User talk:Domthedude001

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.
Start a new talk topic.

This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot. Any threads with no replies in 10 days may be automatically moved to User talk:Domthedude001/Archive. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Domthedude001. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

January 2017

Hello, I'm Exemplo347. I noticed that you recently removed some content from James R. Fouts ‎ 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 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. Thanks. Exemplo347 (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock review 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).

Domthedude001 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Did not use sockpuppet accounts or contribute to vandalism. Had an edit reverted, and then banned indefinitely. Please advise. --Domthedude001 13:35, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Clear vandalism and likely sockpuppetry. Block endorsed. Yamla (talk) 13:50, 14 March 2017 (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).

Domthedude001 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understand that sockpuppetry may appear likely. However, this is not the case. Please see the edit in question. This IP address for this edit was from a public Starbucks in Michigan, which is located in the geographic area that the mayor is from. This is a misunderstanding, and I would really appreciate it if this was taken a closer look at again. My first contribution on this account was in 2005, and I have not vandalized nor used sockpuppet accounts. --Domthedude001 14:03, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

So if other accounts weren't you, how come you returned after months of absence and jumped straight into an edit war, making the same questionable edit? This doesn't make sense. Max Semenik (talk) 01:29, 15 March 2017 (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.

Proposed deletion of Jennifer Howell

The article Jennifer Howell has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

three old references from the same year 2008. Howell in only mentionned in the text, but is not the main "point" of the article. Also paid contribution according to this user https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Jhofferman

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]