User talk:Smcupcake19
Smcupcake19, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi Smcupcake19! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 20 September 2020 (UTC) |
June 2021
[edit]
Hello, I'm Ferret. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Scrappy-Doo, 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 the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. -- ferret (talk) 12:09, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Scrappy-Doo. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. -- ferret (talk) 01:19, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. -- ferret (talk) 03:21, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Scrappy-Doo Biography
[edit]
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Draft:Scrappy-Doo Biography requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://premierbankar.com/qeoxt/scrappy-fake-out and https://jaimeescalona.com/journal/3c698d-scrappy-larry-age. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. SamStrongTalks (talk) 00:13, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Bad faith accusations
[edit]If you make one more bad faith accusation that I do not check sources before making my edits, I'll take you to the administrator's notice board for Wikipedia:Casting aspersions. Every edit I make is after reviewing sources and judging them against policy. -- ferret (talk) 17:03, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Look, all I know is that it did cite the show and that it didn't violate copyright bio. I fixed the problems you did have with it-Shaggy's flashback, who was present-it's true but since it wasn't in the trivia book I omitted it.--Smcupcake19 (talk) 17:15, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- You stated that I did not check the source (I did), while suggesting I claimed it was a copyvio (I did not). You additionally suggested my statement that it was not attributed to the RichieRich/ScrappyDoo show was wrong, but any review of the source would show it was not attributed to that show. You have repeatedly made statements on talk pages that I am not checking sources or am making falsehoods about copyvio or fandom unattributed copying and am not actually researching. That is why it becomes bad faith aspersion casting. If you continue making such accusations, we'll head to AN. If you stop, we'll be fine. -- ferret (talk) 17:21, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm really trying to work with you here, but you keep inserting improper grammar, trivial mentions in directory books, and statements like "Despite this age.." and "In his penultimate.." that do not appear in the sources. If you cannot edit in an Encyclopedic manner, you may need to be blocked from this article. -- ferret (talk) 12:06, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for trying to work with me, I really do appreciate it. The directory books, usually in the process of analyzing an iconic monster, often reference Scrappy's appearances, and the summary making it an appropriate secondary source for documenting the happenings of the character in my opinion. Thanks again for your patience. Smcupcake19 (talk) 20:03, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
Partial block
[edit]You are blocked from editing the Scrappy Doo article for a month. You've have been given extensive warnings and explanation from multiple experienced editors, and have continued to be disruptive.
You can still edit other articles, though if I see you making the same sort of inappropriate edits elsewhere, I'm going to switch it to a full block of editing all articles.
If you want to add excruciating small details about fictional characters, I recommend finding a fan wikia. They generally encourage that sort of content. We do not. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 13:57, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- Your edits were not in line with standards, you were told that multiple times by multiple people, and your continued to keep doing it anyways. It's really as simple as that, and I'm rather concerned that you still don't understand that. Sergecross73 msg me 19:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- See, here's the problem: whenever someone comes to me with a problem, I do my best to correct it. First they argued that I needed sources, so I did my best to add sources. They didn't like my sources and they thought that I was being too detailed. "Alright!" thought I. "I will only add important details, like what Scrappy did, where he came from, parents and place of birth, etc." yesterday I was responding to try and adapt it to an appropriate out of universe perspective. Then the person with whom I was negotiating with abruptly decided to drop the discourse and decided to erase my work altogether. I only wish to negotiate and apologize if it seems otherwise. --Smcupcake19 (talk) 19:55, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- This edit summary doesn't exactly convey a "I'm just innocently doing my best here" attitude, it sounds a lot more like a combative "I don't care what you tell me I'm doing it anyways". Beyond that, if you can't understand something as simple as "A cartoon dog held a job in a 'Chinese Food Factory' (???) in one episode" as trivial fictional detail, then I dont know what to tell you. No one is "moving the goalposts" on you, there's just been multiple reasons why your edits were inappropriate, sourcing was one of them, but certainly not the only one. Sergecross73 msg me 20:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- Indeed, I was close to the end of my patience by yesterday's edit. For context, they had, as I previously alluded to, abruptly decided to delete our hard-negotiated edits after we had reached a tentative consensus on its inclusion. I was indignant (and I believe that I had reason to do so!) and more over I did my best to keep my tone calm. (Albeit chilly, which you seem to have picked up on) and did my best to explain my frustration. Allow me to go into more detail on why I feel that I have had the goalposts moved, mainly the inciting incident of the matter and the most recent conflict.
- If this were just a matter of "too many details" then it wouldn't have been a point of debate. I was trying to sieve out the important bits-I was providing the Chinese food factory as an example, but at the very least the in-universe of a character's hometown (which I have seen on other fictional character's Wikipedia pages) Yesterday's incident Ferret removed everything, significant or not, properly cited or not, and previously after we had, again, seemingly reached a tentative agreement.
- Likewise, the inciting incident-I edited Scrappy’s Wikipedia page uncontested for six months. It was not as if nobody noticed, as people did notice, and worked with me, and while not every edit was in complete agreement, I felt respected, I did my best to work with them, and they responded in kind. Then Imagine tigers deleted it-admitting to breaking the consensus. When I still had questions I did not get a response. Throughout the debate, I was introduced to new policies, some of which I submitted to and some of which I contested, yes, because I had questions and concerns that still lingered on. I sought counsel in the IRC chat. I tried to appeal on the talk page. I tried to negotiate on the OR noticeboard. I tried to explain why my additions mattered. Not everyone completely opposed me-some people would gently offer suggestions and insight and I actually tried to work with them-they didn't necessarily agree with what I said, but they were reasonable and gave me something to actually work with Ferret occasionally extended the courtesy and snatched it away on a whim yesterday. And I think I still take issue with how the matter was handled. And so I reply. Please try to understand that at the heart of this matter is simply the fact that I still have questions about the situation that I wish to have answered. --Smcupcake19 (talk) 21:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- Well, the good news is that you're not fully blocked, but just partially blocked - you're still free to discuss on the article talk page. So, you can create discussions, and if there's a WP:CONSENSUS in your favor, other people can add it for you. It can be a good learning experience for you, where you can learn what sort of stuff is generally acceptable, and if/when you truly have the proper support to warrant moving forward with adding it to the article. Sergecross73 msg me 22:18, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- Excellent. I want to stress with my most recent edit message that rather then be obstinate my intention was to be assertive in regards to the other editor, with whom I wished to In that case, could I maybe entreat you to take a look further down the edit history? In particular on June 9th to June 13th, with the inciting incident where there was nothing concerning added fictional detail at all. July 10th with an undue reaction to the word "penultimate" (which merely means second to last.) The other editor accused me of violating copyright by stating it in my own words, and then got incredibly offended when I defended my innocence and fixed the problem they had that were actually valid. Despite most accounts allowing for basic information (like hometown, parentage, birthplace) and I would happily have cited the actual episode the book was referencing ("Scrappy's Birthday", 1980) was objected. July 13th for a very strong reaction to the word "penultimate" (which only means second-to-last). I did my best to shrug off all of this, but now I feel that I need to share it to show the full idea of what was going on.
- I can admit to wrongdoing, but I want to stress that it's more complex then that. For your conveniance is a list of various transcripts of talk pages' that I have been on regarding this. Please, please, when it's conveniant give it a look. --Smcupcake19 (talk) 18:46, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
- Indeed, I was close to the end of my patience by yesterday's edit. For context, they had, as I previously alluded to, abruptly decided to delete our hard-negotiated edits after we had reached a tentative consensus on its inclusion. I was indignant (and I believe that I had reason to do so!) and more over I did my best to keep my tone calm. (Albeit chilly, which you seem to have picked up on) and did my best to explain my frustration. Allow me to go into more detail on why I feel that I have had the goalposts moved, mainly the inciting incident of the matter and the most recent conflict.
- This edit summary doesn't exactly convey a "I'm just innocently doing my best here" attitude, it sounds a lot more like a combative "I don't care what you tell me I'm doing it anyways". Beyond that, if you can't understand something as simple as "A cartoon dog held a job in a 'Chinese Food Factory' (???) in one episode" as trivial fictional detail, then I dont know what to tell you. No one is "moving the goalposts" on you, there's just been multiple reasons why your edits were inappropriate, sourcing was one of them, but certainly not the only one. Sergecross73 msg me 20:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
- See, here's the problem: whenever someone comes to me with a problem, I do my best to correct it. First they argued that I needed sources, so I did my best to add sources. They didn't like my sources and they thought that I was being too detailed. "Alright!" thought I. "I will only add important details, like what Scrappy did, where he came from, parents and place of birth, etc." yesterday I was responding to try and adapt it to an appropriate out of universe perspective. Then the person with whom I was negotiating with abruptly decided to drop the discourse and decided to erase my work altogether. I only wish to negotiate and apologize if it seems otherwise. --Smcupcake19 (talk) 19:55, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Hey, so I think you may have misunderstood me a bit. When I was talking about finding a consensus, I really didn't mean just badgering all the people who have made it clear that they don't agree with you. I kind of meant like opening up an WP:RFC, notifying a relevant WP:WIKIPROJECT to get more participation, etc.
That said, it was just recently that I saw the full scope of what you want done - that draft of Scrappy Doo that you created. If restoring that wholesale is your end goal, then you should just stop while you're ahead. That draft is so far away from what our Writing About Fiction guidelines say that there's just no way you'd ever get a consensus in your favor. Wikipedia focuses writing about out-of-universe context and content, while yours is 99% "in-universe", (see WP:INUNIVERSE.)
So anyways, that's probably why you're getting pushback from editors without them getting into all the nitty-gritty detail you ask if them - the truth is that your additions, while made in good faith, are very far from what Wikipedia finds acceptable. I again recommend you try adding it to a fan wikia, who often cover things more like this. I dont wish to block you from Wikipedia, but if you exhaust the communities patience with this, that's often where things end up. Think long and hard about what you're doing here. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 15:08, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- On the length, I have been made aware of that. In response, I set to work making a smaller biography, with the bare necessities-what I thought were the bare necessities-birth city, jobs he assisted with-I got some pushback for using the word "penultimate", making use of a compendium of fictional werewolves/vampires, and debatable necessity, but through it all I was being careful to be prudent in my additions.--Smcupcake19 (talk) 18:59, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Glad to hear you're not trying to implement the draft anymore. So, maybe look at some well written examples to see the sort of content you should be adding. For example, Homer Simpson and Bart Simpson are both Featured Articles - the highest rating/grade possible for a Wikipedia to get. Note that, despite being on a show that's been running for over 30 years, the fictional biography content is relatively brief. Instead, there is far greater focus on out-of-universe things like his creation and reception. This is the format and direction you should be taking if you wish to expand Scrappy Doo's article on Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 19:32, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
- Final warning - stop badgering editors. It's already been explained to you how your draft and expansions are inappropriate. You've been linked to better examples of how write a fictional character article on Wikipedia. You need not bother editors like ferret any further. You need to either work on expanding Scrappy Doo with out of universe content, or join a fan wikia that accepts the sort of content you've written. It's time to move on. Sergecross73 msg me 20:56, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, it is time...I know that now. Thank you for all your patience. --Smcupcake19 (talk) 02:22, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
- Final warning - stop badgering editors. It's already been explained to you how your draft and expansions are inappropriate. You've been linked to better examples of how write a fictional character article on Wikipedia. You need not bother editors like ferret any further. You need to either work on expanding Scrappy Doo with out of universe content, or join a fan wikia that accepts the sort of content you've written. It's time to move on. Sergecross73 msg me 20:56, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
- Glad to hear you're not trying to implement the draft anymore. So, maybe look at some well written examples to see the sort of content you should be adding. For example, Homer Simpson and Bart Simpson are both Featured Articles - the highest rating/grade possible for a Wikipedia to get. Note that, despite being on a show that's been running for over 30 years, the fictional biography content is relatively brief. Instead, there is far greater focus on out-of-universe things like his creation and reception. This is the format and direction you should be taking if you wish to expand Scrappy Doo's article on Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 19:32, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Scrappy-Doo Biography
[edit]If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Draft:Scrappy-Doo Biography requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://the-jh-movie-collection-official.fandom.com/wiki/Scrappy-Doo. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 13:59, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!
[edit]
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 01:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).
Your thread has been archived
[edit]|
|
Hi Smcupcake19! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Click this link to read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, .
|
Your thread has been archived
[edit]|
|
Hi Smcupcake19! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Click this link to read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, .
|
Concern regarding Draft:Scrappy-Doo Biography
[edit] Hello, Smcupcake19. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Scrappy-Doo Biography, 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) 22:08, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Scrappy-Doo Biography
[edit]
Hello, Smcupcake19. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Scrappy-Doo Biography".
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 deleted. If 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! 23:06, 3 November 2022 (UTC)