User talk:Dean wilkinson79

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Dean wilkinson79, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits to the page Ahmed al-Assir have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may be removed if they have not yet been. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles. Additionally, all new biographies of living people must contain at least one reliable source.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Flyer22 (talk) 07:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Middle East Eye[edit]

Please do not keep removing cited sources. If one takes issue with particular content, please engage on the article's talk page with interested parties so a consensus can reached on the matter. Continued reverting may result in being blocked, which is not desirable should one wish to contribute to the project going forward. Also: one may find it helpful to review: WP:Citation templates or WP:Cheat sheet for common formatting tips (WP:CITEGEN is also quite helpful). If need anything else, just give a shout on my talk page or with {{U}}, which'll notify me of replies. Thank you. -- dsprc ^[talk] 10:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why are my cited sources being removed then? Dean wilkinson79 (talk) 10:38, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not for me to say as I'm not the individual who did so (I've no problem with them). That is why you should engage on the article's talk page to sort it out if there is a content dispute (my user page has some info on dealing with this; if require more info, I'm happy to provide). What I did do however, was to go behind you and clean up those messy, ill-crafted citations so they are correctly formatted, and then you reverted that too for absolutely no reason; which is just silly. (Please stop that, it is annoying) Namaste. -- dsprc ^[talk] 10:47, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok got but I would appreciate if you stop them from doing so. They have been playing around with the page and removing sources since yesterday. It seems I had them mixed up with yourself Dean wilkinson79 (talk) 11:49, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit to Middle East Eye[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you removed some content from Middle East Eye without 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; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Materialscientist (talk) 23:59, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hello, yes i did edit it and it was not a mistake. not sure why you are accusing MEE without even providing much evidence especially your insistence of negative accusations. Please explain why Dean wilkinson79 (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia 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 the sandbox for that. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 00:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Middle East Eye has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Middle East Eye was changed by Dean wilkinson79 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.850245 on 2017-11-22T19:00:04+00:00 .

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 19:00, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Middle East Eye[edit]

1) You're making a mess of the article. 2) You're not using the talk page to discuss your changes.

You're very close to getting blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies but someone is trying to defame MEE. There has been a recent attack by Saudi and UAE and their proxies against what they accuse of being funded by Qatar.

Thank you

This makes little sense and as you continued to make the same edit despite being warned, I have blocked you for 72 hours. Repeating the same behavior after this block expires will result in longer reblocks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:51, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask you how it made sense though that the other person is also editing and you did not block him?

You block me yet you cannot answer trwo questions:

1) Why you did not block the other person who is also editing. 2) Why you chose to keep his version and not mine.

Seems biased to me. Is there another admin I can write to instead of you who is obviously unprofessional and cannot answer my questions.

You had ample warnings and still insisted on making a mess of the article without acknowledging you were making a mess. After you were blocked, you switched to a different account and continued your disruption. Therefore you are blocked indefinitely as other editors shouldn't have to deal with disruptive single purpose accounts. Instructions on how to appeal are contained in the block message. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:49, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What you said does not answer my question. I also made other versions where the articles were not a mess and had all the right stuff in there including references. So can you please stop running away from my questions? Why did you decide to leave the other version? This is the 2nd time I ask and you cannot even answer. If it was about a mess, then please put down the version where it was not a mess and I am willing to send it to you if you are genuine. Dean wilkinson79 (talk) 07:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about other editors. This is about the sockpuppets you used and continue to use. You can make unblock requests (instructions below) telling us how you will change your editing behavior. Another post like the above and I will revoke talk page access. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:20, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you only respond only when someone insults you? is that how it works? You continue to ignore my questions and you are proving you are not being professional. Why did you keep their version? how did you come to that? and why did you block me indefinitely rather than temporarily? you are not answering my questions Dean wilkinson79 (talk) 20:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not want to appeal the block but instead I want to reason with you. I even removed my earlier comment. I am providing proper references and trying to remove the fact that some people are trying to defame MEE. Can you please lift the block? I will stick to the rules. Plus I know that admins should not be biased towards anyone during a content war. Thanks Dean wilkinson79 (talk) 17:24, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

November 2017[edit]

Your recent editing history at Middle East Eye shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach a dead end, you can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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} 13:46, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:43, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]