User talk:Alinamackie

Welcome!

Hello, Alinamackie!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, Valereee (talk) 18:17, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please use edit summaries

Edit summaries are useful for letting other editors know what your reasoning is for the edit. It helps others avoid wasting their time. Valereee (talk) 18:18, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ok Alinamackie (talk) 18:26, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement tags

Repeatedly removing maintenance tags as you're doing at Ellie Moon is disruptive. If you would like to add new sources, or better yet suggest sources that might be useful for discussion at Talk:Ellie Moon/Archive 1#removal of tags, that is fine and encouraged. However, edit warring to remove the tags is not. Please stop doing so. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:45, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is my last request that you stop removing tags and discuss. If you continue to do so I will block you from editing, as it is disruptive and not helping fix the sourcing problems at that page. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 18:51, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realise that was improper, my mistake. I was responding to comments left in the article by Valereee. It's very strange and feels like it is in bad faith to leave comments like "this proves this happened but it doesn't prove it was significant to her career", etc. Alinamackie (talk) 19:00, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alinamackie, you really need to go to talk and discuss with me. We have a definition of WP:Vandalism here that doesn't include what I've been doing. Valereee (talk) 19:03, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

removing factual information with reliable sources does constitute vandalism Alinamackie (talk) 19:10, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 2023

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:42, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you are new to editing, and that the difference Wikipedia makes between facts that are simply verifiable (for example, that a product exists) and ones that are noteworthy enough to be included (for example, that independent reliable sources have described said product) can take a little bit of time to get used to. But that does not mean that editors who are working to improve articles that simply establish the former and not the latter are vandalizing or acting in bad faith.

What is bad faith is repeatedly removing tags after being instructed that it is disruptive, repeatedly accusing other editors of acting in bad faith without cause, and logging out to attempt to avoid scrutiny on your disruptive edits. Please take a break and — should you decide to return to this page after the block expires — adjust your behavior when you return. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

but if I have added independent third party sources, like reviews, how are those tags relevant or useful? Alinamackie (talk) 19:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenance tags can be removed after it is agreed that they are no longer needed. However, a source that you think is reliable may not be agreed to be reliable more widely, which is why you should wait for others to agree the issue is resolved. Logging out to continue doing it, however, is blatantly unacceptable. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:51, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't log out, I've been here this whole time Alinamackie (talk) 19:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

and if you say reviews are acceptable sources, so I add some, and take away the tag, I'm not clear why that's grounds to block me. Alinamackie (talk) 19:54, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to appeal the block via the instructions in the template above, if you like, but repeated disruption after multiple warnings is more than enough grounds for a block. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:57, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

there weren't multiple warnings and I did what you asked - I added reputable sources, and so removed irrelevant tags, I didn't realise I wasn't supposed to. You just said to add sources like the globe, which I did. If you don't have a subscription so can't read beyond the paywall, that's kinda your problem. It's a newspaper with a readership of millions. Alinamackie (talk) 20:05, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

and now I can't add any more, when there are many more to add Alinamackie (talk) 20:05, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose as a Canadian who follows the arts scene here, I find some of this kind of offensive. We wouldn't question why it is noteworthy that Michelle Williams did Britney's audiobook. Claudia Dey and Ellie Moon are really well-known and respected artists here. Alinamackie (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't questioned because there is a reliable, third party source used at Michelle Williams (actress)#2017–present: Mainstream films, Fosse/Verdon, and marriages. The same is needed for Moon's page, regardless of how well-known she may be in Canada. I would think that if she is as well-known and respected as you are stating, it would be trivial to find high-quality, third-party reliable sources (not user-generated content, not sources that don't even mention Moon like [1], but sources like the Globe and Mail source you added) to establish noteworthiness. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 19:55, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was adding them - until I was blocked, and actually that source does mention Moon, I guess you didn't really read it all. Alinamackie (talk) 19:58, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

for example the play at the Tarragon appears on an actor who was in it's wiki page, Dakota Ray Hebert. I was trying to use the same source but I got blocked, for adding sources Alinamackie (talk) 19:59, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what source you're talking about at Hebert? FWIW, the fact a source is used on a WP page doesn't mean it's a good source. Every day people come in and add bad sources, and sometimes it takes a while for them to get discovered. Valereee (talk) 20:07, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

you said Globe was reputable source, I added it, then removed the tag saying it needed a reputable source and got blocked. Seems to be no winning here.

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Dakota_Ray_Hebert Alinamackie (talk) 20:08, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

there is reference to Moon's play here, she is even tagged lol Alinamackie (talk) 20:08, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a source to TGADM? Maybe it was an edit conflict that wasn't obvious? Valereee (talk) 20:10, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

yes and Gorilla warfare claimed she didn't appear in one of the sources...but she does. You just have to click it and read (and I guess have a subscription, which I do, but so do millions of other people) Alinamackie (talk) 20:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

and then I'm blocked so I can't even add the sources you say you need, interesting, that... Alinamackie (talk) 20:13, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

there are sources like the globe, deadline, variety, that I can't even add now. Alinamackie (talk) 20:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, signing off, go have a drink or a massage or whatever works for you, let's discuss tomorrow. Valereee (talk) 20:15, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have never signed out to make edits. I am requesting I be unblocked and not accused of that. Alinamackie (talk) 20:02, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The instructions to request an unblock are on the template above. You'll need to use the {{unblock}} template to alert an uninvolved administrator that you're making the request. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:08, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

or I could just enjoy the sunshine Alinamackie (talk) 20:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ok - and if the goal really is more information, I can provide links here like to deadline, variety, the globe, and you can add them. But when I added them they were just removed - so it seems like there is something else happening Alinamackie (talk) 20:37, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You did not add any Deadline or Variety sources to the article. Your addition of the Globe and Mail source remains. Regarding the NYT source mentioned above, I have access to the full article; it does not mention Ellie Moon.

No one is going to proxy your edits over the the article; you can either wait for the block to expire or ask to be unblocked per the instructions I pointed you towards. If you do the former, please note that continued disruptive editing is likely to only result in another block. If you do the latter, please note that you will need to indicate you understand why you were blocked, and I'm not convinced you do given your references to being blocked for adding sources.

Regarding "something else happening", we are all on the same team here about trying to improve the article. However, without constructive collaboration, that becomes very difficult. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:33, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

amI blocked Alinamackie (talk) 14:17, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See the new block notice below. Thanks. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:30, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Adult Adoption (film) (November 12)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by WikiOriginal-9 was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of films). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

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:Adult Adoption (film) 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.

WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 20:54, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Alinamackie! 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! WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 20:54, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #81018

is closed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 2023

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 review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:42, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wut? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[2] GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 21:55, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]