DantheWikipedian

Edit summaries

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! --AntientNestor (talk) 08:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

August 2023

Hello, I'm Neveselbert. I noticed that you recently removed content from Spouse of the prime minister of the United Kingdom without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 16:35, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Records of prime ministers of the United Kingdom, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. —Bruce1ee^talk 17:38, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at List of prime ministers of the United Kingdom by age, you may be blocked from editing. pburka (talk) 20:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Robert Walpole, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Whig. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Copyright problem: Augustus FitzRoy, 3rd Duke of Grafton

Hello DantheWikipedian! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Augustus FitzRoy, 3rd Duke of Grafton, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted material from other websites or printed works. This article appears to contain work copied from http://www.historyhome.co.uk/c-eight/ministry/graftmin.htm, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate your contributions, copying content from other websites is unlawful and against Wikipedia's copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are likely to lose their editing privileges.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

• Have the author release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License (CC BY-SA 4.0) by leaving a message explaining the details at Talk:Augustus FitzRoy, 3rd Duke of Grafton and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-enwikimedia.org". Make sure they quote the exact page name, Augustus FitzRoy, 3rd Duke of Grafton, in their email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If you hold the copyright to the work: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Augustus FitzRoy, 3rd Duke of Grafton. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA), version 4.0", or that the work is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Talk:Augustus FitzRoy, 3rd Duke of Grafton with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse.

It may also be necessary for the text to be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

See Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries for a template of the permissions letter the copyright holder is expected to send.

Otherwise, you may rewrite this article from scratch. If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Augustus FitzRoy, 3rd Duke of Grafton saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! — Diannaa (talk) 20:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

This is an false alarm. I did not copy any text or information from any websites and I simply wrote down the facts in my notebook and entirely rewrote the article on my own. Please do not come to serious conclusions until you have heard the other side of the story. Thank you. DantheWikipedian (talk) 06:16, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Adding copyright material to William Grenville, 1st Baron Grenville

Your edit to William Grenville, 1st Baron Grenville has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information.

There are four verbatim paragraphs, no evidence of "re-writing the article on your own" this time. Sorry. --AntientNestor (talk) 07:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Another verbatim copyvio

Your edit to Charles Watson-Wentworth, 2nd Marquess of Rockingham has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. --AntientNestor (talk) 09:36, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Again, I did not copy anything from any websites. I just wrote down facts and rewrote on Wikipedia. Please do not accuse me of wrongdoing. DantheWikipedian (talk) 12:35, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Again, I did not copy anything from any websites. I just wrote down facts and rewrote on Wikipedia. Please do not accuse me of wrongdoing. DantheWikipedian (talk) 12:42, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

You just added the following sentence to Charles Watson-Wentworth, 2nd Marquess of Rockingham: "In domestic politics, the Rockingham government involved themselves in the parliamentary reform movement, but not always with real enthusiasm and not really as a united group." Are these your own words? The exact same wording appears in the 2007 Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. pburka (talk) 13:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Look, I didn’t copy. All I did read the article on ODNB and did wrote the same facts as in the ODNB article. Do you can’t accuse me of anything. I didn’t directly copy and paste from that article. DantheWikipedian (talk) 14:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

You used exactly the same words. That's a copyvio whether you copy and pasted it or retyped it. pburka (talk) 14:58, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

It is very exhausting to tell a single thing for so many times, so let me be clear: I didn’t copy or paste nor I retyped the thing. I wrote down the facts on a notebook and wrote them on my own. Please do ask me about this again. DantheWikipedian (talk) 15:03, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't matter how you did it. You used the exact same words as the source. You mustn't do that. If you continue to contribute text that's identical to, or very similar to, the source material you will be blocked. pburka (talk) 15:05, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

@DantheWikipedian: For comparison, here are the links: the ODNB text is here (start at "Reform"); your disputed addition is here. Comment?--AntientNestor (talk) 15:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

This is as if I copied and pasted it. No I didn’t copied it. I wrote down facts from the very website that you sent a link from in a notebook and rewrote them on my own. Don’t ask me about me this again. DantheWikipedian (talk) 15:30, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Please don't copy material from elsewhere online

Hello. I am Diannaa and I am a Wikipedia administrator. Prose you find online is almost always copyright, and cannot be copied here; it's against the copyright policy of this website to do so. All prose must be written in your own words. The Wikipedia copyright policy and its application are complex matters, and you should not edit any more until you have taken the time to read and understand our copyright policy. There's a simplified version of our copyright rules at Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright. Further copyright issues will result in you being blocked from editing. — Diannaa (talk) 12:40, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

You have removed some information and two images that were in the article before I started editing the George Grenville article in the subsection “colonial reform”. Please at least restore those two before removing any information that I wrote. Thank you. DantheWikipedian (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

August 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating copyright policy by copying text or images into Wikipedia from another source without evidence of permission, as you did at George Grenville. Please take this opportunity to ensure that you understand our copyright policy and our policies regarding how to use non-free content.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.   — Diannaa (talk) 19:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Some of the content you re-added to George Grenville was a match for material found in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography and at Encyclopedia.com. Therefore have blocked your account, because in spite of repeated warnings, you continued to add copyright material to Wikipedia in violation of our copyright policy. You cannot resume editing until you provide a statement describing how copyright applies to Wikipedia, show that you understand our copyright policy, and make a commitment to follow it in the future. — Diannaa (talk) 19:35, 19 August 2023 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Okay, if you want or don’t want to recognise my claims about not copying that’s fine. But blocking is not a away of addressing this. You removed some content that I wrote myself and myself alone. But permanently blocking me from editing is a violation of my editorial rights and I think it should be removed immediately. But thing will be that I won’t no longer edit because of the constant removal of my content and hard work. Please unblock me. Thank you. DantheWikipedian (talk) 20:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Blocking is the only way we have to prevent you from continuing your copyright infringement. How can you claim this is not copied from this? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 20:42, 19 August 2023 (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.

A Call to Remove the Block In My account

Remove this block. I won’t edit longer, thanks to you. I just want my account back. At least have the decency to do that. DantheWikipedian (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

A Call to Remove the Block on My Account

I told you I won’t any pages or articles and that I won’t do. So unblock my account. DantheWikipedian (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Why, if you're not going to edit? And more to the point, why, if you intend to continue copyright violations? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 20:49, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

By not editing, I won’t be able to continue copyright. DantheWikipedian (talk) 20:57, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

At least now consider removing this block. It is a serious denial of access to this website. DantheWikipedian (talk) 20:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

No. You are not being denied any access, except the access to edit and thus to continue the copyright violations. Drmies (talk) 21:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

This edit looks like block evasion and suggests that you're not inclined to stop.--AntientNestor (talk) 21:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Why is it so hard for you to remove a block even when I say I won’t continue copyright violations by not editing any more. At least be a person and consider removing this block. DantheWikipedian (talk) 21:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I would stop and promise to do so. Remove the block. Please. Thank you. DantheWikipedian (talk) 21:26, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Then remove the block. Why are you waiting?

I told you I won’t continue copyright and said that I won’t even edit any pages. Are you even considering what I’m saying? DantheWikipedian (talk) 21:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

How many times do I have to tell you that I won’t continue copyright violations and even if I did something that was wrong in your view, I’m sorry. Now consider removing this block immediately. Again sorry for continuing copyright violations and I won’t do that again and also I won’t even edit anything. DantheWikipedian (talk) 21:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Your edits to Wikipedia were not constructive. You are putting the project at risk by continuing to copy text from copyright sources and creating work for other editors to clean up the mess. You don't seem to understand why your behavior was disruptive and that you violated important policies. If your block is ever to be lifted, you need to clearly demonstrate that you understand what copying means, as you seem to incorrectly believe that you've found a loophole around copyright by "writing down the facts on a notebook" and then typing the exact same text into Wikipedia, without even citing the sources you copied from! pburka (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I still don’t understand. I even apologised and said that I won’t do that in the future. Okay if you want me to understand copyright violations, I took sometime to look at them and realise that I was wrong about it. I also accept the fact that I didn’t recognised the policies of this website before. Now I understand. It took sometime to realise it. I just didn’t knew that even writing the same facts down on a notebook from another source was copyright until now. So now I know. I was previously trying to undo the right thing because I believed that my work is being removed and now I know it is for a good reason. DantheWikipedian (talk) 21:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay, yes I accept that I am wrong about copyright violations and I won’t do it again in the future. So I ask you kindly remove this block. DantheWikipedian (talk) 15:14, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

A Call to remove the Block from my account

Please remove the block. Please DantheWikipedian (talk) 22:16, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Remove this block please

I understand my mistake in violating copyright policies and I promise not to do that and follow accordingly to Wikipedia guidelines. I sincerely apologise for my wrongdoing and I also promise to do none of this ever again. Thank you. DantheWikipedian (talk) 15:13, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Someone please remove this block. Don’t make people wait like this. Your wasting time. I said I won’t violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines ever again and have reluctantly accepted that my behaviour was disruptive and I actions were wrong. Remove this block. DantheWikipedian (talk) 15:20, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

A CALL ON DIANNAA TO REMOVE THE BLOCK

Hey Diannaa, you have blocked for a good reason and I understand that I want you to protect Wikipedia from disruptive editing and I accept that my actions were against your guidelines and I promise to never to do that again. Remove this block. DantheWikipedian (talk) 15:27, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Remove this block

How many times do I have to tell you to remove this block. I repeatedly said I won’t continue to violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines for this article or any article and that I won’t do again in the future. Remove this block now. DantheWikipedian (talk) 15:44, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

One time, if you adequately describe what you will do instead of copyvios and if you use the unblock request template. And telling us to do anything will likely garner a negative reaction. You don't give orders here. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:53, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I will write and do my own research and not copy information or facts from anywhere else in the internet and if I use anything from the internet will cite the place or website from which I took the information. DantheWikipedian (talk) 17:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I will write and do my own research and not copy information or facts from anywhere else in the internet and if I use anything from the internet will cite the place or website from which I took the information. DantheWikipedian (talk) 17:09, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #77619

is closed. (Likely it was an impostor at UTRS. The ticket was not verified.) User will please specifically describe how they will not add copyvios to Wikipedia. And please use the unblock request template instead of these useless calls to be unblocked. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:50, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I did that already. It didn’t work. Why can’t you remove the block? I already stated what I would do instead of copyvios. DantheWikipedian (talk) 17:11, 20 August 2023 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

I said that I would do my own research and write facts on my own rather than copying text from elsewhere online. I also said that I won’t do it in the future and also to never to do it again. I understand that my actions and my behaviour were disruptive and caused damage to Wikipedia and violated Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I will follow them accordingly in the future. And because of reasons like this I think O should be unblocked. Thank you. DantheWikipedian DantheWikipedian (talk) 17:18, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Creating another account to try to get unblocked isn't the best idea. Talk page access revoked. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 18:00, 20 August 2023 (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.

DantheWikipedian (talk) 17:18, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 23

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Augustus FitzRoy, 3rd Duke of Grafton

added links pointing to Patriot Party and Henry Luttrell

William Grenville, 1st Baron Grenville

added a link pointing to Board of Control

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Blocked for sockpuppetry

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DantheWikipedian. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

---

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 submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.

---

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.

Girth Summit _(blether) 15:08, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

UTRS appeal #77948

is closed. UTRS banned. Noting check user block. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:57, 29 August 2023 (UTC)