it upon him/self to delete articles by redirection without even attempting to start a discussion, and Bondegezou and PhilPh have both made personal attacks. However, my "crimes" of removing sources that are unrelated to the article they have been placed on, and forgetting to log in, never once suspecting that I had been blocked, well those deserve an increased block. So, all these discussions will now obviously run their course before my block expires. How convenient for you, and your little group of friends. Bondegezou's irrelevant "source" remains. PhilPh's blatant lie about how the article has been improved remains. Phil and Bondegezou remain free to make personal attacks. And Stuart Douglas got away with the 3RR rule, after he warned me AFTER I unknowingly broke it, yet the only one banned here is me. Ohwrotcod (talk) 17:48, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your contentions about the timing have merit, and I blame myself for that as I didn't look closely enough at when 41.133.1.164 made changes and when you first protested your block here. Give me a little bit to fix all this. I am going to unblock you and the two IPs and remove the tags. Once you're unblocked, I have some suggestions for you. First, please log in when editing. It's not required, but it's a very good idea, and given the history, it will be much better for you. It's easy to look at Wikipedia and not be logged in, but it's not easy to edit while not logged in as there is a warning when you do so. Second, go slowly on all these articles that you're interested in. Once you're blocked for edit warring, any resumption of the edit warring may be met with a longer block. You don't have to do much to incur that. Finally, drop the personal attacks. It's not only unhelpful, it's pretty silly. I have no interest in these articles. I barely know who Dr. Who is. :-) I also don't know the editors involved. So, assume good faith and comply with Wikipedia policies and guidelines.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:12, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Ohwrotcod (talk) 05:18, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to agree with Bbb23 that the personal attack are not helpful and a little silly. I can't speak for the other editors, but I've been extremely polite with you, in spite of your frequent rudeness, pointed out you'd broken the 3RR rule on your talk page rather than report you for doing so and as you've noticed, I actually added the first WP:RS citation to the Zagreus article. Nobody is trying to delete Who articles (except you) - I suspect everyone involved is a Dr Who fan. Also worth pointing out, since you seem to be pretty new to Wikipedia, that I did not break the 3RR rule, thogh you did - "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period" (from the 3RR page) - I reverted three times only, you reverted a fourth time. StuartDouglas (talk) 08:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You (StuartDouglas) did revert your own edit, which doesn't count toward the total. Rankersbo (talk) 09:56, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually. the one who started this(and did make me overstep the mark myself) was Bondegezou. He/she "boldly"(his/her word) made several redirects without ever once taking it to discussion. [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] On exactly ZERO of those edits did Bondegezou actually discuss merging or re-directing at all. Then, why I nominated an unsourced article for AfD, he/she added a source which does not mention the content of the article at all, he/she kept removing my "not in cited source" tag, which got me blocked for breaking 3RR. He/she then reported me for sockpuppetry, because I had posted as an IP before creating this account. And straight away said that I am the same person as the IP. He/she then added the fact that he/she had got me blocked on the AfD page, as though that "proves" something. Again, if an article does have a problem, he/she should have first brought it up for discussion, not "boldy re-directed" multiple articles. And, again, his/her source does not mention the content of the article.

Ultimately, if everyone behaves civilly, and works together, several, indeed most, of these articles can and will easily be improved and brought up to proper Wikipedia standards. Sadly, that has not been the case with my experiences here so far. Ohwrotcod (talk) 08:51, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and if posting as both an account and an IP constitutes sockpuppetry, has anyone noticed these similarities [35] [36] ? Ohwrotcod (talk) 09:20, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "he started it" is a good attitude to take, firstly it shows that you are engaged in a conflict mentality, and that doesn't look good. Secondly I think it will lead to the sort of editing patterns that earned you a 72 hour break. If you feel that a group of articles need saving, then the best way to do that is to defend the article by adding sources. Bondegezou and StuartDouglas are showing you the way- look at how they responded to your AFD nominations on articles they feel are worthwhile by adding sources and improving the articles. Rankersbo (talk) 09:56, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to point out that you again seem to have misunderstood a Wikipedia convention. Bondegezou is not being arrogant in making bold changes - editors are encouraged to 'be bold' and to make changes that they believe are appropriate. StuartDouglas (talk) 10:05, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Might I suggest, Ohwrotcod, you read WP:BRD? It is entirely appropriate to make bold edits without prior discussion if one feels they are appropriate. If others then contest those edits, then discussion should follow to establish consensus. Bold edits are not vandalism. If you wish to make accusations of sock puppetry, you can do so in the appropriate place. Other claims you make above are not true and have been hashed out at length elsewhere. Accusing others of vandalism, sock puppetry and being a "simpering little cabal" without good reason is in violation of Wikipedia's core principle of WP:AGF. Bondegezou (talk) 10:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Iris Rides Out

Hi - just to let you know that I've tagged Iris_Rides_Out for notability; this is not intended as an attempt to force the play off Wikipedia, but rather because a destructive editor has pushed numerous BF audios into redirects, even though he knows nothing about the subject and is very possibly editing maliciously, and this is the best way to allow editors to add reliable sources. I'll try and add some today for a start (also for the other audios he's redirected). StuartDouglas (talk) 10:05, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think any article that doesn't have WP:RS should be tagged. But the point of Wikipedia is to amass "the sum of human knowledge", not to tear down and delete everything just because it hasn't been sufficiently edited yet. A glance through various "Good Articles" reveals that many were once merely unsourced stubs, A certain someone tagged dozens of BFA's, and actually got various deleted (see all the new red links at [37]). Whereas the same energy could have been spent reliably sourcing at least some of them. Ohwrotcod (talk) 14:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited to the Teahouse.

Hello Ohwrotcod, thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! I want to invite you to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. I hope you see you there! TheOriginalSoni (talk) 00:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Go Through This"

Hi. You removed a PROD tag from Go Through This. I have since nominated the article for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Go Through This and I noticed you hadn't expressed a view there, so I thought I'd mention it in case you hadn't seen. Bondegezou (talk) 09:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of unmade Doctor Who serials and films, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Simon Clark (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Doctor Who Magazine, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Gareth Roberts and Scott Gray (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]