User talk:Dopenguins

Your submission at Articles for creation: John Rutland (September 17)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KGirlTrucker81 was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:John Rutland and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 11:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello! Dopenguins, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! KGirl (Wanna chat?) 11:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I have submitted the article again. I have added more sources.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Keturah Sorrell (September 17)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted content, which is not permitted on Wikipedia. You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work.

• Draft:Keturah Sorrell may be deleted at any time unless the copied text is removed. Copyrighted work cannot be allowed to remain on Wikipedia.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Whispering 21:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

I have submitted the article again. It is my own work.

I had to change the title as I could not find a way to resubmit it for review. I contacted help but did not get a reply.

Your submission at Articles for creation: John Rutland (September 19)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Sulfurboy was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:John Rutland and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Sulfurboy (talk) 20:25, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I have submitted the article again. I have added more text and more sources. There are now many sources.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Keturah Sorrell (Opera Singer) (September 21)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KGirlTrucker81 was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Keturah Sorrell (Opera Singer) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KGirl ^{(Wanna chat?)} 12:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: John Rutland (September 22)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Sulfurboy was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:John Rutland and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Sulfurboy (talk) 00:28, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: John Rutland (September 22)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Sulfurboy was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:John Rutland and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Sulfurboy (talk) 19:54, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: John Rutland (September 24)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Whispering was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:John Rutland and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Whispering 19:21, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: John Rutland (September 25)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:John Rutland and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 21:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Sue Wallace

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.

A tag has been placed on Sue Wallace requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 removed 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. KylieTastic (talk) 19:22, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of John Rutland (actor)

The article John Rutland (actor) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Doesn't meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG; repeatedly rejected at WP:AFC.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Boleyn (talk) 20:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Multiple copies of a page

Please don't create multiple copies of one page, as you did at Draft:Keturah Sorrell, Draft:Keturah Sorrell (Opera Singer) and Keturah Sorrell. Doing so causes confusion and makes it difficult to keep track of what is going on. Also, it loses the editing history, and if anyone else other than you has made any edits to it at all then the record of their edits in the page's editing history must be kept in order to comply with Wikipedia's licensing terms. I have merged the history of all three, to avoid such problems.If the page were left at Keturah Sorrell it would be likely to be deleted before very long, as it is not suitable for an article, so I have left it at Draft:Keturah Sorrell (Opera Singer), to give it a chance to be improved without being deleted.

My advice to new editors is that it is best to start by making small improvements to existing articles, rather than creating new articles. That way any mistakes you make will be small ones, and you won't have the discouraging experience of repeatedly seeing hours of work deleted. Gradually, you will get to learn how Wikipedia works, and after a while you will know enough about what is acceptable to be able to write whole new articles without fear that they will be deleted. Over the years I have found that editors who start by making small changes to existing articles and work up from there have a far better chance of having a successful time here than those who jump right into creating new articles from the start. However, if you do choose to go on creating new draft articles I suggest that once you have created a draft and had feedback on it from an experienced editor who has reviewed it, the best thing is to accept the advice you have been given and work from there, rather than just ignoring it and creating the article anyway, as doing that is likely to lead to deletion and loss of your work. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:37, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Sue Wallace

The article Sue Wallace has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:42, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Keturah Sorrell (Opera Singer) (September 29)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by JamesBWatson was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Keturah Sorrell (Opera Singer) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 07:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Warning on persistent unhelpful editing, continuing despite messages about the problems

When I first saw some of the problems with your editing relating to draft articles I thought it was a a case of a new editor editing in good faith but lacking experience and making understandable mistakes. To try to help you I put some time into drafting and editing a message to you explaining some of the problems and offering advice. However, I have now seen more of your editing history, and found that the problems are much more persistent than I realised. For example I see that after Draft:John Rutland had been declined because of inadequate referencing you have resubmitted it four times without making any changes to it at all. I also see that you continued to do so after you had twice received the message "Previous issues STILL not addressed. Please DO NOT resubmit until they have been addressed." I don't know what you think the purpose is of persistently resubmitting the same draft without any changes, but the only thing it achieves is wasting the time of reviewers. I also see that with more than one draft which has been repeatedly declined you have ignored the decisions of the reviewers whose opinions you had requested, and copied the draft into article space without making any changes at all. That makes me wonder what you think the purpose of asking for a review is. I also see that you have also left requests for review open on drafts when you have copied them as articles. Perhaps it didn't occur to you that doing that would waste the time of reviewers, who would take the trouble to review your drafts and give feedback on them, not knowing that the article already existed.

All of us when we first start editing Wikipedia make mistakes because we don't yet have thorough knowledge of how things work here. However, an editor who ignores advice and feedback, and continues to do the same unhelpful things over and over again, causes damage to the encyclopaedia, because other editors have to spend time following up his or her unconstructive editing, instead of spending the time on other, more constructive, work. For that reason, editors who persist in doing unconstructive things after warnings are blocked from editing by administrators, to prevent further waste of other editors' time. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Sue Wallace

The article Sue Wallace has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No reliable sources

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Theroadislong (talk) 09:20, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

September 2017

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Sue Wallace. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. 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; 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. Theroadislong (talk) 09:22, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Please do not remove Biographies of Living Persons PRODs from articles, as you did with Sue Wallace, unless reliable sources have been provided. You are, however, welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the respective talk page instead. Thank you. Mr. MacTidy (talk) 09:36, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to John Rutland, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Mr. MacTidy (talk) 09:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove the maintenance templates from Wikipedia articles without resolving the problem that the template refers to, as you did at John Rutland. Theroadislong (talk) 09:45, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Sue Wallace

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.

A tag has been placed on Sue Wallace requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 removed 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. Alexf^(talk) 09:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Keturah Sorrell (Opera Singer) (September 29)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Keturah Sorrell (Opera Singer) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 09:51, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistent vandalism. 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 ~~~~}}.  Alexf^(talk) 09:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: John Rutland (September 29)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:John Rutland and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 09:55, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for constant removal of maintenance templates. You cannot remove a CSD notice as you did to Sue Wallace. 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 ~~~~}}.  Alexf^(talk) 09:57, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Keturah Sorrell for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Keturah Sorrell is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keturah Sorrell until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Theroadislong (talk) 14:08, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

October 2017

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Geoffrey Charter. Thank you. Canadian Paul 14:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Please note that per WP:BLP, uncited material on living people may be removed at any time. Furthermore, IMdB is not considered a reliable source for the biographies of living people. Your edits also violate the manual of style, including WP:PARAGRAPHS ("One-sentence paragraphs are unusually emphatic, and should be used sparingly. Articles should rarely, if ever, consist solely of such paragraphs.") and WP:DATE. If you continue to add unsourced material to the biographies of living people, it will be considered disruptive editing and you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Canadian Paul 16:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

The information is not unsourced. There are already links to the sources on the page. By reverting the edits you are clearly making the article much worse as you actually adding/inserting incorrect and/or incomplete information.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for for contravening Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy and a history of disruptive editing. 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 ~~~~}}.  Canadian Paul 16:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

The information is not unsourced. There are already links to the sources on the page. By reverting the edits you are clearly making the article much worse as you actually adding/inserting incorrect and/or incomplete information.

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Doreen Mantle. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Theroadislong (talk) 17:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

The information is not unsourced. There are already links to the sources on the page. By reverting the edits you are clearly making the articles much worse as you actually adding/inserting totally incorrect and/or incomplete information, which is simply ridiculous.

The information is not unsourced. There are already links to the sources on the page. By reverting the edits you are clearly making the article much worse as you actually adding/inserting incorrect and/or incomplete information.

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Harold Goodwin (English actor), as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". You have made a large number of unreferenced edits using the minor edits check box they are NOT minor edits. Theroadislong (talk) 17:06, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

The information is not unsourced. There are already links to the sources on the page. By reverting the edits you are clearly making the article much worse as you actually adding/inserting incorrect and/or incomplete information.

Please read Wikipedia:Citing sources each statement of substantive fact requires an inline citation, it is not sufficient to say that there is a source somewhere on the page. Theroadislong (talk) 17:54, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

The information is not unsourced. There are already links to the sources on the page. By reverting the edits you are clearly making the articles much worse as you actually adding/inserting totally incorrect and/or incomplete information, which is simply ridiculous.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

all information provided was already sourced and is correct - so absolutely no reason for blocking people willy-nilly Dopenguins (talk) 04:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

See below. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:32, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

---

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.

In the article Doreen Mantle you made a series of edits which added various personal details [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] none of these details were supported by a reference and none of the existing references in the article support them either. Theroadislong (talk) 07:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

No, this is totally wrong. The information is not unsourced. There are already links to the sources on the page. By reverting the edits you are clearly making the articles much worse as you actually adding/inserting totally incorrect and/or incomplete information, which is simply ridiculous. Example: you Theroadislong reverted my 5 edits on the page Dorren Mantle. One of the things that came about as a result of this was YOUR addition of an UNSOURCED and INCORRECT birth name. So why did you do this? You actively restored previously added INCORRECT information. The mind boggles! If you did not realise you were doing this, then you certainly should not be editing these pages at all as clearly you have not got a clue as to what you are doing! And the proof of this is that another user had to undo one of your reverts in order to remove the incorrect birth name which you out back up after I had already removed it.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

all information provided was already sourced and is correct - so absolutely no reason for blocking people willy-nilly - this is just ludicrous, you have actively made all of the articles worse, you have removed correct information and added incorrect information - none of what you are doing is helping the page of the community. My edits provided correct information and have links on the page which back this up. You continue to remove all of this. I don't understand why.

Decline reason:

As has been explained to you repeatedly, Wikipedia has very strong sourcing requirements for biographies. It's the contributor's responsibility to provide those sources. Since you're sure your changes are correct, then you should easily be able to find such sources. IMDB is not a reliable source in this regard, for the same reason Wikipedia is't a reliable source. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 14:29, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

---

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.

Please provide actual links to the sources and I will happily add back all your content. You say "There are already links to the sources on the page" please point them out. Theroadislong (talk) 10:46, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

The information is not unsourced. There are already links to the sources on the page. Some of these you have specifically removed. By reverting the edits you are clearly making the article much worse as you actually adding/inserting incorrect and/or incomplete information.

Most of the pages in question have links to other sites, in particular to imdb. So I am not really sure what the problem is.

I have noted that you simply decided you had nothing better to do than to go through the various articles I had helpfully added to and corrected, just to deliberately destroy the good that I had done. How this is helping the wiki community or adding value to the articles is beyond me (in fact it is the complete opposite). Wouldn't it be better to work on your own articles, rather than trying constantly to destroy others and their valid contributions? It's difficult to see how newcomers are encouraged to stay if this is what other editors do.

You have still not supplied the sources and instead you are attacking me. Please note Wikipedia only summarise what reliable, independent published sources say about a topic. Theroadislong (talk) 11:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

On the contrary, the only attacking that has gone on has been on your part when you decided to deliberately erase all of my valid contributions and in the process even managed to reinstate some instances of incorrect and/or unsourced information which I had removed/corrected! To me that is simply malicious and most unhelpful!

For everything you write, you need a source. IMDB is not a reliable source but in any case if you WERE using that as a source it says that she was born in Cape Town NOT Johannesburg. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that summarizes what independent sources say about a subject, nothing I or you "know" is of interest unless it is supported by sources and you still haven't given us ANY sources for your content. Theroadislong (talk) 12:36, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Most of the pages in question have links to other sites, in particular to imdb. So I am not really sure what the problem is. Picking out one piece of information that does not currently correspond does not help. What about all of the other information that clearly does correspond and is all fully sourced?!! Nor does it take anything away from the sheer destruction of another person's work for your own personal gratification. Absurd!

OK you are clearly not reading or understanding any of the guidance above and it isn't possible to be unblocked until you do understand what you have done wrong. I am done here. Theroadislong (talk) 13:09, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Of course you're done. You've got exactly what you set out to obtain. The reinstating of incorrect and incomplete information; the destruction of others' precious contributions and updates, the blocking of a new user whose only intention was to add useful/helpful/correct information (all of which is sourced). Yes, I'd definitely agree that you're fully done here and assume that you are off looking for another new user right now in order to do the same thing over and over again. Pure lunacy!

This is the precise reason why just so much information on wikipedia is incorrect! And this is such a shame!

Hello, Dopenguins, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia, such as LikeGannets (talk · contribs). Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who use multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 19:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Block extended

Due to your abuse of multiple accounts, I have extended the duration of your block. Yunshui ^雲_水 10:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I personally do not have or operate multiple accounts. Dopenguins (talk) 10:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Your statement appears mendacious; you are using the same device from the same IP address in the same location to perform the same edits in the same timeslots as User:LikeGannets. The chances of that being a coincidence are effectively nil. Yunshui ^雲_水 10:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I personally do not have or operate multiple accounts. Dopenguins (talk)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

see above

Decline reason:

I don't believe you, not for a second. You are very, very quickly exhausting our patience here. Yamla (talk) 11:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

---

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.

I personally do not have or operate multiple accounts. Not really sure what you are implying or what part of my affirmation you do not understand. Dopenguins (talk) 11:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

There's no implication. I'm outright stating it. I don't believe you. There's no chance you aren't violating WP:SOCK and WP:BLOCK. Let's hope the next unblocking admin revokes your talk page access rather than just extending your block to an indefinite block, given your behaviour here. --Yamla (talk) 11:27, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I personally do not have or operate multiple accounts. Not really sure what part of that you do not understand. You are clearly a bully. Dopenguins (talk) 11:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

as previously mentioned in detail and at length several times Dopenguins (talk) 11:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Until you recognize the reason you were blocked, and admit to the use of multiple accounts, which has been proven, you will not have an unblock considered. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:38, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

---

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.

Block extended again (to indefinite), talkpage access revoked. We're generally fairly lenient if you 'fess up and agree a plan for making improvements going forward, but you have a) shown no indication that you understand why edit-warring is a problem (or even that you understand what it is), b) totally failed to address the BLP issues raised by other users, and c) openly lied about using multiple accounts. Yunshui ^雲_水 11:52, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Sue Wallace

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.

A tag has been placed on Sue Wallace requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 removed 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. Mean as custard (talk) 08:39, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dopenguins, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

GS ⋙ ☎ 04:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of John Rutland for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John Rutland is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Rutland until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Block evasion

April 2019

This user has continued to engage in extensive block evasion, including as recently as April, 2019. --Yamla (talk) 12:48, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

March 2020

Caught up in block evasion as LallyUpstairs in March 2020. Carl Fredrik ^talk 16:48, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dopenguins, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Passengerpigeon (talk) 05:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)