User talk:BoopedityBoop1

This is BoopedityBoop1's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Welcome![edit]

Hello, BoopedityBoop1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia
The Wikipedia Adventure (a fun interactive editing tutorial that takes about an hour)
Wikipedia Teahouse (a user-friendly help forum)
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Simplified Manual of Style
The Signpost, our newspaper.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! We are so glad you are here! CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:43, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

==Hi CASSIOPEIA,

I look forward to working with you to have the page submitted. Reece is, in my opinion, notable enough through both his representation of Conlan Press during the Peter S Beagle trial and his filmography. But I look forward to providing more information to prove that.

Your submission at Articles for creation: Reece Mack (July 1)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CASSIOPEIA was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of films, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

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:Reece Mack and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Reece Mack, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
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.

CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:13, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, BoopedityBoop1! Having an article 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! CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:13, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Reece Mack concern[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Reece Mack, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:22, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Reece Mack concern[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Reece Mack, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:24, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Reece Mack[edit]

Hello, BoopedityBoop1. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Reece Mack".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! HasteurBot (talk) 03:00, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Block notice[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. 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 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 ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:23, 8 October 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).

BoopedityBoop1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I only have one account and have been blocked for having multiple accounts. It would seem this was a retaliatory block from a user with multiple accounts who keeps vandalising a page because their actions seem to be anti-Chinese. Further to this, I've recently moved homes after completing my master's degree if that's why you're wondering where I've been for the past few months and why I have a different IP address. BoopedityBoop1 (talk) 18:30, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If it's not multiple accounts operated by a single person, you need to give us some explanation for what's going on in S.U.C.C.E.S.S. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:57, 9 October 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.

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).

BoopedityBoop1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The links to the CCP in SUCCESS' page seemed to be unnecessary and potentially caused by members of right-wing organizations. Linking this Canadian non-profit to the CCP doesn't make any sense other than pushing a political agenda and certainly not relevant to the organization. (BoopedityBoop1) 10:37, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

BoopedityBoop1, Wikipedia allows controversial topics and information to be included provided it is supported by reliable third party sources. The Vancouver Sun and The National Post, whether you agree with their stories or not, both constitute national sources and met the minimum requirements for inclusion. The rationale you provided in removing a cited part of the article was unsubstantiated and invalid. You failed to provide any evidence to support your accusations against other editors and even if you successfully called into question their character, you still failed to provide a legitimate rationale for removal. Furthermore, as with all controversial information on the article, you failed to follow even the basic Wikipedia protocols with respect to dispute resolution. Given that this article has received more edits, socking, and traffic in the past 30 days than it has in the past 5 years, and you have stated that you are familiar with the other editors involved with the article as well as their history of editing, I am inclined to support Ponyo's position that there are grounds for suspicion and probably meat puppetry. Editing Wikipedia is a privilege, not a right. As far as I can tell, it is an appropriate outcome that all recent editors involved in edit warring and POV pushing have been blocked. Mkdw ^talk 03:27, 25 October 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.

Noting that this is not a CU block and CU is inconclusive. This should be reviewed as a normal unblock request. Mkdw ^talk 06:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mkdw: I did indeed block as a checkuserblock, which is clearly noted in the block log.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:10, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo: Sorry, I seem to have missed that when I was reviewing. Putting this appeal on hold to consult. Mkdw ^talk 19:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mkdw: No problem, I was just confused as to whether I missed something. If it helps with the review I would have marked this as

Possible via SPI with a caveat that WP:MEAT was a distinct possibility as well. Checkuser was involved, mainly related to geolocation evidence, when is why I made it a checkuser block, but only tagged as suspected. This edit summary in relation to similar claims in the article edit history just a couple of weeks earlier was concerning. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:25, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo: ::@Mkdw: "mainly related to geolocation evidence". As noted in my initial reach out, I recently moved but I believe my access to Wikipedia has been within about 50kms total. Ponyo should know these areas as we're in a similar geographic area. "This edit summary in relation to similar claims in the article edit history just a couple of weeks earlier was concerning." That's understandable but the links and section I was editing were valid. The National Post article screamed of dog whistle politics and mentioned that SUCCESS had denounced China's violence, which goes against the accusation made in Wikipedia. Further to that, the Chinese government site was to assistance for Chinese citizens. SUCCESS does provide assistance to immigrants, including immigrants from China. The Jamestown.org article doesn't mention SUCCESS once so isn't a valid link. All in all, the accusations made there are not worthy of being on Wikipedia. Finally, I find it awfully suspicious Ponyo that I was blocked very quickly after my edits were reverted by Amigao so much so I wonder if you're sockpuppeting yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoopedityBoop1 (talk • contribs)

Suspicious edits are automatically flagged in the system. Most vandalism is reverted in a matter of seconds on the English Wikipedia. If you notice the bolded red text beside your edits, it means it was quite literally red flag. Furthermore, Ponyo is one of the most experienced and trusted checkusers and administrators on the English Wikipedia. If you are going to accuse someone of socking, you had best be sure you have credible evidence to support your claim.

As for your appeal, have you edited the English Wikipedia using multiple accounts either before or after your move? Mkdw ^talk 17:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mkdw: ::@Ponyo: I respect I was out of line with my comment there. Please note my apologies for expressing my frustrations in that manner and thank you for explaining the process regarding the process of red flags. Regarding the use of multiple accounts, the answer is no. I don't have multiple accounts to use nor would I use them. I have just this one account that I use to make edits as I see them on Wikipedia when I'm bored. I'm not very good at it but I enjoy the process of researching and learning and hope my efforts help out people even if that's just 0.001% of visitors. With regards to my SUCCESS edits, what do you think about my thought process regarding the connection to the CCP that seems unsubstantiated? BoopedityBoop1 ^talk 21:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mkdw: Accusing me of meatpuppeting without evidence seems unnecessary in order to actually resolve this issue. Considering that you had noted previous users who had edited the page, it was reasonable for me to refer to the same. Please re-review my request. BoopedityBoop1 ^talk 18:30, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]