![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Check your sandbox 2, the article I worked on but I can’t create. You’re a soap actor editor so you can take the credit! 5.71.192.161 ( talk) 04:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Why do you keep updating Jenna Coleman's page with wrong information? The Sun said that they had split, without quoting any evidence. This has since been copied by many news sites, still without any evidence. This has not been confirmed by either of them. And in fact, pictures show that they are still living together, and have done so for all of the last 5 months since the Sun invented their breakup. A close of them was asked about whether they were still together, and said that they never did break up, that that was complete nonsense. So, why are you always adding wrong information to this wiki page? And why aren't you willing to discuss how you are insisting on adding wrong information to Wikipedia with me? EulerLagrange42 ( talk) 16:06, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! EulerLagrange42 ( talk) 16:44, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
@ RoySmith: Hello – I have been blocked by you as a sockpuppet of ZestyLemonz but that is not me. In regards to the recreation of Joe-Warren Plant, I was asked on my talk page by an IP (check the page history) to create the article since it was extended protected confirmed. If I had known that the IP was a sockpuppet, I wouldn’t have performed the edit, but I did check over all of the sources on my second sandbox, and the subject is notable. Why was I not informed of this investigation at all? And how can I prove that I am not the sockpuppet? – DarkGlow ( ✉) 17:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
@
Soaper1234,
JuneGloom07, and
IJBall: Pinging anyone I have frequent contact with on here – I've been (wrongfully) blocked as a supposed sockpuppet of ZestyLemonz after they asked me to recreate a page of theirs (see the top of my talk page) so I just wanted to inform you guys that I won't be able to edit for the foreseeable – I will be back once I'm unblocked as justice will be served, and I hope you three know I'm not a bloody sock.
–
DarkGlow (
✉)
18:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Meena ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I was wrongfully blocked due to suspicion of being a sockpuppet, and a CheckUser report was done on me. The conclusions of this CheckUser was that I was in a different location to the sock and had a different phone device, which is outrightly not obsolete evidence. I have been accumulated 18k+ reliable edits over a 2 year period on here, I am not a sockpuppet. – DarkGlow (✉) 22:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Accept reason:
There was good reason to mistake this user for a sock. However, DarkGlow's explanation for the article recreation is believable. This was all one unfortunate coincidence. I will be unblocking. RoySmith, in regards to what should be done about the user's permissions, I have no comment. I haven't revoked anything, so that can be up to your discretion. Sro23 ( talk) 01:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
RoySmith, I don't want to unblock without you being cool with it first, however I believe this is all an unfortunate coincidence. The only similarity I'm seeing is the near identical recreation of Joe-Warren Plant, and I have no reason to doubt DarkGlows explanation for that (they didn't actually write that article, a sock IP had pasted it in one of the user's sandboxes and it was copied from there). DarkGlow had unknowingly helped out a ZestyLemonz sock last year, and that's the reason I believe they were contacted to recreate the salted article. The fact that this account has been around for so long, racked up so many edits and rights, and edits on mobile is further unusual. This account has had extended-confirmed for years, so if this really was ZestyLemonz, it doesn't make sense they waited two months to recreate Joe-Warren Plant. If ZestyLemonz had an EC account I'm sure they would have recreated that article much sooner. It's been my experience that socks, when blocked for sockpuppetry, usually don't appeal this hard. It's much easier to move on to the next throwaway sock rather than waste time on appeals, and that also seems to be the case with the most recent ZestyLemonz sockpuppets. For the past couple months, I've been having problems with socks of User:CalebHughes repeatedly notifying and pinging other editors to clean up their sock creations before I have a chance to delete them, and the users almost always comply. It's very frustrating when this happens, but these established editors that have been around for years and years don't arouse my suspicion of being related, even though they did help out a sockpuppet. For whatever reason, some users, even veteran editors, just aren't sock-minded when a brand new account or suspicious IP comes to them asking for assistance. It could be because they are just be too nice/naive/oblivious or maybe they simply don't know or care about the policy on sockpuppetry (I know of several users who think the entire policy is wrong and will actively proxy for banned users...but that's a story for another time and DarkGlow seems to be in the "oblivious" camp). I don't know if this would be helpful, but maybe the SPI can be relisted for another CU to do a different check. Also, congrats on receiving full clerkship! :) Sro23 ( talk) 23:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
--withdrawn
Elizium23 (
talk)
14:31, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to add
unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at
Dove Cameron, you may be
blocked from editing.
As you are one of the active participants in AFDs, i request you to please have a look at this case. As there are so many pending AFDs to be resolved and so less volunteers, your assistance will help us reduce the workload drop by drop. Thank You, Pesticide1110 Lets wrestle! 08:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
FWIW, I think this is a very shaky source for WP:BLPs, to the point where if you can use any other secondary source in its place, you use the other source. And if all you have is TVOvermind... well, I would generally leave it out rather than use it as a source. (The only relevant discussion at WP:RSN about this site appears to be this one, and this earlier one advising against relying on it, which I agree with.) -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 01:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
The site launched TVOvermind, a blog dedicated to episodic recaps... (emphasis mine)– so the site actually started as a blog. It was sold, and seems to have expanded beyond that now, but I still don't think it has enough editorial oversight to be considered a "reliable source" (which the original main Zap2It website was considered to be). I'm still not convinced that TVOvermind isn't just a web scraper... And, yes, bringing it to the attention of WP:RSN is a good idea – I would ask them to see if they think it's just a web scraper or not, or whether it has high enough editorial oversight of content. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 01:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello. I see that you've tagged Template:Ajay Owen, a copy of declined Draft:Ajay Owen. The name is credited in several music articles but the mentions were added by similar IPs. The only sources I can find are a few professional-looking but self-published web pages. I'm wondering whether we should remove all of these mentions as a WP:HOAX or at least a good-faith fantasy. Certes ( talk) 22:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Hey DarkGlow. I wanted to talk quickly about the account 194.35.126.220 ( talk · contribs). They are indeed a sockpuppet, they edited at Template:Ajay Owen after the user who created Draft:Ajay Owen was indef blocked (so a pretty obvious WP:DUCK). Please keep an eye on their contributions, and revert everything you see. I will be opening an SPI shortly. I will also be tagging both of these pages for speedy deletion using the {{ db-g5}} template, it’s better than the template that’s on Template:Ajay Owen (I think it’s db-g2 but I could be wrong) as it’s more descriptive. Also - I had a heck of a fun time trying to find your talk page, I kept typing User talk:Doggy54321 from muscle memory :) D🐶ggy54321 ( let's chat!) 23:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
What conversation have I missed that you alluded to? The sources in question are patently not reliable and dont outright confirm anything. The additional one you added is exactly as worthless here as the first two. We can easily take this to arbitration and they will remove them in seconds, it's an open and shut type of deal. Unrealiable sources and no explicit confirmation at all let alone one worthy of an encyclopedia. Happy to leave the feminist sources as a compromise since those are more clear-cut. Davefelmer ( talk) 15:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Can You Hear Me? (Doctors) you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Some Dude From North Carolina --
Some Dude From North Carolina (
talk)
18:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
Congrats dude! The article you were working on,
"Can You Hear Me?" (Doctors), has passed the
GA-criteria, becoming a good article on January 16, 2021.
![]() |
The article
Can You Hear Me? (Doctors) you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Can You Hear Me? (Doctors) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can
nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Some Dude From North Carolina --
Some Dude From North Carolina (
talk)
00:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar |
Extremely helpful and although disagreements were made in the beginning between us, it was quickly solved and editor gave me very good tips too as a somewhat new user! 😊
Congratulations! Juliatns7 ( talk) 15:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC) |
I noticed that you removed the edits on the above. I was a bit puzzled as I quoted the source, it was from the (Lancashire Telegraph). He worked at the theatre for many years & I suspect is mentioned in the old Scarborough 'Evening' News, a great deal (Scarborough News now). It is true, but I'm not sure what you're meaning? I will endeavour to improve my editing skills. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nix D ( talk • contribs)
Hello! I've noticed that you've moved two of my articles to draftspace, likely due to there only being one citation on each page. However, the citations I included are detailed and are from the US Federal Government. While I understand the concern with not having multiple sources, I think it's OK since the reference is extremely reliable. I have written other articles in a similar manner, and other editors have not expressed concern because of the reliability of the source. Would you consider moving the articles back? Thanks! Gunwriter ( talk) 15:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
I believe it is OK to copy and paste, since it is public domain information as long as it is referenced properly.
In an earlier conversation I had about a different article, Dianaa said "Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Christopher E. Finerty. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed."
I believe that I have added the required attribution template that Dianaa is referring to by including the notation that the reference "incorporated public domain material from the document." I have done the same for my other articles as well. Gunwriter ( talk) 16:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Additionally, under the article Wikipedia:Public domain, it says that "US federal government works—defined as any "work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties"[4] and including works prepared by the governments of the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and US organized territories[5]—are not eligible for copyright protection."
This shows that the government work is not copyright protected, so there is no copyright to be violated by a copy-paste. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunwriter ( talk • contribs) 16:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
DarkGlow, I don't know the exact birth year of these admirals, as it is not listed in their documents. As an estimate, I subtract 22 years (the normal age of a college graduate) from the year that the person got their Bachelor's degree. Of course, some people are a couple years older or younger than that, but I believe it is a fair estimate that will give a rough idea of when they were born. I never stated that they were born in that year, only around that year. Gunwriter ( talk) 16:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Hey DarkGlow. Just wanted to say that I found this edit summary to be hilarious: I don’t know why!! I just wanted to let you know that you put a smile on my face. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 ( let's chat!) 02:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Present for you: 1992 RTS Awards :) - JuneGloom07 Talk 03:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Hey, I just saw the mental health notice on your page and I wanted to say that I hope you start to feel better soon - I suffer from bad depression, anxiety and OCD, so I get how hard it is to have bad mental health, especially during lockdown. I think that you're one of the nicest wikipedia editors I know, and if you ever want to talk please let me know! I hope you feel better soon :) DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk) 19:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Hey! I wanted to check in and see how you were doing :) I hope you are doing well and things have improved with your boyfriend and in general. I actually just saw your reply to my last message – I thought you had blanked me 🤣🤣 I hope everything is going well 😊 DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk) 02:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Aww thank you :) I am glad you are doing better (I hope?) BTW, if you would like to chat, here is my soap opera Instagram – @danilosoaps 😊 Would love to make friends! DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk) 16:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
This draft should not have been accepted. It was a request for a redirect, which we normally ask users to request at Wikipedia:Article wizard/Redirects. AFCHS has this decline reason built in, and this same decline reason is in Template:AfC submission/comments. Jalen Folf (talk) 16:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi!! Thanks for your message at Draft:Álvaro Coutinho Aguirre page. As soon as I fix the errors in red, I´ll let you know, posting here a message. :) Alexandra Aguirr ( talk) 17:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi, earlier on I said that the character Elaine Jones from Coronation Street was only a recurring not a regular but when you put it back to regular, you said about if it is on the official website, they are classed is regular. However though, Dr Susan Gaddas and Ruby Dobbs are on the official website but they are classed as recurring. Do they need to be regulars too? Thank you for the help -Blackazz968 Blackazz968 ( talk) 16:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
I see, well thank you anyway, have a nice day Blackazz968 ( talk) 17:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Heyo, I saw you undid my edit (I redid it) with my provided points, but if we could not have an edit war and if you'd like to further discuss it, please let me know. Thank you. Aidenrouhani ( talk) 01:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you appear to have resurrected the taskforce here, which caught my attention. I joined it many years back (I think probably some time around 2006/2007) though admittedly I haven't really looked at (m)any Emmerdale articles for quite some time. I'd be interested in chipping in though to see if we could at least get some from Start to C, or a few more into GA (and maybe reassess the existing GA ones). Do you have any specific intentions/goals in mind? Bungle ( talk • contribs) 20:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Please let's not get into an argument. We are all part of the great soaps community and should stick together DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk) 02:10, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm still on board, I need something to distract me from stalling on a couple Neighbours projects and at this point I'm kinda tidying up sources EastEnders articles and little else. Conquistador2k6 17:46 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Dark Glow, this user named Connorguy99 ( talk) is about to start a potential edit war. And he’s currently making some very unconstructive edits on Ian Beale’s page. Stating:
“Characters that are on a break are NOT removed from the official EastEnders cast list - Tameka Empson remained on the list for a year and a half after her break, and June Brown remained for a year too. Adam Woodyatt's removal from the official cast list is indicative of more than a "break" - which I don't believe has been confirmed by any source related to the show.
Connorguy99 (
talk)
20:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)”
This statement is absolutely nonsense when he is the one being the remover. Ian’s only on break and should not be removed. I think he needs to be reported. He doesn’t appear to want to stop. Could you help me out bud? WikiFlame50 ( talk) 20:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
And also, I checked his talk page, he’s been known to have a potential rude attitude if warned. WikiFlame50 ( talk) 20:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Alright. I’ll let you know if I spot anything else WikiFlame50 ( talk) 20:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
Well Done for all of your hard work on Belle Dingle and for creating amazing articles such as Juliet Nightingale and Cher Winters! DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk) 15:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC) |
Gentle request in the future, please don't invite yourself to an edit war. Skip it and report the issue to the appropriate noticeboard instead. -- Izno ( talk) 01:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
I don’t blame you bud. He will get over it eventually. People get bored of it after a day or so. WikiFlame50 ( talk) 01:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Ackley Bridge you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Some Dude From North Carolina --
Some Dude From North Carolina (
talk)
02:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
The article
Ackley Bridge you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Ackley Bridge for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can
nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Some Dude From North Carolina --
Some Dude From North Carolina (
talk)
13:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Hey. Lynne Hobbs appears to have been moved to the incorrect title of Lynne Slater (EastEnders). I followed the series of page moves and found your request at WP:RM/TR, and I was wondering if you accidentally switched the names? The character's WP:COMMONNAME is definitely Hobbs. - JuneGloom07 Talk 00:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for all of your help with the Emmerdale articles recently! ❤ It is great seeing everyone working together! DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk) 22:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
No problem! Keep up the great work! (If you want! Your happiness and health are more important of course) DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk) 23:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi just want to ask how come on all Wikipedia pages we are now changing the classifications from Past to Former now? Adavid299 ( talk) 21:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks i will continue changing articles that have yet to be changed if I find any. Adavid299 ( talk) 21:25, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi DarkGlow, I have received your message about my edit. In the show that was the time frame that was specifically mentioned. Thanks, Mocolley220 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mocolley220 ( talk • contribs) 20:21, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi can you please check the dancing on Ice page please as a user with this name (Lauren-mae69) keeps editing and saying it's been confirmed that the series will return in 2022. I did read the source that is there and it does say ITV have yet to confirm another series. I did revert it to say it is yet to be confirmed whether if Dancing on ice will return. But that user I mentioned just reverted it back to say it will be back. Could you help please? Adavid299 ( talk) 16:46, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks mate Adavid299 ( talk) 16:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
If an IP sock starts bothering you again, feel free to let me know. Some people thrive on attention. With these kinds of trolls, it's best to Revert, block, and ignore. Sro23 ( talk) 17:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
On 18 March 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ackley Bridge, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the first episode of the British television drama series Ackley Bridge was re-edited following the Manchester Arena bombing, as scenes showed a student at the centre of a bombing hoax? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ackley Bridge. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Ackley Bridge), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 00:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi I was right changing Lucas to Former wasn't I? That was his last scene wasn't it? Adavid299 ( talk) 20:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Did you want me to add a source now? Adavid299 ( talk) 20:24, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Check your sandbox 2, the article I worked on but I can’t create. You’re a soap actor editor so you can take the credit! 5.71.192.161 ( talk) 04:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Why do you keep updating Jenna Coleman's page with wrong information? The Sun said that they had split, without quoting any evidence. This has since been copied by many news sites, still without any evidence. This has not been confirmed by either of them. And in fact, pictures show that they are still living together, and have done so for all of the last 5 months since the Sun invented their breakup. A close of them was asked about whether they were still together, and said that they never did break up, that that was complete nonsense. So, why are you always adding wrong information to this wiki page? And why aren't you willing to discuss how you are insisting on adding wrong information to Wikipedia with me? EulerLagrange42 ( talk) 16:06, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! EulerLagrange42 ( talk) 16:44, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
@ RoySmith: Hello – I have been blocked by you as a sockpuppet of ZestyLemonz but that is not me. In regards to the recreation of Joe-Warren Plant, I was asked on my talk page by an IP (check the page history) to create the article since it was extended protected confirmed. If I had known that the IP was a sockpuppet, I wouldn’t have performed the edit, but I did check over all of the sources on my second sandbox, and the subject is notable. Why was I not informed of this investigation at all? And how can I prove that I am not the sockpuppet? – DarkGlow ( ✉) 17:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
@
Soaper1234,
JuneGloom07, and
IJBall: Pinging anyone I have frequent contact with on here – I've been (wrongfully) blocked as a supposed sockpuppet of ZestyLemonz after they asked me to recreate a page of theirs (see the top of my talk page) so I just wanted to inform you guys that I won't be able to edit for the foreseeable – I will be back once I'm unblocked as justice will be served, and I hope you three know I'm not a bloody sock.
–
DarkGlow (
✉)
18:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Meena ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I was wrongfully blocked due to suspicion of being a sockpuppet, and a CheckUser report was done on me. The conclusions of this CheckUser was that I was in a different location to the sock and had a different phone device, which is outrightly not obsolete evidence. I have been accumulated 18k+ reliable edits over a 2 year period on here, I am not a sockpuppet. – DarkGlow (✉) 22:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Accept reason:
There was good reason to mistake this user for a sock. However, DarkGlow's explanation for the article recreation is believable. This was all one unfortunate coincidence. I will be unblocking. RoySmith, in regards to what should be done about the user's permissions, I have no comment. I haven't revoked anything, so that can be up to your discretion. Sro23 ( talk) 01:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
RoySmith, I don't want to unblock without you being cool with it first, however I believe this is all an unfortunate coincidence. The only similarity I'm seeing is the near identical recreation of Joe-Warren Plant, and I have no reason to doubt DarkGlows explanation for that (they didn't actually write that article, a sock IP had pasted it in one of the user's sandboxes and it was copied from there). DarkGlow had unknowingly helped out a ZestyLemonz sock last year, and that's the reason I believe they were contacted to recreate the salted article. The fact that this account has been around for so long, racked up so many edits and rights, and edits on mobile is further unusual. This account has had extended-confirmed for years, so if this really was ZestyLemonz, it doesn't make sense they waited two months to recreate Joe-Warren Plant. If ZestyLemonz had an EC account I'm sure they would have recreated that article much sooner. It's been my experience that socks, when blocked for sockpuppetry, usually don't appeal this hard. It's much easier to move on to the next throwaway sock rather than waste time on appeals, and that also seems to be the case with the most recent ZestyLemonz sockpuppets. For the past couple months, I've been having problems with socks of User:CalebHughes repeatedly notifying and pinging other editors to clean up their sock creations before I have a chance to delete them, and the users almost always comply. It's very frustrating when this happens, but these established editors that have been around for years and years don't arouse my suspicion of being related, even though they did help out a sockpuppet. For whatever reason, some users, even veteran editors, just aren't sock-minded when a brand new account or suspicious IP comes to them asking for assistance. It could be because they are just be too nice/naive/oblivious or maybe they simply don't know or care about the policy on sockpuppetry (I know of several users who think the entire policy is wrong and will actively proxy for banned users...but that's a story for another time and DarkGlow seems to be in the "oblivious" camp). I don't know if this would be helpful, but maybe the SPI can be relisted for another CU to do a different check. Also, congrats on receiving full clerkship! :) Sro23 ( talk) 23:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
--withdrawn
Elizium23 (
talk)
14:31, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to add
unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at
Dove Cameron, you may be
blocked from editing.
As you are one of the active participants in AFDs, i request you to please have a look at this case. As there are so many pending AFDs to be resolved and so less volunteers, your assistance will help us reduce the workload drop by drop. Thank You, Pesticide1110 Lets wrestle! 08:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
FWIW, I think this is a very shaky source for WP:BLPs, to the point where if you can use any other secondary source in its place, you use the other source. And if all you have is TVOvermind... well, I would generally leave it out rather than use it as a source. (The only relevant discussion at WP:RSN about this site appears to be this one, and this earlier one advising against relying on it, which I agree with.) -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 01:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
The site launched TVOvermind, a blog dedicated to episodic recaps... (emphasis mine)– so the site actually started as a blog. It was sold, and seems to have expanded beyond that now, but I still don't think it has enough editorial oversight to be considered a "reliable source" (which the original main Zap2It website was considered to be). I'm still not convinced that TVOvermind isn't just a web scraper... And, yes, bringing it to the attention of WP:RSN is a good idea – I would ask them to see if they think it's just a web scraper or not, or whether it has high enough editorial oversight of content. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 01:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello. I see that you've tagged Template:Ajay Owen, a copy of declined Draft:Ajay Owen. The name is credited in several music articles but the mentions were added by similar IPs. The only sources I can find are a few professional-looking but self-published web pages. I'm wondering whether we should remove all of these mentions as a WP:HOAX or at least a good-faith fantasy. Certes ( talk) 22:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Hey DarkGlow. I wanted to talk quickly about the account 194.35.126.220 ( talk · contribs). They are indeed a sockpuppet, they edited at Template:Ajay Owen after the user who created Draft:Ajay Owen was indef blocked (so a pretty obvious WP:DUCK). Please keep an eye on their contributions, and revert everything you see. I will be opening an SPI shortly. I will also be tagging both of these pages for speedy deletion using the {{ db-g5}} template, it’s better than the template that’s on Template:Ajay Owen (I think it’s db-g2 but I could be wrong) as it’s more descriptive. Also - I had a heck of a fun time trying to find your talk page, I kept typing User talk:Doggy54321 from muscle memory :) D🐶ggy54321 ( let's chat!) 23:04, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
What conversation have I missed that you alluded to? The sources in question are patently not reliable and dont outright confirm anything. The additional one you added is exactly as worthless here as the first two. We can easily take this to arbitration and they will remove them in seconds, it's an open and shut type of deal. Unrealiable sources and no explicit confirmation at all let alone one worthy of an encyclopedia. Happy to leave the feminist sources as a compromise since those are more clear-cut. Davefelmer ( talk) 15:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Can You Hear Me? (Doctors) you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Some Dude From North Carolina --
Some Dude From North Carolina (
talk)
18:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
Congrats dude! The article you were working on,
"Can You Hear Me?" (Doctors), has passed the
GA-criteria, becoming a good article on January 16, 2021.
![]() |
The article
Can You Hear Me? (Doctors) you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Can You Hear Me? (Doctors) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can
nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Some Dude From North Carolina --
Some Dude From North Carolina (
talk)
00:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar |
Extremely helpful and although disagreements were made in the beginning between us, it was quickly solved and editor gave me very good tips too as a somewhat new user! 😊
Congratulations! Juliatns7 ( talk) 15:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC) |
I noticed that you removed the edits on the above. I was a bit puzzled as I quoted the source, it was from the (Lancashire Telegraph). He worked at the theatre for many years & I suspect is mentioned in the old Scarborough 'Evening' News, a great deal (Scarborough News now). It is true, but I'm not sure what you're meaning? I will endeavour to improve my editing skills. Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nix D ( talk • contribs)
Hello! I've noticed that you've moved two of my articles to draftspace, likely due to there only being one citation on each page. However, the citations I included are detailed and are from the US Federal Government. While I understand the concern with not having multiple sources, I think it's OK since the reference is extremely reliable. I have written other articles in a similar manner, and other editors have not expressed concern because of the reliability of the source. Would you consider moving the articles back? Thanks! Gunwriter ( talk) 15:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
I believe it is OK to copy and paste, since it is public domain information as long as it is referenced properly.
In an earlier conversation I had about a different article, Dianaa said "Thank you for your contributions. It seems that you may have added public domain content to one or more Wikipedia articles, such as Christopher E. Finerty. You are welcome to import appropriate public domain content to articles, but in order to meet the Wikipedia guideline on plagiarism, such content must be fully attributed. This requires not only acknowledging the source, but acknowledging that the source is copied. There are several methods to do this described at Wikipedia:Plagiarism#Public-domain sources, including the usage of an attribution template. Please make sure that any public domain content you have already imported is fully attributed."
I believe that I have added the required attribution template that Dianaa is referring to by including the notation that the reference "incorporated public domain material from the document." I have done the same for my other articles as well. Gunwriter ( talk) 16:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Additionally, under the article Wikipedia:Public domain, it says that "US federal government works—defined as any "work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties"[4] and including works prepared by the governments of the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and US organized territories[5]—are not eligible for copyright protection."
This shows that the government work is not copyright protected, so there is no copyright to be violated by a copy-paste. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunwriter ( talk • contribs) 16:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
DarkGlow, I don't know the exact birth year of these admirals, as it is not listed in their documents. As an estimate, I subtract 22 years (the normal age of a college graduate) from the year that the person got their Bachelor's degree. Of course, some people are a couple years older or younger than that, but I believe it is a fair estimate that will give a rough idea of when they were born. I never stated that they were born in that year, only around that year. Gunwriter ( talk) 16:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Hey DarkGlow. Just wanted to say that I found this edit summary to be hilarious: I don’t know why!! I just wanted to let you know that you put a smile on my face. Thanks! D🐶ggy54321 ( let's chat!) 02:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Present for you: 1992 RTS Awards :) - JuneGloom07 Talk 03:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Hey, I just saw the mental health notice on your page and I wanted to say that I hope you start to feel better soon - I suffer from bad depression, anxiety and OCD, so I get how hard it is to have bad mental health, especially during lockdown. I think that you're one of the nicest wikipedia editors I know, and if you ever want to talk please let me know! I hope you feel better soon :) DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk) 19:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Hey! I wanted to check in and see how you were doing :) I hope you are doing well and things have improved with your boyfriend and in general. I actually just saw your reply to my last message – I thought you had blanked me 🤣🤣 I hope everything is going well 😊 DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk) 02:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Aww thank you :) I am glad you are doing better (I hope?) BTW, if you would like to chat, here is my soap opera Instagram – @danilosoaps 😊 Would love to make friends! DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk) 16:22, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
This draft should not have been accepted. It was a request for a redirect, which we normally ask users to request at Wikipedia:Article wizard/Redirects. AFCHS has this decline reason built in, and this same decline reason is in Template:AfC submission/comments. Jalen Folf (talk) 16:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi!! Thanks for your message at Draft:Álvaro Coutinho Aguirre page. As soon as I fix the errors in red, I´ll let you know, posting here a message. :) Alexandra Aguirr ( talk) 17:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi, earlier on I said that the character Elaine Jones from Coronation Street was only a recurring not a regular but when you put it back to regular, you said about if it is on the official website, they are classed is regular. However though, Dr Susan Gaddas and Ruby Dobbs are on the official website but they are classed as recurring. Do they need to be regulars too? Thank you for the help -Blackazz968 Blackazz968 ( talk) 16:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
I see, well thank you anyway, have a nice day Blackazz968 ( talk) 17:11, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Heyo, I saw you undid my edit (I redid it) with my provided points, but if we could not have an edit war and if you'd like to further discuss it, please let me know. Thank you. Aidenrouhani ( talk) 01:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you appear to have resurrected the taskforce here, which caught my attention. I joined it many years back (I think probably some time around 2006/2007) though admittedly I haven't really looked at (m)any Emmerdale articles for quite some time. I'd be interested in chipping in though to see if we could at least get some from Start to C, or a few more into GA (and maybe reassess the existing GA ones). Do you have any specific intentions/goals in mind? Bungle ( talk • contribs) 20:16, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Please let's not get into an argument. We are all part of the great soaps community and should stick together DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk) 02:10, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm still on board, I need something to distract me from stalling on a couple Neighbours projects and at this point I'm kinda tidying up sources EastEnders articles and little else. Conquistador2k6 17:46 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Dark Glow, this user named Connorguy99 ( talk) is about to start a potential edit war. And he’s currently making some very unconstructive edits on Ian Beale’s page. Stating:
“Characters that are on a break are NOT removed from the official EastEnders cast list - Tameka Empson remained on the list for a year and a half after her break, and June Brown remained for a year too. Adam Woodyatt's removal from the official cast list is indicative of more than a "break" - which I don't believe has been confirmed by any source related to the show.
Connorguy99 (
talk)
20:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)”
This statement is absolutely nonsense when he is the one being the remover. Ian’s only on break and should not be removed. I think he needs to be reported. He doesn’t appear to want to stop. Could you help me out bud? WikiFlame50 ( talk) 20:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
And also, I checked his talk page, he’s been known to have a potential rude attitude if warned. WikiFlame50 ( talk) 20:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Alright. I’ll let you know if I spot anything else WikiFlame50 ( talk) 20:30, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
Well Done for all of your hard work on Belle Dingle and for creating amazing articles such as Juliet Nightingale and Cher Winters! DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk) 15:36, 2 March 2021 (UTC) |
Gentle request in the future, please don't invite yourself to an edit war. Skip it and report the issue to the appropriate noticeboard instead. -- Izno ( talk) 01:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
I don’t blame you bud. He will get over it eventually. People get bored of it after a day or so. WikiFlame50 ( talk) 01:27, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article
Ackley Bridge you nominated for
GA-status according to the
criteria.
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Some Dude From North Carolina --
Some Dude From North Carolina (
talk)
02:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
The article
Ackley Bridge you nominated as a
good article has passed
; see
Talk:Ackley Bridge for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can
nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by
Legobot, on behalf of
Some Dude From North Carolina --
Some Dude From North Carolina (
talk)
13:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Hey. Lynne Hobbs appears to have been moved to the incorrect title of Lynne Slater (EastEnders). I followed the series of page moves and found your request at WP:RM/TR, and I was wondering if you accidentally switched the names? The character's WP:COMMONNAME is definitely Hobbs. - JuneGloom07 Talk 00:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for all of your help with the Emmerdale articles recently! ❤ It is great seeing everyone working together! DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk) 22:48, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
No problem! Keep up the great work! (If you want! Your happiness and health are more important of course) DaniloDaysOfOurLives ( talk) 23:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi just want to ask how come on all Wikipedia pages we are now changing the classifications from Past to Former now? Adavid299 ( talk) 21:17, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks i will continue changing articles that have yet to be changed if I find any. Adavid299 ( talk) 21:25, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi DarkGlow, I have received your message about my edit. In the show that was the time frame that was specifically mentioned. Thanks, Mocolley220 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mocolley220 ( talk • contribs) 20:21, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi can you please check the dancing on Ice page please as a user with this name (Lauren-mae69) keeps editing and saying it's been confirmed that the series will return in 2022. I did read the source that is there and it does say ITV have yet to confirm another series. I did revert it to say it is yet to be confirmed whether if Dancing on ice will return. But that user I mentioned just reverted it back to say it will be back. Could you help please? Adavid299 ( talk) 16:46, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks mate Adavid299 ( talk) 16:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
If an IP sock starts bothering you again, feel free to let me know. Some people thrive on attention. With these kinds of trolls, it's best to Revert, block, and ignore. Sro23 ( talk) 17:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
On 18 March 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ackley Bridge, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the first episode of the British television drama series Ackley Bridge was re-edited following the Manchester Arena bombing, as scenes showed a student at the centre of a bombing hoax? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ackley Bridge. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page ( here's how, Ackley Bridge), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 00:01, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi I was right changing Lucas to Former wasn't I? That was his last scene wasn't it? Adavid299 ( talk) 20:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Did you want me to add a source now? Adavid299 ( talk) 20:24, 18 March 2021 (UTC)