User talk:DatGuy/Archives/2016/July

Archives

02:35:07, 3 July 2016 review of submission by Orstio

Orstio (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Fictitious Athlete Hall of Fame (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, not really requesting a re-review just yet. I just wanted to know what I can change to make the article read more formally? I don't believe I've used any jargon or slang, and nothing is in first or second person as per the Information Style and Tone page you linked in your comment. Any advice you could give using some examples from the article would be great. Orstio (talk) 02:35, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Orstio: Hello! Sorry for the late reply. I believe you should try and remove the bullet points in the lead and edit them into a paragraph. For example, There are two criterias for nomination to be inducted into the Fictitious Athlete Hall of Fame. The first of which is that the character must be a fictitious athlete or athletic supporting role. The latter is that appearing after 1970 was a requirement. However, in 2015 the "veterans" category was opened, which accepts nominees from before 1970.

The character must be a fictitious athlete or athletic supporting role.

When the Fictitious Hall of Fame began, appearing after 1970 was a requirement. ~~However, in 2015 the "veterans" category was opened, which accepts nominees from before 1970.~~

I suggest not to use my exact words, and change them around after you feel good with it. Mine was simply an example

. I also believe there are minor grammar mistakes. An example is what I bolded in the lead. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 16:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DatGuy: Hi, thanks! That gives me a lot to go on, actually. Also, I think it should be pointed out that the word "criteria" is already plural (criterias is incorrect: One criterion, two criteria). For reference: [1] Orstio (talk) 16:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Orstio: Whoops, my bad. I am pretty sure there is another one or two typos, :D. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 17:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

16:48:25, 9 July 2016 review of submission by Yacoinfo

Yacoinfo (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Achour Law Firm (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

@Yacoinfo: Hello, did you want to ask a question? Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 17:29, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Coming back from WikiBreak (already)

Hi DatGuy, I'm back again, and I'm ready to fight vandalism once again. I couldn't utter a cry for leaving Wikipedia every now and then. And since I'm keeping contributing here in Wikipedia, I guess I'm ready for another CVU Training again. :) Hamham31 Heke!KushKush! 10:39, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hamham31: Welcome back! You are very close to graduating. If you could revert 5-10 vandalism edits and either put some diffs here or just say 'done!', then you'll pass

. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 10:49, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You really think so? Very well then, I'll make things right again this time. Cheers. Hamham31 Heke!KushKush! 10:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please adopt me

Hello please accept me as your student in Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit/Academy. Please reply soon Thanks.—Nepali keto62_{Questions?!?!?} 11:48, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hamham31: Please respond in e-mail, thanks

. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 12:57, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I never check my email please help me here. Adopt me soon.—Nepali keto62_{Questions?!?!?} 14:36, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Rugby

Hello I have deleted the content because it's misleading , their is no Jordan rugby union. we are hoping their will be on. but till now we don't have Jordan rugby union. this is the link http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Rugby_union_in_Jordan Thanks in advanced — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maramshoumali (talk • contribs) 11:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Maramshoumali: Not according to this. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 11:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DatGuy: I'm part of Jordan Rugby. and we are not a union. the website you have mentioned is the official website of Jordan Rugby, i have contributed in the website. I'm 100% sure we are not a union.

18 July 2016 - Review of Mexican hairless Cat

The only duplicate information is public domain information in the form of a quote from a 1903 publication "The Book of the Cat". The cited reason for deletion (Pawpeds Academy) does not own the quoted information - it is public domain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Messybeast (talk • contribs) 11:09, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Ticket#2016071810015186] Confirmation of receipt (Re: Mexican Hairless Cat [...])

DatGuy - this quote is widely reproduced. Only the original text on PawPeds is copyright. They are not able to re-copyright public domain text - please contact your senior editors for more information on this. The quote by Shinick is also available (Public Domain) at "Chest of Books" [2] where the page (layout and format, not public domain content) says © 2007-2016 StasoSphere.com. The book itself is also available in replica form because it is now in the public domain.

On Pawpeds, the intro page for The Book of the Cat https://www.pawpeds.com/pawacademy/history/thebookofthecat/ states "By Francis Simpson, printed in 1903. Here we present a few chapters from Francis Simpson's "The Book of the Cat", printed in 1903. The pictures are from the same book." The copyright is outside of the text on the Mexican Hairless page and refers to the page format and layout - it is a standard copyright on all of their pages (it's the template)

It also appears on http://www.cat-o-pedia.org/nellie.html and although that page says all material on the page is copyrighted, it is not possible to recopyright public domain text and the statement is fallacious.

And again at https://thesphynxcat.wordpress.com/hairless-cats/ And https://www.amazon.co.uk/Book-Cat-Miss-Frances-Simpson/dp/1407765302/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1468841483&sr=1-3&keywords=the+book+of+the+cat+simpson - a replica print of a public domain work (that contains the quote) And https://www.amazon.co.uk/Book-Cat-Primary-Source/dp/1294588494/ref=sr_1_18?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1468841594&sr=1-18&keywords=the+book+of+the+cat+simpson - another replica of a public domain work containing the quote And several other copies in electronic and physical form.

If you do not understand fully "Public Domain" text and the difference between copyright text and copyright template notices, you may wish to speak with your senior editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Messybeast (talk • contribs) 11:35, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My quote comes from an original copy of The Book of the Cat. The book is out of copyright.

For example: On Chest of Books it states: Books on this site come from two sources: "Books published before 1921 and therefore are no longer under the original copyright. (and some published after 1921 but falling into the same category). Books published after 1921 and we have licensed those books by the copyright owner (usually either a publisher or the author). In either case the derivative materials appearing on this site are © Copyrighted by http://chestofbooks.com/, unless specified otherwise. The derivative materials are the result of time and money invested in scanning, optical character recognition, manual proofreading, processing, and arranging the resulting text, photographs and illustrations for your best reading pleasure."

I am reinstating the page. I will be taking this contesxt to a higher level because you are deleting non-copyright information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Messybeast (talk • contribs) 11:42, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Tehran Imam Khomeini International Airport. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:36, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note to any administrators who may review an unblock request here, see my comments at Talk:Tehran Imam Khomeini International Airport#Full protected on 14 July, specifically the part that said "If there is no further discussion, anyone who adds or removes links to centreforaviation.com or some of the similar trivial edit wars will receive a block until there is some discussion". Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:56, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: I am extremely surprised at this. I have not opened a discussion on the talk page since I remembered entering an edit summary in Huggle saying 'as per HkCaGu'. I will report the bug as soon as possible. (Or I misclicked). HkCaGu has wrote in his edit summary, while the other user did not. I reverted only twice, while the other editor did not. I am in a game right now, and will write an actual unblock request once I'm done. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 12:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The principal problem is you haven't talk about the content. Why is the link in the infobox a problem? Nobody's told me, and trying to get an answer on the talk page over the past week has been like Sysyphus pushing his rock up a hill. I've no doubt the block has come as a surprise; if you were expecting it, you'd have behaved in a way so that you didn't get blocked! While you formulate an unblock request, I'd recommend reading User:Ritchie333/Why admins should create content and User:Ritchie333/Plain and simple guide to vandalism. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:15, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: As per "HkCaGu, WT:AIRPORT, hub/FC fields were designed to merely reflect airline articles. argue there not here. repeatedly explained" If everyone would have to check the talk page before reverting twice in Huggle, Wikipedia would be half-vandalism by now. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 12:21, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I also have not received any warnings at all. Just a straight up block. In WP:AN/EW, there is even a designated section for Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 12:24, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

DatGuy/Archives/2016 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I apparently misclicked when I wanted to do a good faith revert and say 'as per HkCaGu.' I have not been properly warned, however I will try my best next time to check the talk page as well as the history (which I already do) of any page I decide to do more than one revert on. Also, if that fails, I will try to go to WP:DRN. Finally, I did not mean to forumshop, as KrakatoaKatie hints at. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 7:34 am, Today (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

See my comments below. Katie^talk 13:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

So let me get this straight.

You used rollback in a content dispute. Twice.
You filed at AN3 and less than a minute later you filed at RFPP asking for semi-protection, claiming sockpuppetry as an excuse to stop the other side in a content dispute.And I didn't hint at forum shopping. I outright said not to do it.
You're claiming that edit summaries are somehow a substitute for talk page discussion. They are not.
You're claiming, with a straight face, that your behavior in an AN3 filing shouldn't be examined.
You're also claiming that Ritchie333}'s warning on July 14 wasn't actually a warning, but a suggestion.

I'm sorely tempted to remove your rollback rights, but I'll leave them for now because you normally do good work. Another admin might not be so forgiving. Take the 48 hours and come back with a commitment to discussion and collaboration. Katie^talk 13:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@KrakatoaKatie: Seems like I will need to take the 48 hours. However, I believe you misunderstood me. Yes, I used rollback in a content dispute twice, that was a mistake. No, I did not claim that edit summaries are a substitute. I just pointed towards another user's edit summary, which pointed to a discussion at a noticeboard. I did request semi-protection, as I believed that the other editor was IP jumping. I also wrote that in the request. I don't understand what you mean by my behavior in AN3 filing. I, personally, did not receive a warning. I should have checked the talk page, and that's what I said in the unblock request. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 13:20, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nepali keto62 blocked indef.

Hi DatGuy again and welcome back again from editing, I read his user page today, and I was alarmed that he is blocked indefinitely. What do you think? And someone is requesting here again for your CVUA training. Hamham31 Heke!KushKush! 02:46, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That would be because a great way to legitimize a sock is to be "trained and mentored" by somebody else who will attest to your heretofore "prudent editing", and then you can go on your merry way causing trouble a bit longer than usual. MSJapan (talk) 03:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption

Hey, I see you're open for adoption and it would be great if you could adopt me! I've been on wikipedia for a while but I still don't really know a lot of things; I've made a couple of pages and stuff but I can't really work out how to do much. Judging by your adoption page description and your interests (Dota!) we seem to have things in common. Thanks! - HahaLolXD (talk) 03:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@HahaLolXD: Of course! So, would you like help in creating content? Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 10:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DatGuy: Yeah! All I really know how to do at the moment is tables, bold and italics and references... Things like maps and images I have no idea. It would also be great to learn how to stop vandalism and stuff! Current events would be cool also HahaLolXD (talk) 16:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@HahaLolXD: See the adoption page I created. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 16:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DatGuy: How do I access that? HahaLolXD (talk) 16:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 16:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CVUA

Hello, I see that you are open to students at WP:CVUA. I am very interested in this programme and previously applied to another trainer, who did not respond. If you'd take me on that would be much appreciated. Thanks. ProgrammingGeek (Page! • Talk! • Contribs!) 16:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ProgrammingGeek: Sure! I'll create a page and tell you when it's done. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 10:42, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@DatGuy: okay, thanks.

@ProgrammingGeek: Done, see User:DatGuy/ProgrammingGeek. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 17:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Intervention

Thank you for your intervention, DatGuy. I found it very useful. — Regards, Pro patria semper 14:12, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Telegram

Hello, DatGuy/Archives/2016. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 16:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

-- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 16:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DatGuy, Thanks for tagging SapphireOne for orphan and not-categories. Do you mind to check that now . Thanks

Counter-Vandalism Unit Academy

Hi Dat Guy, would it be possible to sign up for your CVUA training please? At present, I have over 300 mainspace edits and 450 total edits. While I've dealt with copy editing, CSD and other tasks in the past (some with Twinkle), I'm looking to develop my counter-vandalism skills and become a long-term member of the CVU. Thanks! Seba5tien (^talk/_contribs) 05:58, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Seba5tien: Sure! I'm creating a page now to help you start the course. Also, ProgrammingGeek has recently graduated the course, you might want to ask him for some tips if you'd like. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 11:33, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, it's done. See User:DatGuy/Seba5tien. This one has a lot of information on it, as I believe you have a lot to learn (not in a mean way of course.) Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 11:39, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

Thank you for reviewing my pages on Mysore district. Regards,

Prof TPMS (talk) 13:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]