User talk:Pdiddyjr

The King of his own house's talkpage! Watch out...

Box of Archives

This is just the beginning...
"Disruptive" edits, school corporal punishment, oversight and more
Very busy here... wait... my eyes are running... oh no I've got the sneezy hay fever... ATISHOO ATISHOO ATISHOO!

I've had to suppress more of your stuff

Pdiddyjr, please please stop using edit summaries or adding text to discussions, articles, etc that identifies your location, age, or anything else personal. We've had this talk with you before. Please let this be the last time we need to do it, or we may need to reconsider whether it's safe for you to edit Wikipedia at all. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, Fluffernutter, do you really think I'll post my home address/phone number/Wii number/e-mail address/Nintendo 3DS friend code on this site? No! I wouldn't do that in a million years! You know I don't need to go to Carstairs!Pdiddyjr (talk) 17:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well we can assume that Fluffernutter suppressed things because you did give too much information.

What you need to remember, is not just avoiding posting personal information, but also avoid posting things (in edit summaries or anywhere else) that people might be able to use to work out personal information. People are not as dumb as you think, and these things are sometimes easy to work out. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The issue seems to be that Pdiddyjr may not even recognize when he's crossed the line into "things it's a bad idea to share with the world", and that's actually a larger problem than someone who just once or twice posts person information and then goes "oops, won't do that again, how silly of me". Pdiddyjr, I don't know how much more clear I can make it: you need to avoid sharing - in edits, edit summaries, interpretive dance, or morse code - any information that people could use to find you irl or get too much online detail about you. Your name, age, or home address? Out. Your school or what year you're in? Out. Your facebook page, your mom's maiden name, your little siblings birthdates, or the location of the hidden treasure under your bedroom floor? Out. Anything that could allow someone to find you outside of Wikipedia, or that could allow someone within Wikipedia to focus on you as a target, is not safe to post anywhere on Wikipedia. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Need to listen harder

Pdiddyjr, you're annoying people at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_UK_Railways#First_Great_Western_Company_Page who probably know a great deal more about wikipedia and railways than you. I think perhaps you need to think very much harder about other people's reactions to your edits than you have been doing. I also note on your user page some talk about a "humour account". Please be quite clear: there's no place for such an account on wikipedia. Going in that direction will only bring you trouble, I promise. So maybe think again. thanks --20:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Tagishsimon, I read Wikipedia:Sock puppetry and it says that humour accounts are legitimate. Also, not only should you sign all your comments, but you are still treating something that is no longer a problem like it still is. Pdiddyjr (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, it seems you are right, the policy does indeed say that.

However, it is worth noting exactly how the policy phrases it. It says the community has tolerated humorous alternate accounts - so it is describing what the community has done in the past; it can't guarantee that the community will always do so in the future.

So Tagishsimon might have a point, even if he is wrong about the policy. Having humour accounts can bring you trouble, so do be very careful if you create one.

Also, because I have a secret life as a troublemaker, it occurred to me that saying on your talk page that you're going to create an account, and giving the name of it, is a temptation to troublemakers to create that account and then do bad things with it, pretending to be you, to get you in trouble. So, I suggest you either change your mind and remove it from your userpage, or go ahead and register the account, edit its user page to say its your account, and then get back to doing productive things with this account. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will. Just I think I can only get into trouble if I tell racist jokes, which I won't. Pdiddyjr (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, Pdiddyjr. this certainly looks like edit warring. You may or may not be right about the content, but your approach sucks. Does it not occur to you to discuss the issue on the talk page of the template? --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tagishsimon, you're crossing the line. You're STILL continuing to go on about things that are no longer a problem! Does it not occur to you to STOP?!

Mentoring - reminder

I'm usually happy to wait for mentees to take the mentoring course at their own pace, but I see that some people still have issues with some aspects of your editing, so I really recommend that you make it a priority to read carefully the first lesson at User:Demiurge1000/Mentoring/Pdiddyjr and let me know when you are ready to try the test. There's a mini-barnstar waiting! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability

Hi, re this edit: please remember to cite your sources, per the policy on verifiability. Your edit was inaccurate: of the ten locomotives, one was withdrawn in 1976 leaving nine to be withdrawn in 1977; but only two were scrapped that year: the rest were scrapped in 1979 (six), 1980 (one) and 1981 (one). None have been reconstructed. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:47, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article British Rail Class 74, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No! It is not rubbish! It says that ten locomotives were rebuilt! I'm reverting your revert, and no one can revert it back or you'll start an edit war and you know what happens to you when you participate in an edit war! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdiddyjr (talk • contribs) 19:25, 28 May 2012

Then you will please observe the policy on verifiability, and cite your sources. None exist any more: the last of the ten (74 005) was scrapped in January 1981 - more than thirty years ago.

Per WP:BRD, you were bold, I reverted you: if you wish to re-add this, you should take it to the article's talk page. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:32, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tell other users to stop reverting my reverts! They just want to start edit wars, don't they?Pdiddyjr (talk) 19:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody wants to start an edit war, but if you repeatedly add untrue information, you may be considered to be the initiator of a "war". If you continue to do this whilst ignoring the advice offered to you, some might consider your edits to fall within vandalism.

When you make any sort of claim which others may consider to be doubtful, it is your responsibility to demonstrate where you obtained the information from. For example, with this edit, I showed which book (and which pages in that book) I obtained the information for the withdrawal and scrap dates for Class 74. It's the bit inside the <ref>...</ref>. Others, having seen my edit, can then look in the same book (if they possess it) to check what I added was correct. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:05, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) No, I want to remove material that is (1) unsourced, and (2) disputed, from the article.

You need to tell us what the source is for the ten rebuilds.

On a lighter note, this really does sound like a Dr Who episode. "There are ten Type 74 locomotives here? But Doctor, they were scrapped more than thirty years ago! What's going on?" --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at British Rail Class 74, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Multiple additions of unverified / false information is disruptive. Do not do it again or you will be blocked. Mjroots (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed disruptive, and I can't really argue against a block if this continues. However, I would ask you go gently here - I am trying, thus far without much success, to get to the bottom of Pdiddyjr's apparent lack of understanding of, or interest in, verifiability. He has been productive enough to actually give me the ISBN of a book he used as a source for one of his other edits that I reverted, so this is not completely a lost cause.

Pdiddyjr - there's a link in the section above to your mentoring course. I strongly suggest you click the link, make sure you've read and understand the material in the first lesson, and then let me know when you're ready to try the test. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:25, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mjroots: It's not good to make false accusations!Pdiddyjr (talk) 17:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this edit to Nailsea and Backwell railway station

Hi. I reverted your edit about the fate of 143613: while I agree, it was scrapped at Cardiff, I can't find any reference to that happening, and as the station article is a good article nominee, uncited statements are bad. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I just found something to indicate this. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Eastern gray squirrel, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Materialscientist (talk) 09:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please make sure to include an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! –Signalhead ^< T > 12:51, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Hey, SmashPeter, I'm glad to meet you on this wiki I hope we can make some editing to improve this wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marioisawesome118 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that was me by the way. Marioisawesome118 (talk) 13:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Hi. I see you've had a few problems in your time here at Wikipedia, and that often happens to young people who don't fully understand the purpose of an encyclopedia. But you need to start listening to what you are being told, and do not make edits that are not supported by reliable sources. For example this change, supported only by your statement "Don't revert this because I have told everyone in my school that she lives in Birmingham" is completely unacceptable - and it is also unacceptable to order other people not to revert you, as you did here. Wikipedia is a serious project - it is not a place for schoolkids to post nonsense just for fun. Please do have a read of WP:V and WP:RS, and do not add anything to any Wikipedia article unless you can provide reliable sources to support your claim. -- Boing! said Zebedee / on Tour (talk) 19:12, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PINGAS! Time for bed!Pdiddyjr (talk) 19:13, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

September 2012

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Lancaster, Lancashire. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Leave your personal interpretations out of it please - you've been warned about your nonsense, so stop it now or you will be blocked from editing -- Boing! said Zebedee / on Tour (talk) 05:58, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, after further investigation...

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for continuing to make your silly claims that Rihanna lives in Birmingham, W. Midlands, after having been warned to stop it. If you continue with this childish nonsense after this block expires, you may end up indefinitely blocked - at least until you grow up a bit. 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. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:02, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also note that you are making what look like valid edits to railway-related articles, so you clearly have something positive to contribute. But I do see that you are not including references to verify the information - all new information added to Wikipedia articles should be supported by citations to reliable sources. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have also removed some nonsense from your user page alleging that pop stars are going to die by being run over by trains - that kind of thing is really not appropriate here. Looking at this talk page in general, I see your attempts at humour are proving quite disruptive, so please can I ask you to be careful - we do have some humour here from time to time, but your kind of schoolkid humour is generally found unfunny by adults (and this is an adult project), so please keep it to a minimum. Finally, I have also blocked your alternative User:SuperHumourMatic21 "humour" account - I know that some humour accounts have been tolerated by the community, but your "humour" is disruptive, and so it is not appropriate for you to have such an account at this time. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:19, 24 September 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

You can't block me for things I put on my own userpage

Decline reason:

Yes we can - particularly when you're using it to continue a disruptive campaign to post stuff you made up in school one day. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 17:25, 24 September 2012 (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.

Pdiddyjr (talk) 17:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Boing! said Zebedee, you're busted!Pdiddyjr (talk) 17:20, 24 September 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am not using a disruptive campaign! Unblock me, Liverpudlian swine!

Decline reason:

Game over. I am revoking your talk access, since you apparently have no interest in adapting your behavior. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:33, 24 September 2012 (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.

Then explain to me how posting lies simply to support something you told your friends in school is supporting the goals of Wikipedia. (Also, if you don't want this block to become indefinitely long, I'd recommend removing the attack (as nonsensical as it is) and start treating Wikipedia like a serious project). Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 17:32, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you were not blocked just for the nonsense on your user page - this edit was not on your user page. In fact, after having seen your responses to your block, I was seriously tempted to up your block to indefinite as you do not appear to possess the maturity needed to work here - but I'm usually willing to offer one more chance. But be warned that this is your last one, and if you continue in your current ways once this block expires, you will be blocked indefinitely. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:44, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Electrification Proposals in Britain

Category:Electrification Proposals in Britain, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Pichpich (talk) 14:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

October 2012

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for continuing your disruptive nonsense about where Rihanna lives, this time at Rihanna with this edit - the "Los Angeles" you removed is specifically stated in the cited source. 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. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:27, 7 October 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

I didn't read the source first. I will stop. Please unblock me. Pdiddyjr (talk) 17:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This wasn't an one-off mistake, but a part of long-term hoaxing campaign, so please stop claiming that you're innocent. Especially since you were blocked before for the same kind of offfence. Max Semenik (talk) 19:45, 12 October 2012 (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.

Removing content about Rihanna's residence and claiming there is no evidence for it without even reading the source cited for it was deliberate vandalism and was part of your stupid campaign to lie about where she lives. You have been warned multiple times and blocked for it, and you were specifically warned that you would be indefinitely blocked if you did it again. You did it again. Also, in response to your previous block, for earlier Rihanna vandalism, you called me a "Liverpudlian swine" and failed to retract it when you were advised to do so. In addition, you have been told you should not add unsourced material to Wikipedia, yet you have completely ignored that advice and carried on regardless. All together, this suggests to me that you are simply too immature to be a positive asset here right now, and I would oppose any unblock until you have grown up a bit - I'd suggest you come back in a year and try to convince us that your maturity has developed sufficiently. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Japan-only video game hardware has been nominated for renaming

Category:Japan-only video game hardware has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 15:55, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Ramstyng" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Ramstyng has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 3 § Ramstyng until a consensus is reached. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 00:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]