User talk:Dennis Dartman

Welcome

Hello, Dennis Dartman, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! KylieTastic (talk) 14:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started

• Introduction
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Intuitive guide to Wikipedia

Finding your way around

• Table of contents
• Directories and indexes
• Department directory

Editing articles

• How to develop an article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Getting help

• Frequently asked questions
• Cheatsheet
• Our help forum for new editors, the Teahouse
• The Help Desk, for more advanced questions
• Help pages
• Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles

How you can help

• Community Portal
• Join a WikiProject
• Follow Wikipedia etiquette
• Practice civility
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Again... Hi, Wikipedians!

Please post whatever below.

Living in the Eastside moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Living in the Eastside, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Hughesdarren (talk) 12:17, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources and "original research"

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in your recent edit to Nikolai Obukhov, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. I understand that it is frustrating when it is obvious to you that what you say is true -- but Wikipedia's policy on verifiability is there to ensure that others can determine this came from a reliable source. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 14:24, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Fantasy for Piano Op. 77 (August 13)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by KylieTastic 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 after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Fantasy for Piano Op. 77 and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

KylieTastic (talk) 14:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dennis Dartman! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation 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! KylieTastic (talk) 14:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of G47 Nenjiang–Dandong Expressway for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article G47 Nenjiang–Dandong Expressway 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/G47 Nenjiang–Dandong Expressway until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:16, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to fix this

Hey. You might want to amend this reply. Despite what Kiwi Farms may ardently wish others to believe, Keffals is a woman and uses she/her pronouns. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:08, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have pinged u on that page to say the same thing Stephanie921 (talk) 04:13, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no! I'm so sorry! I support Keffals' hard work (and don't support the farms). I fixed it. It happens to the best of us, I guess, but again, sorry! Dennis Dartman (talk) 04:16, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay, and ty for correcting it. I don't understand what you mean by "it happens to the best of us I guess" and would appreciate if u elaborated on that though Stephanie921 (talk) 04:21, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just wasn't careful, and I'm fully conscious of my mistake. Keffals is not a "man" with a deadname no matter how much the KiwiFarmers and other transphobes would like to say. And no, transphobes, this isn't the win you think it is! Dennis Dartman (talk) 04:45, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing it Dennis. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:22, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion invitation: Gua bao

Hello, Dennis Dartman. You have new messages at Talk:Gua bao#Disputed.
Message added 05:18, 17 October 2022 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

YesOnO (talk) 05:18, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 2022

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

---

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

---

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

GeneralNotability (talk) 18:16, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

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

---

Request reason:

@GeneralNotability: Not really sure why I have received a notification that I'm now blocked? And what does "GHBH" even mean? This is actually my only account and I have no idea who User:Hank Benson or User:Flora Wilshire are, who are referenced in the block message. I only make constructive edits about topics that I am personally interested in, for free, and would never even think of disrupting Wikipedia. (P.S. I edit on the Wi-Fi of a large public university if that factors into anything. Should I look into using a VPN instead?) Dennis Dartman (talk) 23:20, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Technical evidence indicates quite clearly that you have indeed engaged in sockpuppetry. Accordingly, I am declining this request. Just to be clear: As long as you are blocked, you may not edit Wikipedia with any account or IP, VPN or not. --Blablubbs (talk) 11:39, 20 November 2022 (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.

Not that I'm responding, for truly assessing the correctness of this block requires access to checkuser, but GHBH means: "[u]sing one account for constructive contributions and the other one for vandalism or other types of disruptive editing." Daniel Case (talk) 07:33, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would add(with the same caveat) that using a VPN to make edits is generally not permitted. 331dot (talk) 08:16, 20 November 2022 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Just to be clear, I have 0 alternate accounts and am planning to create none, and I would be very interested in knowing the specifics of the "quite clear technical evidence" in question preventing an unblock. Again, I edit at a university, so if any of my fellow classmates are also Wikipedia editors in their spare time, I promise I'm not aware of it. Dennis Dartman (talk) 13:48, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

In the light of what has been said below, I have to decline your request. JBW (talk) 18:21, 20 November 2022 (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.

EDIT: Bruh, I just checked one of the user's profiles and they aren't even from the U.S... Dennis Dartman (talk) 13:51, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis, assuming that you mean another account has a user page stating that they aren't from the U.S., whereas you are, that means absolutely nothing whatever, because claiming that accounts are based in countries other than where they really are is one of the very commonest tricks used by sockpuppeteers. Also, while I don't have access to the checkuser information, I am sure that those who do are able to make informed decisions about that.

@Blablubbs and GeneralNotability: How certain is the CU evidence? Is it plausible that Dennis Dartman's explanation of editing from a university where others may edit too may be correct? Judging by editing history, without access to CU information, the other two accounts look to me like ducks, but Dennis doesn't look obviously connected. ( CheckUser is not magic pixie dust) JBW (talk) 17:52, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: The technical connection between these accounts is substantially deeper than could be plausibly explained by them simply sharing an institutional network. --Blablubbs (talk) 18:06, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gah, I mixed up 331dot and JBW – apologies for the unnecessary ping. --Blablubbs (talk) 18:18, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JBW, very solid CU evidence, much better than "same range," which is what clinched this for me; there are technical indicators that solidly connect this account to one of the other two beyond coincidental overlap on the same IP(s). GeneralNotability (talk) 18:07, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GeneralNotability, Blablubbs OK, thanks for that clarification, both of you. JBW (talk) 18:19, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]