User talk:Dan the Plumber

March 2017

Hello, I'm Mattythewhite. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Neil Taylor (footballer), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mattythewhite (talk) 14:00, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Laurens De Bock

Hi there, I noticed that you've changed De Bock's club over to Leeds. I'm not going to change it back as it's "referenced", but note that the Yorkshire Post are the only ones that are reporting this (plus a couple of others quoting the YP). There has been no official announcement from the club. I'll leave it to you to decide whether you think the ref is adequate. Nzd (talk) 00:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Terrorist96 (talk) 14:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed this report with a warning to you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:23, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note

Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dan the Plumber. Thank you. Terrorist96 (talk) 03:51, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daraa offensive

I would ask that you cancel your edit here [1]. First, the source itself also refers to them as "government forces", and not just "forces loyal to Assad". Furthermore throughout all Syria-related battle articles the uniformed wording that we have been using to describe them for years is: government forces/troops/fighters, pro-government forces/troops/fighters, Syrian military, Syrian Army, etc. We have avoided using wording such as: Assad loyalists, regime forces/troops/fighters, pro-regime forces/troops/fighters, etc, since it was determined this wording is not really neutral and is rather subjective. Plus, the "Assad" government is still officially considered and recognized by most (including the UN) as the Syrian government. Hope this clears it up now. Second, your edit removed the date from the sentence and also canceled out the correct title of the source/report to an incorrect one. EkoGraf (talk) 23:52, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban

For violating WP:1RR on Douma chemical attack and a general battleground attitude you are now subject to the following sanction for one week:

Topic banned from making any edits about the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, broadly construed. This includes talk pages.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the community authorised general sanctions for the Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. This sanction has been recorded in the log. Please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction on the administrators' noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page) and you may ask for clarification of the scope of this ban. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you.

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:54, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You need to start taking WP:1RR seriously. It doesn't matter how right you think your edits are, breaking this restriction is going to get you sanctioned as everyone has to follow the same restrictions. Also if you think Terrorist96's user name is against policy, bring it up at WP:RFCN. Otherwise, please drop the matter. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:05, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My username has already been litigated [2] and I would prefer to avoid double jeopardy. Terrorist96 (talk) 00:26, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Terrorist96: Thanks for linking to that decision. Dan the Plumber, you'll have to accept the fact the community has decided to let this editor use this name. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:31, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah thanks Terrorist, 'It's just a name. A combination of letters and numbers. Nothing more', - against such brilliant argumentation, what could be objected? And you say you have a 'sentimental attachment' to the name. Well, quite. Its the sort of name a person such as you seem to be, well, one can imagine you would be sentimentally attached to it. It is provocative of course, and should be prohibited, but what has self evident straightforwardness like saying that, to do with Wikipedia. Dan the Plumber (talk) 20:07, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

July 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for violating your topic ban.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note your topic ban is reset to last one week after this block expires. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:40, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was only doing my bit at trying to keep a few wikipedia articles on Syria from resembling Sputnik and RT. I hope you bloody well keep an eye on those articles and the way those pro regime twisters 'edit' in such a way that OPCW reports are 'selectively' read/misread and RS material is misquoted. They swarm all over them with their twisted narratives to push. I wouldn't mind if they respected sources but they don't. They misquote, excise, misrepresent, distort. They make articles on Syria unreadable if you aren't as brain dead and cynical as they are. Dan the Plumber (talk) 19:58, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for violating your topic ban.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:42, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your topic ban is reset to last two weeks after this block expires. If you violate it again, a lengthy block will ensue along with an indefinite topic ban. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks 'NeilN'. Dan the Plumber (talk) 21:11, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ekograf - (you've been told this account is linked to an indef banned editor somewhere haven't you , so why settle for two weeks ban plus two weeks or whatever Neil has set up), I see you around on SCW related artiles - you, Terrorist96, (voted NOT a provocative username ( but of course)), Nishidani, Huldra, Funk Monk et al - all are vehemently pro- fascist, pro Assad regime, pro Iranian IRGC/ Hezbollah pro Putin accounts - you all edit these article in a way to slant them, - Nishidani /Huldra call anyone who doubts the words of the Assad regime 'wikipediots', all this - you edit in bad faith, you edit POV, you slag off other editors - all of this results in crap articles. And that accounts for you pursuing any editor you perceive as anti-fascist, anti Assad regime , until they are blocked and banned. the edits for which NEILN has blocked me are nothing - you 're right that report was from AP, so all that the other editor had to do was point that out and undo the edit. Instead an appeal to get another editor blocked. You are part of a 'side' on Wikipedia on SCW articles and your POV edits, part of that poisonous crowd Funk Monk, etc mean wikipedia articles you dominate are twisted, and worthless. almasdar? FFS. Dan the Plumber (talk) 21:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Neil N - I see ekograf complained about me writing 'fuck off' , - to an editor who was not offering friendly advice , but was harassing as should be evident -( thats in a fucking edit summary for my own talk page - fucking hell Ekograf, you really are a diligent policeman) if I tell you Nishidani/Huldra speak about fellow wikipedians ( who/m? they see as daring to question the veracity of everything Robert Fisk writes, or that the `Syrian regime says) Wikipediots - is that CIVIL. You admins don't seem to handle things well imo. you are played really by POV types who harass editors they don't like, taunt them, and goad them , until they snap, and then they report them. In their little cabals you'll find they are VERY UNCIVIL to fellow wikipedians. You should really ban me indefinitely because Ive surely used up all my ROPE with my terrible dastardly and utterly destructive edits to the entire edifice of WP. today. FFS. Dan the Plumber (talk) 21:38, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dan the Plumber has violated his Syria topic ban once again within a day of being unblocked [3], with his first edit being the un-discussed removal of sourced material and its RS ref (Associated Press) that has been in place in an article for years, with the edit apparently being POV in nature. It was also an edit war action he already previously made before he was blocked the last time. He also made an edit on a second Syria-related article [4] as well. EkoGraf (talk) 20:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked two weeks, topic ban reset. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:49, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 21:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ekograf. Your assiduity in seeing me blocked makes me feel important. Dan the Plumber (talk) 21:47, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you had just waited a week for your topic ban to expire, you could have made any edits to any Syria related articles that you wanted to. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 22:24, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at User talk:Dan the Plumber. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Please do not personally attack other editors again, as you did to Ekograf, Terrorist96, NeilN and others on your talk page. Serafart (talk) (contributions) 22:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Final chance

Your topic ban applies on this talk page as well. Post about this topic again and I'll block you for six months, revoke talk page access, and make the topic ban an indefinite one. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:56, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

File:Padura The Man Who Loved Dogs novel book cover.jpg

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:22, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Man Who Loved Dogs has been accepted

The Man Who Loved Dogs, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Hitro talk 13:21, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Dan the Plumber. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Dan the Plumber. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Bastani page

Hi, Dan the Plumber. You tried to add a red link to an (unmade) article on Aaron Bastani. "Aaron Bastani (founder of Novara Media)" won't fit Wikipedia's article naming policies, so I tried to remove the redirect from the page "Aaron Bastani" to make it a red-link page, but it didn't work. Sorry. While I was there, I noticed on the talk page that people have tried twice in the past to make an article on Aaron Bastani and it has been deleted both times. In short, according to the people who deleted the article, there isn't enough notable info on Aaron Bastani at the moment to warrent an article (i.e., interviews and passing references don't really cut it; someone needs to write significantly about Aaron Bastani). Anyway, thought I'd pop in here to explain what's happened. Sorry it's a bit disapointing. --Woofboy (talk) 21:13, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Angela Nagle; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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 and work towards a version 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 you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 09:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss the ideas at stake on the Talk page? Like I said , the edits you are leaving leave no criticism visible , yet the article is said to have proved 'controversial'. You seem to be prioritising sources that are adulatory to the subject and silencing criticism. You slag off lib com.org an anarchist site and leave Tucker Carlson's fawning, a Fox News presenter. So it goes. You keep giving voice to the wealthy and privileged like that and silencing others. You don't address whether your preferred edits will leave a puff piece controlled by adorers. Is that what wikipedia is for? Or to show up a writer in all aspects, support, criticism, etc . Dan the Plumber (talk) 09:29, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I’ve already told you a million times that I was just reviewing recent changes. I have no idea what the article is about, and I sure as hell wouldn’t know who Tucker Carlson is and what your ‘giving voice to the wealthy’ is, because I live in Hong Kong, a place over the Pacific from America. Now, just listen to what I have to say on the ANI thread and admit what you did wrong. Thanks. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 09:12, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't sought to put back the material I argued for so I think that means I listened to what you and others have said. Or else I thought you and others have made the article worse and bland, and a puff piece , but I've done what I could and am now leaving it alone lest I be blocked from editing. o.k. Dan the Plumber (talk) 13:55, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notice

Sorry, but you didn’t listen to me. Here we go!

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 09:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of BRD at Tulsi Gabbard

You recently reinstated reverted edits on the BLP of Tulsi Gabbard without discussion on the talk page. If you could show where Tulsi Gabbard is mentioned in any of the bellingcat or primary sources you wish to include, please do so on the article talk page. Thanks.

ps: ~~looking through your TP, any edits to that section of TG's BLP constitute a clear violation of a topic ban imposed by NeilN on 6 July 2018~~ never mind, I see you just got a tap on the wrist that time. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 16:59, 2 February 2019 (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).

Dan the Plumber (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

could an administrator look at actual edits , I seem to suffer from other editors 'projecting' their opinions onto me. I am a 'POV pusher' - yet I use RS , and did before as Sayerslle. I stand by my edits as Sayerslle and Dan the Plumber as an editor that got targeted by those who are indeed POV pushers. They even accused another editor of being a possible 'proxy' of mine. I have never , would never , ask another editor to make an edit for me. To me this is all projection. Could an administrator not look at my edits, at the content, I leave as an editor, and see beyond the battling on talk pages with POV warriors. If you can't look at the content I leave behind, and see only the goading of enemies as being insurmountable then , so be it. Wikipedia should look out though that it is indulging game players , and punishing, sincere, honest, and clumsy editors like me , who 'hide in plain sight' as a 'sock puppet', and really all this language , prevents one seeing that behind our usernames, are just people. I am a sincere, honest person. If I am given a last chance I would carry on as Dan the Plumber and never try under any other editor name to improve the encyclopedia. Thanks for considering this request

Decline reason:

You are not eligible for unblock consideration here. You must get your original account unblocked. Talk page access revoked. Yamla (talk) 14:36, 25 February 2019 (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.