Jump to content

User talk:Wikiaccount2311

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hello, Wikiaccount2311! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Dirk Beetstra T C 15:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous

Your edits

[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

  1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
  2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
  3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue.

In particular the three-revert rule states that:

  1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
  2. Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
  3. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

and hence:

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I blocked

[edit]

Why am I blocked? I don't understand. I did not spam, I undid edits to an article. I thought people could add/subtract things from articles without getting banned. Wikiaccount2311 (talk) 15:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Thanks for your remark. You are, repeatedly, over a long period undoing edits, and/or removing things or adding things. If your edits get undone, then you must notice that a) certain info is not wanted, and other info is wanted. You fail to discuss, you use multiple accounts (see here), etc. Please consider the warnings above, formulate a proper unblock request, and if/when unblocked, consider to discuss your edits and why. But this is not going to get you any further. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I'm not sure if this is how to respond correctly. Wikipedia is a little confusing.

I understand your reasons, Dirk, but all I did was undo a single edit. Then someone came along and wiped out other links for no reason. I restored them, and then things went back and forth, until I was banned. I put in the discussion bar that I would appreciate it if my edits could be kept there and the other one left out, so an attempt at discussion was made.

As for the other accounts, one of them is mine--I forgot about it, and hence the new account. I don't recognize the other ones. They're either not mine, or it's been a while and I don't recall setting them up. Sorry about any confusion that caused.

Thanks, Dirk. Wikiaccount2311 (talk) 17:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I am requesting an unblock. I haven't done anything to warrant being blocked, other than disagree with a few users, who made unwarranted adds and edits and are not being blocked. Wikiaccount2311 (talk) 18:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's the "back and forth" part that seems to be the biggest problem right now. What we call edit warring (endlessly going back and forth) is bad for articles and a waste of computing resources. One rule that we have about this is called the "three revert rule". It says that no individual person should undo something more than three times. It looks like you did this four times at that article; since there were more of them then there are of you, they didn't reach that undesirable level, and thus they are not blocked.
I agree that Wikipedia can be very confusing. To request an unblock, I suggest reading WP:UNBLOCK (the short version) and then Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks (the longer, but probably more useful version). Pay particular attention to the second item in the first bulleted list, with the words "no longer necessary" in bold-face text. Then paste this code:
{{unblock|1=Insert your reason to be unblocked here}}
at the bottom of this page (putting your explanation in after the equals sign). The explanation can be as long as necessary. When you save the page, it will take your reason and put it in a blue box, and also put your account name on the list of people who would like to be unblocked. A couple of people keep an eye on that list, so you could probably expect a response within a few hours. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
May I suggest the first thing you if you are unblocked is to go to Talk:Rachael Lillis, start a new section on the talk page by clicking on the blue "+" or "new section" at the top of the page, and state why you believe the external link you persist in adding meets the criteria of WP:ELYES or WP:ELMAYBE, and why it the restrictions at WP:ELNO do not apply. There are restrictions on what can be used as an external link on a wikipedia page, and doubtless the other editors can tell you why they do not think the link should be included. Keep in mind that edits are maintained by consensus of all editors who are interested in the page, based on a common understanding of the policies and guidelines. In other words, you must familiarize yourself with the rules (particularly the ones regarding external links) and try to convince the other editors that your edits have merit on the basis of those rules. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your help! I guess I reached the "three" quota because several people showed up to revert the edits, which was surprising.

I didn't actually add any links at all. I took one out. It got put back, and I took it out again. And so on. And then the other links that've been there for a long time suddenly got taken out. A consensus was mentioned, and then someone tagged the article with a COI.

As for the unblocking process, those who showed up and reverted the edits so quickly are part of the reason the blocking occurred. Wikiaccount2311 (talk) 03:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Wikiaccount2311, Wiki is not a too bad a place, but it seems that you (and you above partially say so) are pushing to get things out (the imdb), and pushing to get links in (the fanpages). Now, you used multiple accounts (something that is quite strictly forbidden), it is long time (years?), you were reverting on one day 4-5 times (3RR is a bright red line) - that had to stop, and discussion needed to be enforced. Sorry if that seems unfriendly.
You have in the edit summary and here sentences like 'I don't want the link there, full stop', and 'Restored links that I'd like to keep. Thank you. :)' - You do not own the page, you may be close to the subject, but everything you do is released to the public, and can be edited mercilessly by others. You are not to decide what is going to be there, or what not. You may disagree, there are things that you can remove if there is no proof, or add things that are suitable (or properly referenced), but there is no end decision by you. If there are any concerns, go to the talkpage, or discuss with the persons directly.
I am going to assume good faith here (see it that you were 'banned' to enforce discussion - an 'indef' block is not an indefinite block, it is a block until one successfully discusses and explains what happens, it can always be overturned, though see it as a hard warning). By this you are unblocked, but since you seem to be very, very closely related to the subject, I would suggest that you keep yourself to a complete 1 revert on articles where you are involved (i.e., if you remove something and someone adds it back, you go and discuss with that person and/or on the talkpage - if you add something and someone removes it again, you go and discuss with that person and/or on the talkpage - but in no case you push that again, also not 2 weeks later; note: plain vandalism is of course exempt from this, if someone adds 'Rachael is a <bad word here>', you can remove that more often (still keeping the three revert rule in mind)), though I expect that you warn the editor who is doing it (and you can always ask for intervention from an admin before it really runs out of hand, they have more possibilities to stop editors from vandalism and the like).
Please, have a good look through some of the documents linked above in the welcome message at the top, in the warnings I left you with the block notice, and in the posts here (I know, Wikipedia has sometimes a steep learning curve, and you don't have to know it all - I would say 'edit boldly, but if someone has concerns, discuss, and consider that there may be somewhere something written about it (and you may still be right, but don't fight about it)'). Again, I am sorry if Wikipedia seemed unfriendly, and I hope that you will come again and help us. After all, you do seem to be a specialist in Rachael Lillis. Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(after edit conflict): yes, you are right, you have been reverted many times, and none of the reverters started a discussion with you either (both in a way have that obligation!), the problem is, you crossed some lines (multiple accounts, long time, no extended discussion except 'I want it', 3RR) - but as I said, I will unblock you now. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Dirk, I appreciate that.

Re: crossing lines and saying full stop... The other login got lost in memory, and I have no idea about the IP's or who Krom is. It does feel a bit unfriendly when several people revert edits against one without discourse, or type in "goes against consensus" (I didn't understand what he meant) and "yahoo group and fanlisting? Nope" (sounds a bit 'full stop-ian'). They can herd someone into meeting the 3 quota pretty easily. Yes, I do represent the person in question. My discussion was 'unwanted link removed, please don't put back, thank you.' Not meant to be off-putting at all, although I can understand that that gives the impression of assuming authority on a public info site.

The fanlisting was a personal project created for RL, and the yahoo group's been around for a while. The erasure of the imdb link is for professional reasons, as the link contains many errors and does not represent the person in question.

Thanks again for your help, time and attention, Dirk.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiaccount2311 (talk • contribs)

No worries! Lost logins happen, but since there were also a handful of IPs which were doing similar edits, I felt that we really needed proper attention (maybe I was a bit harsh in blocking, I could have tried warning first, but then - you did cross more than one red line .. either way, now it is solved).
Fanpages are generally not suitable as external links for a set of reasons - generally they are mainly kept by fans, no real control on the content, they do not tell anything that the official pages already tell, they are 'volatile' (change quick), and then if they are official (or properly recognised by the subject), then they are already prominently linked from the official page of the subject anyway. Imdb is anyway a discussion point, they are big, they contain a lot of data, but then they are basically a 'wiki', there is often wrong info - sometimes they do add to the page, but one can ask whether it is reliable enough to be suitable. I am a bit either-way on imdb, but if it is there, it is better to discuss the removal as well (it is now gone, I saw).
Happy editing!! --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

February 2013

[edit]

Hello, I'm Kevin12xd. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made to Rachael Lillis, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Kevin12xd (talk) (contribs) 01:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rachael Lillis is an actress

[edit]

Actress is the accepted term for females involved in acting. It is how we categorize such people. Your constant removal of Rachael Lillis from these categories is unhelpful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actress categories

[edit]

The decision has been made to categorize people in Category:American voice actresses and Category:American male voice actors. If you do not like this, you could bring the matter up at CfD, although since the most recent discussion of this was barely a month ago, I doubt you would make much progress there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"It is how we categorize such people"... "Such people"? Rather offensive way to put it. "Such people" do not like being told what terms do and do not apply. In this case the term actor is preferred. If you do not like this you can bring the matter up with the proper persons. Your words could be interpreted as sexist..be careful how you choose them.

September 2013

[edit]
Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Rachael Lillis shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. In this edit, you identify yourself as the subject of the article Rachael Lillis. This is the only article you have edited. It appears that you have been engaged in a long-term edit war about the article, and have previously been blocked for this. If you have concerns about the article, or suggestions for how it can be improved, please make your comments on the article's talk page: Talk:Rachael Lillis. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Pack Lambert thinks he knows what is accepted and not accepted. His talk page is very extensive and shows him having the same conversation with many other people about many other articles. He watches the article I edited and reverts edits immediately. He calls women "such people" in the following quote: "Actress is the accepted term for females involved in acting. It is how we categorize such people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)" And now it's a "war" because I disagree with him, and there are threats of being blocked as well. Wikipedia seems to have become an environment of coercion.

Managing a conflict of interest

[edit]

Information icon Hello, Wikiaccount2311. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Rachael Lillis, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

  • avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
  • propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
  • disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
  • avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
  • do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See WP:PAID.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Ad Orientem (talk) 19:17, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message, Ad Orientem. I do not receive compensation, so there is no COI. So the balanced previous version of the article is not okay, but UpWithJimmy's demanding, threatening antics are okay? This isn't about a COI. It's about not allowing a bully to coerce the process.

On Ad's talk page.

[edit]

"I represent Rachael Lillis, and a more balanced presentation is preferred." With that said, are you implying that you yourself are the real Rachael Lillis?UpWithJimmy (talk) 19:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have mentioned that Veronica Taylor and Eric Stuart's pages read similarly to your edits, and they do not. The edits are not based on original research and are not sourced, as has been mentioned by another user.

That is not the point! Both pages you just mentioned state they are known for voicing certain characters from the show. My edit on Rachael Lillis was not sourced either, so if you are going to remove it, you might as well remove that Veronica Taylor is known for voicing Ash Ketchum as well! Also, please sign your name after every comment on the talk page!UpWithJimmy (talk) 21:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not best known, as per your edits. The previous version named Pokemon first, followed by other shows. User names are not signed at the end of messages on the user's own page.

Her work for Pokemon is often talked about whenever she is brought up so YES best known! That's why it is important! Look up videos of her. That's why its important on Veronica Taylor's page!UpWithJimmy (talk) 21:57, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pokemon is brought up as a first credit for other voice actors, not a best known credit, nor is it isolated from other credits via paragraph formatting. You may know her from Pokemon, but it is one of many credits. Her wiki entry is being handled differently from that of her peers, not similarly.

Can't we just add she voiced said characters as her noted roles and call it a day already? I don't see what is wrong with it! It's fine! Just don't worry about it!UpWithJimmy (talk) 22:11, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pokemon may be more recognizable than other credits but her roles are part of her resume, not isolated from other items on it. You may know her from the show, but others may know her from other things she's worked on. That's what I meant by balance. Her peers' entries mention Pokemon with priority but list their other credits along with it right away. Isolating Pokemon from her other credits has a limiting effect.

Well STOP Worrying about my edit already! Let's just leave it as it is and Call it a day!UpWithJimmy (talk) 22:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will add it back if you remove it because I hate it when people revert my edit for such stupid reason! It's an improvement and you need to stay out of it! GOD!UpWithJimmy (talk) 22:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You never even answered my question!UpWithJimmy (talk) 22:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with isolating Pokemon from her credits. She is known for Pokemon! That's why other roles is there!UpWithJimmy (talk) 22:32, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are not sourced or researched. Isolating Pokemon from other credits is not how her peers are represented.

AGAIN! Neither are the sections on Taylor's and Stuart's pages! And who said anything about peers?! Just don't worry about it!UpWithJimmy (talk) 01:01, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't argue with me anymore! Leave it as it is whether you like it or not! I can change it to make it better, but your reasons are illogical and ridiculous and you can't take away my rights to edit! I'm sick of people reverting my edits for their own stupid reasons! God This is ridiculous! THERE! HAVE A NICE DAY!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by UpWithJimmy (talk • contribs) 01:06, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First, this discussion belongs on the article talk page. Secondly we do not add claims of fact that are not cited to a reliable source. See WP:V and WP:CITE. Thirdly no one owns any of the pages on here and no one can order anyone else off a page w/o exceptional reason. And those rare occasions normally involve an admin. See WP:OWN. I am not happy with the tone of this discussion. See WP:CIVIL. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ACDS Alert

[edit]

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 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.

Ad Orientem (talk) 01:33, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rachael Lillis

[edit]

Per this content removal, please discuss your concerns on the talk pfirst. Thank you, - FlightTime (open channel) 02:50, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]


The cited website does not seem to exist.


Oh...I guess I got the wrong talk page. I thought you meant the talk part in the editing feature.

Apology

[edit]

I'm sorry I threatened to report you and yelled at you for the edit conflict on the Rachael Lillis pageUpWithJimmy (talk) 04:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 2020

[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Ad Orientem. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Rachael Lillis have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. Ad Orientem (talk) 06:47, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ad Orientem. Wikiaccount2311 (talk) 12:35, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spouse

[edit]

Rachael is not and never was married to Richard Yeomans, nor does she know anyone by that name. Wikiaccount2311 (talk) 20:59, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wikiaccount2311&oldid=1048252786"