User talk:Phil Copperman

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.
Start a new talk topic.

External links

Hi. I recently edited the Screenwriting software article to remove several external links in the body of the article, which is a misuse of external links under WP:ELPOINTS. You reverted my edit here. I would ask that you review Wikipedia's external links policy and reconsider your reversion. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 21:29, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I thought I noticed spam, silly of me. Apologies. It seems you are fixed it, I would have done so in this case. --Phil Copperman (talk) 19:26, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with upload of File:Philcopperman.jpeg

Thanks for uploading File:Philcopperman.jpeg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 20:06, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing pending changes

Hello, Phil Copperman! Excuse me for popping in out of the blue, but something in your request for the PC reviewer bit caught my eye: “… on 50/50s it is required that the reviewing editor do some fact-checking ….” In fact this is not part of a reviewer’s mandate per se. Articles are placed under PC protection when they become targets for harmful anonymous edits, so the review process is directed at vandalism and other policy violations; reviewers are not expected to be knowledgeable about the content. If you question the veracity, sourcing, or appropriateness of an inoffensive edit that appears to be made with helpful intent, the more power to you if you follow it up—but this is in the role of an ordinary editor, so rather than rejecting the edit through the review interface you should undo or modify it in the ordinary way, with an explanatory edit summary. Please give WP:RVW a careful reading before applying again; with a longer ‘track record’ and a request that shows a good understanding of this guideline (among others), I expect you‘ll be accepted next time.—Odysseus 1479 04:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the confidence, and for the advice. I basically cited the 50/50 business purely out of the need to produce some type of quality presentation when applying. Naturally fact-checking of recent edits never hurts anyhow even when not using tools, I was talking more the need to be careful when accepting a pending revision: factually incorrect information might just be real-life trolling or sneakier vandalism. Of course the standard procedure in uncertainty is, leave it!. After all, nobody knows you checked it! :) But thanks for all of the advice. The next time I apply I will have completed far more edits. --Phil Copperman (talk) 18:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Phil Copperman. You have new messages at Dewritech's talk page.
Message added 18:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Dewritech (talk) 18:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello Phil,

Currently working on reverting vandalism; though I appreciate your commitment to policy. This user has a history of such thing. Currently appears to be removing references to the holocaust in this particular article. Has been reported for AIV. --PureRED (talk) 18:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looked like content dispute, but the addition of "SHILL" is evidently nonconstructive. Sorry about that PureRED. Carry on! --Phil Copperman (talk) 18:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

~~Dear Phil,~~ I notice that having accused me on my talkpage of misusing Rollback you then accused @Ghmyrtle: of the same, but you made that latter accusation at ANI. I thought you were supposed to warn editors if you mention them at ANI? It seems to me that by making the claim, you did mention Ghmyrtle, but I don't see where you notified them of this. ~~Never mind, rather overtaken by events anyway; plus I was probably wrong about the mechanics of notification. Sorry. Best wishes DBaK (talk)~~ ~~12:15~~ ~~15:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)~~[reply]

No worry. I am guessing the editor was more problematic than was originally realised. But there was some misinterpretation somewhere down the line. His disciplinary proceedings are down to the admins, whereas in your case, just move forward and keep an eye on things. Thanks for the good contributions. --Phil Copperman (talk) 19:31, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edited to strike all my comments above - all overtaken by events DBaK (talk) 13:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Tiptoety ^talk 20:15, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]