User talk:TheDreamBoat

TheDreamBoat, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi TheDreamBoat! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Worm That Turned (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Copying licensed material requires proper attribution

Hi. I see in a recent addition to Maryam Rajavi you included material from a webpage that is available under an Open Government Licence. That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this legal requirement when copying from compatibly-licensed material in the future. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:24, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A belated welcome!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, TheDreamBoat! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to insert your username and the date.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Empire AS ^Talk! 14:48, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling changes

Hello. In a recent edit to the page 1993–94 in English football, and numerous other artilces, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. - Arjayay (talk) 15:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

TheDreamBoat, I noticed you've been doing this again recently [1] [2].VR _talk 02:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1970s Topps

Hello, I am writing you because I wasn’t getting feedback by another individual who nominated some articles for deletion however you participated in the discussion. Unfortunately I was unavailable for the discussion. I would have preferred an improvement tag be used instead of a delete tag since it only gives you seven days to reply. I don’t have the luxury of getting here much anymore so projects went unimproved. You did state that Topps was not a notable company to which another used stated it was. I also feel it is notable because it meets the requirements. It has been the major producer of the products in it’s field which are not limited to trading cards. The company and it’s products are also mentioned in all forms of media, fiction and non-fiction, film, television, academic journal, law journal, and Wall Street journal. I would have like to bring some of that information to those articles. Libro0 (talk) 20:45, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. VR _talk 14:46, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because of this discussion, I have blocked you from editing AfDs and other Wikipedia space. Black Kite (talk) 17:16, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to comment on the issue at WP:ANI, please comment here (as you cannot edit that page). Black Kite (talk) 17:19, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Black Kite. Mhhossein accused me to be a sockpuppet a long time ago, and since then I don't think I have edited in Iranian topics. Now I'm blocked anyways because of "coordinated for tag-team" with another editor? because I started voting on AFDs around the same time? TheDreamBoat (talk) 08:30, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please, see this thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § Copy-paste votes at hundreds of AfDs. The block is only on the Wikipedia: namespace, and it is not for sockpuppetry, but for reckless, fast-paced, copy-paste votes at Articles for Deletion. The sockpuppet investigation, which is linked below, is a separate matter and it is still ongoing. MarioGom (talk) 17:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, in addition to the ANI report against TheDreamBoat and Rondolinda, there is also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TheDreamBoat, where multiple uninvolved users have commented.VR _talk 16:46, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a "sock" in Iran topics (or any other topic). This is clear because I stopped editing this topic after Mhhossein started harassing me about it. About my lazy votes I am sorry about this, but I didn't know this was bad editing. TheDreamBoat (talk) 10:22, 31 July 2021 (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).

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

Request reason:

I was blocked because I copy-pasted my votes in articles for deletion. I admit it was a lazy way of posting my votes, and I'm sorry. I did not know this was sanctionable though, but nevertheless I am sorry for my previous way of editing. It is not something I will do again. I know I can do better and I want to prove to the community here that I am able to contribute productively. TheDreamBoat (talk) 12:21, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 11:13, 24 October 2021 (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.

Unblock 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).

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

Request reason:

I understand why I was blocked, and this will not happen again. I should have taken more care in my votes at AfDs. I won't even edit AfDs anymore. I just want to focus on creating new articles and fix articles that have problems. If you allow me the opportunity, I will make my best effort to prove I can contribute productively to Wikipedia. TheDreamBoat (talk) 16:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Decline reason:

You can still edit Wikipedia articles. Your block only affects project space. Why don't you do that and then make an unblock request that references all that good edits you made? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:19, 11 November 2021 (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.

Please note post-1978 Iranian politics is subject to discretionary sanctions

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1978 Iranian politics. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

VR _talk 03:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic edits

I notice you've been making a lot of minor spelling changes. Some of the changes you've made are good. But I've also noticed that some of your minor edits are problematic.

You've modified the spelling inside quotes. Before you change the spelling inside a quote, do you verify that the source first? For example, in this edit you changed "Lord Jesus Christ Himself" to "Lord Jesus Christ himself" inside a quotation. But if we look at the source for the quotation[3], we see that it says "Lord Jesus Christ Himself". If a source is quoted, it needs to be quoted verbatim and you should not be correcting spelling mistakes inside quotations. Same thing here that I also corrected.
You actually tried to correct a spelling mistake in the title of a source. You changed "Syntagma of the evidences of the Christian religion" to "Syntagma of the evidence of the Christian religion". What gave you the idea that the name of the source is the latter? The url given in that citation shows the name was correct before you changed. WorldCat also indicates that the name of the source was correct before you changed it. Where do you get the new name from?
In this edit there used to be single quote marks surrounding "the one you told about the priority". But you removed the closing quotation mark while leaving the opening quotation mark. Am I missing something? Similar mistake made here.

Can I kindly request you stop trying to "fix" spelling mistakes for now? I don't know how many more mistakes are there and who will go back and clean up your edits. Please address the above concerns and wait for a response before continuing to "fix" more mistakes. Thanks, VR _talk 01:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging last three admins to comment on this page: @Black Kite:, @NinjaRobotPirate:, @Yamla:. See also this ANI thread.VR _talk 01:33, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

VR, these are 3 minor good faith mistakes (I'm sure you've made some yourself, but I'm not going to go through your edits looking for them even if we are currently disagreeing about the content of some articles). To make everything easier for the admins you've pinged, I will stop making spelling corrections. Thanks. TheDreamBoat (talk) 09:51, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above are just 5 (not 3) errors because I didn't have much time to look. So my questions to you remain: when you change spelling inside quotes, do you go back and check to make sure that's what the original source said? If yes, that's great! If not, can you please go back and check the sources for all the quotes you've changed? If you don't have access to sources, can you revert all such edits of yours? Finally, I'm looking through your edits not because of content disputes but because I've found WP:CIR issues in the past. Thanks, VR _talk 13:17, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vice regent: those are good faith errors that I will revert per your comments. It must have taken a long time to find those among them many good edits I have been making. Since we are in disagreement in some controversial pages, and you are now pinging admins about some spelling mistakes, I will stop making spelling corrections altogether and I will ask you to please not post on my talk page anymore. If you think there is a problem with my editing, you can take it to a Wiki noticeboard. Thanks. TheDreamBoat (talk) 12:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

indefinite topic-ban from the topic of People's Mujahedin of Iran, broadly construed

You have been sanctioned for clear proxying/meatpuppetry in the topic area (see Special:Diff/1063378194)

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian_politics#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:03, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I understand you can't comment at ANI. So if you comment below instead, I'm sure it will be read and possibly copied over.VR _talk 10:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2023

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet 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 sockpuppet, 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. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 00:52, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]