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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

@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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

@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)

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)

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

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

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

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)

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)

Khan Shaykhun chemical attack

Hi Dan, please can you provide evidence to support your reversion to "the position of the Syrian government changed on numerous occasions"? You have provided no RS to show that the Syrian government changed its position at all, let alone "on numerous occasions". You saying "its story about what happened did change" isn't evidence I'm afraid and does not justify the reversion. As far as I'm aware, their position was always that the chemical attack was fabricated. It is not necessary to believe their claims to report them accurately. The Russian military initially seemed to imply, but did not state, that a rebel cache of chemical weapons might have been hit, but that was based on their admission of a raid that took place between 11.30 and 12.30 and it was never, to my knowledge, a suggestion put forward by the Syrian government. Once it was accepted that the incident occurred before 7am, the Russians went with the Syrian story that the incident was a 'fabricated' attack or, as they put it, a 'provocation'. Here is the Syrian government's facebook page from 4 April 2017, the day of the attack. It says, "Less than 48 hours of half of the enemies in the West announcing the "shift of priorities in Syria" the "rebels" come again to remind everyone how dirty our enemy is, using children and fabrications ... even in the worst days the Syrian military never used such weapons". Then, over a week later Assad again claimed the attack was "fabricated" in an interview. If you can provide RS for your claim that their view changed on numerous occasions, fine, but if not, your reversion cannot stand. I don't want to waste too much time on this, because this is a straightforward matter of fact, not interpretation. Either evidence exists that the Syrian government changed its mind over whether or not it was a fabrication or it doesn't. Kiwicherryblossom (talk) 09:36, 27 December 2018 (UTC)