User talk:MickeyDaisyJimmyDipsey

December 2019[edit]

Hello, I'm Denisarona. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Michael French have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Thanks. Denisarona (talk) 12:56, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the current version is incorrect - I have just edited with the correct information. MickeyDaisyJimmyDipsey (talk) 13:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not vandalising the page. I am editing with the correct Information on behalf of the subject of the page. MickeyDaisyJimmyDipsey (talk) 14:21, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of West Hatch Technical High School[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on West Hatch Technical High School requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. ComplexRational (talk) 20:33, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of The Opera House Manchester[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on The Opera House Manchester requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. ComplexRational (talk) 20:35, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. 73.186.215.222 (talk) 12:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. 2600:387:5:80D:0:0:0:A2 (talk) 14:14, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. 2600:387:5:80D:0:0:0:A2 (talk) 14:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at WP:Help desk, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. David Biddulph (talk) 18:49, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome![edit]

Hello, MickeyDaisyJimmyDipsey, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! David Biddulph (talk) 19:06, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David thank you for your help it is much appreciated. I am going to try some editing today but rather than replace what is already on the page I am going to work around it, adding more information. This way it will be possible to keep all the citations/references that are there. Will this be acceptable? MickeyDaisyJimmyDipsey (talk) 09:13, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David, I have made some additions to the Michael French page and would like you to review it before submission if possible. Also how do I submit the edits. Thank you. MickeyDaisyJimmyDipsey (talk) 12:06, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy. 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 ~~~~}}.

Materialscientist (talk) 14:41, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent further violations of Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, such as re-inserting repeatedly challenged and removed material without an inline citation that directly supports the contribution.

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 ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear David, could you please tell me how to source a date of birth. I have looked at many on wikipedia and I can't find any that are sourced. MickeyDaisyJimmyDipsey (talk) 23:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You came back from your block and immediately did the same thing that got you blocked the first time, so now you are indefinitely blocked. Meters (talk) 23:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But please tell me how to source a date of birth. That is all I added. MickeyDaisyJimmyDipsey (talk) 23:27, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The prw ious date of birth was listed as the 18th which is incorrect. MickeyDaisyJimmyDipsey (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, where does the information come from, MickeyDaisyJimmyDipsey? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From a twitter account MickeyDaisyJimmyDipsey (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And it's listed on the Michaelfrench. Net website MickeyDaisyJimmyDipsey (talk) 23:34, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MickeyDaisyJimmyDipsey, if you're serious about using a fan's inofficial Twitter account and his fan website as source for such information, then the block was definitely overdue. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:45, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How else can a birthday be sourced. Its common knowledge that his birthday is 17th not 18th. I suppose it might be in theatre programme somewhere. There's no need to be unkind by saying my block was over due - I'm new to this and I'm doing my best to learn MickeyDaisyJimmyDipsey (talk) 23:50, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New to this only goes so far when you continue to ignore what other editors are posting to your page. For example, you still need to explain your apparent conflict of interest. Saying that you are editing "on behalf of the subject of the page" certainly suggests a WP:COI, if not a WP:UPE. Meters (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RS for sourcing. Meters (talk) 23:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to edit on his behalf. I meant I am editing the page to get it factually correct as I help with his michaelfrench. Net webpage which is an online Archive of his career. I just wanted both to match. MickeyDaisyJimmyDipsey (talk) 23:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MickeyDaisyJimmyDipsey, before you make any further post on this talk page, I expect you to have a look at the policy that led to your block: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. I especially recommend having a look at the sections called "WP:BLPPRIMARY", "WP:BLPSPS" and "WP:BLPPRIVACY". If this is really still unclear to you, it is not "unkind" but factual to describe the block as overdue. If it weren't necessary, it wouldn't have happened. If it suddenly lost its necessity, it wouldn't remain. Yet it, at least currently, remains very necessary. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not getting paid in anyway or acting on anyone's behalf. MickeyDaisyJimmyDipsey (talk) 00:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then you should not have said that you were editing on his behalf. http://michael-french.net/ is a fan site and is not a reliable source in any way. The fact hat you were attempting to use a fan site, and one which you contribute to, as a source for your edit speaks volumes. Meters (talk) 00:05, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand what you mean. Many of the sources on the MF Wikipedia page don't comply with the rules according to links that you just sent me. For example many sources are from a newspaper article that may not be factual at all. MickeyDaisyJimmyDipsey (talk) 00:11, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi You blocked me from editing Wikipedia a few days ago because I did reference correctly. I didn't fully unders the system correctly but now I do therefore could you possibly consider unblocking me please. MickeyDaisyJimmyDipsey (talk) 01:05, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

Could anyone tell me how to get unblocked from Wikipedia MickeyDaisyJimmyDipsey (talk) 00:51, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MickeyDaisyJimmyDipsey, your message seems to confirm a current inability to look for necessary information when being directly pointed to such information, even if the information is present on the page you're asking on. This does not make an unblock likely at the moment. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:55, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening - would it be possible to unblock me please. MickeyDaisyJimmyDipsey (talk) 22:45, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you need APA style referencing now so I'll be fine. I'm a Professor and have published many papers using this format. MickeyDaisyJimmyDipsey (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

Would it be possible to unblock me now please - I fully understand why I was blocked and I realise that referenced sources are required when editing. Thank you.

Decline reason:

I think you are almost there, but I am not prepared to unblock you at this time. Please read the page about reliable sources and explain what Wikipedia considers to be a reliable source(you don't have the definition exactly right) and how the sources you were attempting to add were not reliable sources. This probably sounds nitpicky, but editing about living people is one of the harder areas to edit in due to the strict sourcing requirements of policy in this area and you must show that you have a good handle on this. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 12:47, 5 January 2020 (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.

You stated with this edit that you are editing on French's behalf, but say elsewhere that you are not affiliated with him. Please explain these contradictory statements. 331dot (talk) 21:08, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not affiliated to Michael French at all. I said I was trying to edit on behalf of the page - I did not mean on behalf of him. I'm sorry if this was the wrong or confusing information. To be clear I am not affiliated to him at all - it is the first time that I have tried editing any wikipedia page and I'm finding it very confusing. I chose the Michael French page because there is an internet archive that I follow of his (and other actors' work) and I noticed the information is not congruent.

What types of sources is Wikipedia looking for to use in article? I am not trying to give you the third degree, only to make sure things will be different if you are unblocked. 331dot (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that Wikipedia requires references from reliable sources that provide evidence for the statement. Many of the sources on the French page don't conform to those standards - I would like the opportunity to include correct reliable sources. Can an unsubstantiated newspaper article be a reliable source? MickeyDaisyJimmyDipsey (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have now read all of the material suggested to me. I understand Wikipedia's policy on referencing. I do understand Primary, Secondary and Tertiary referencing as I use these sources in my work. Could you please unblock me so I can demonstrate my understandingMickeyDaisyJimmyDipsey (talk) 11:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Hmm. So, if what you say is true, we have the following situation: (1) Someone starts editing who thinks that "edit on behalf of the page" means something - a remarkable English usage. (2) That person says that he or she is editing on behalf of a person by mistake, when actaully meaning editing on behalf of a page (whatever that means). (3) By a truly remarkable coincidence that person's editing has in a number of different respects had all the hallmarks of a single-purpose editor who really is editing on behalf of a person for the purpose of using Wikipedia to promote that person, although in fact that is not so. Alternatively, we could possibly have the following situation: (1) An editor comes along to edit on behalf of someone else for promotional purposes, and edits in exactly the kinds of ways that years of experience have shown are absolutely typical of how such single-purpose promotional editors commonly edit. (2) That person honestly states that they are editing on behalf of the person they really are editing on behalf of, believing that will give their editing more authority, which is something that years of experience have shown such single-purpose promotional editors very often do. (3) When Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline is pointed out, indicating that editing on behalf of a person makes their editing less acceptable, not more, they pretend they are not doing so, (perhaps having forgotten their earlier admission that they are). Interestingly, this is something that years of experience have shown such single-purpose promotional editors very often do. (4) When confronted with their earlier true statement, instead of admitting that it was true and their later denial wasn't, they dig themselves further into a hole by claiming that they didn't mean what they said at all, but actually meant.... well, who knows what they meant, because they "explain" what they meant by saying something which doesn't mean anything. Hmm. So which is more likely, the first possibility, involving several different rather strange and unusual features and a remarkable coincidence, or the second one, which involves only things which are very common, and all too believable? A difficult problem, deciding which of the two to believe. Hmm. Or maybe not... JBW (talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 10:58, 13 January 2020 (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.

Is it possible to review my case and consider unblocking me please. MickeyDaisyJimmyDipsey (talk) 00:54, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your request is open and will be reviewed in due course by another administrator; please be patient. 331dot (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. MickeyDaisyJimmyDipsey (talk) 01:13, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Wikipedia Editor's could you please review my case as I have now been blocked for some time. "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"

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).

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

Request reason:

I have now read the guide to appealing blocks and I fully understand why I was originally blockedMickeyDaisyJimmyDipsey (talk) 15:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 16:54, 14 February 2020 (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.

Why, specifically, in your own words were you originally blocked, and what steps do you plan to take to prevent a recurrence of the issues that led to your block? SQL ^{Query me!} 03:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I was originally blocked because I didn't fully understand the editing protocols required by Wikipedia, in particular, the correct way to reference sources. I now understand that all information needs to be references from reliable sources and the content of the page needs to "non promotional" and shouldn't be edited by any person directly associated with the subject of the page. All sourses need to be numbered in the text and included in a references section at the bottom of the page. MickeyDaisyJimmyDipsey (talk) 17:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC) Would anyone consider to unblock me please - if only to contact other Wikipedia editors MickeyDaisyJimmyDipsey (talk) 09:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

to contact a Wikipedia editor— Preceding unsigned comment added by MickeyDaisyJimmyDipsey (talk • contribs)

You only need one open request; your request will be reviewed in due course. Administrators are volunteers who do what they can when they can, so you will need to be patient. You can spend the time waiting by attempting to make your request more persuasive and better address the concerns given. 331dot (talk) 09:45, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible for someone to review my block please. I have understood the reason I was blocked and have tried to demonstrate my understanding MickeyDaisyJimmyDipsey (talk) 17:45, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In order for someone to review your block, you need to have an unblock request that can be reviewed. 331dot (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

Would it be possible to unblock me now? I have now read all of the material suggested to me. I understand Wikipedia's policy on referencing. I do understand Primary, Secondary and Tertiary referencing. I was originally blocked because I didn't fully understand the editing protocols required by Wikipedia, in particular, the correct way to reference sources. I now understand that all information needs to be references from reliable sources and the content of the page needs to be "non promotional" and shouldn't be edited by any person directly associated with the subject of the pageMickeyDaisyJimmyDipsey (talk) 14:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You say you understand Wikipedia's policy on referencing, but the last time you did more than just claim understanding, you wondered whether a newspaper article can be a reliable source. If that's unclear to you, I don't think you actually understand. Huon (talk) 19:51, 10 April 2020 (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.

Now that you understand our policies, please demonstrate it by showing us an example of encyclopedic content that you'd like to add to Wikipedia. Please include a citation to a reliable source. Just post the edit that you'd make here on your talk page, below this message. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]