User talk:Altonydean

Welcome!

Hi Altonydean! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024: Concerning bias and partisan editing on Wikipedia by editors at Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How can you expect me to calm down when all they do is out-right shut down reasonable opinions just because of their partisan bias towards a specific candidate and his campaign? It is blatantly obvious that it is heavily edited by editors with a partisan political agenda and it should not continue. If Wikipedia is the shining example of how neutral and unbiased information is represented, why are we allowing these types of people to further edit this page with total disregard for non-partisan content? Altonydean (talk) 12:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:CIV as your accusations are way out of line. As for the statement in your deleted post : "There is no mention of the assassination attempt on Trump, which happened due to prejudiced and polarised attitudes towards the former president from uninformed and misleading statements by people who were not aware of the consequences", there are two problems with this. First, it is already in the article in three locations, in multiple additional articles, and even has its own article devoted to the subject. Secondly, no one knows the shooter's motivations at this point and we do not include speculation. There is a third point I won't mention. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For goodness sake, cut the bare-faced dodging and face the reality of your wrongdoing. Merely “mentioning” it doesn’t convey the significance of that event. It should be written plain simple in a new section. I don’t what to edit that page due to the fact that some editors might be more than offended by common sense. The article, which is literally about Donald Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign, shouldn’t be written in a way that is plainly against him and which is mainly edited by people who might have clear sympathies towards the Democratic Party narrative. This is not about whether Trump’s election campaign is being treated unfair or anything (although it is) and even if you don’t like him, you shouldn’t edit a encyclopaedia article in your own perspective. Editing a page about a person who is already being made a controversial figure, this issue should be addressed with a strong focus on neutrality and non-partisan sources. This does not remotely reflect on any of my previous statements. You’re just repeating lines basically. Multiple people at that page clearly said that it is quote “ludicrously biased”, “outright media bias”, “unreliable”. This is the same old example of defending the indefensible until it either goes away or suppressed. Altonydean (talk) 14:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if I respond I'd just be goading you into yet more incivility. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

The template doesn't say it outright, but I will. Accusing editors of "defending the indefensible" and failing to understand what you're saying "out of [their] own ignorance" is not acceptable. American politics has always been a hot-button topic on Wikipedia, which makes following our behavior norms all the more important in that topic area. — Callitropsis🌲[talk · contribs] 22:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration

@Altonydean Would you like me to help you in any way (though I am a student and find it difficult to be active on a regular basis)? By the way, how did you come across Tim's name? Looking forward to your response and anticipating our future collaborations. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 18:59, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Premiership of Robert Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool has been accepted

Premiership of Robert Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as B-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a fantastic rating for a new article, and places it among the top 3% of accepted submissions — major kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Robert McClenon (talk) 05:39, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New message from Neveselbert

Hello, Altonydean. You have new messages at Neveselbert's talk page.
Message added 23:41, 21 August 2024 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hi Altonydean, would you mind sharing your thoughts? Thanks, ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 23:41, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, @Neveselbert I think that since everyone has their own view of what improvements are needed and what changes should be made, I give you and anyone who seek to improve and edit it even better my full support. There are some parts of the article that lack credible information about particular events or policies and it needs expansion and new content. So, yes, I think that every change you propose is urgently needed to get this article to Good Article status and I’m more than happy to lend you my help and support. Thank you. Altonydean (talk) 12:33, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, in that case, I'll have a look at removing those sections. In future though, please bear in mind WP:PATT whenever you copy and paste text from one page to another. You must provide attribution in the edit summary as described. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:46, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the sections in Robert Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool which match those included in the new article. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 22:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Look, @Neveselbert I know you’re trying to help me in updating and gradually better changing the new article Premiership of Robert Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool into Good Article and I hugely appreciate your efforts. Keep in mind that, I have no grudge or plain indifference towards you and also that I’m very grateful that you have been able to advise me through this process. But, I do really think that copying original content from an article and pasting it on another is inherently not quite right. I think that the right course of action is we try and make new improvements based on new sources and new information rather than use the old. So in that respect, I have reverted the edits. No animosity or dislike, I just did it not because I was angry over the removal of the original content but because I felt it was wrong to do so and also because it felt like a sort of injustice to other editors who also made edits to that page. Perhaps, we and especially me should try to edit other articles instead of the same thing. Anyways, please don’t take this as a sign of bad will. Many thanks. Altonydean (talk) 07:56, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I didn't copy and paste original content from the article to another. Instead, I removed content from the main article that had already been copied to the premiership article to avoid duplication. I also made sure to attribute the contributions of previous editors in my edit summary, ensuring proper credit was given. No hard feelings at all, and I look forward to continuing our work together. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:04, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright @Neveselbert. But I think that users (other than myself) would have a bit of trouble regarding the removal of certain topics. I am, myself, is a little disappointed about the removal of some information relating to Lord Liverpool’s economic policies and his late reforms as PM and I would like to have at least three paragraphs dedicated to those sections in the parent article. Please don’t take this as a criticism of your work, it is an issue that I am trying to address in the context of content in the parent article. It does need more information about certain aspects of his tenure other than mere excerpts and little detail. However, I do think that avoiding duplication and redundancy is important, but achieving it this way seems a bit off for. And also one final question: is this, as you say, a temporary or permanent measure? Please let me know. Thanks as always. Altonydean (talk) 09:28, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the use of {{excerpt}} is indeed a temporary solution. The goal is to prevent duplication while we work on better summarising these topics in the main article without losing important details. Once we have a more comprehensive and well-rounded child article, we can revisit the parent article and ensure it includes the necessary context and information. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:46, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks @Neveselbert. However this would be my last edit. I will never ever edit Wikipedia again due to my mental instability. I think I am going down. I feel so bad right now. I can’t do it. I thi Altonydean (talk) 20:33, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm truly sorry to hear that. Please know that your good-faith contributions have been greatly appreciated, and your well-being is far more important than anything on Wikipedia. Take care of yourself, and don't hesitate to seek support if you need it. Remember, your health comes first. Wishing you all the best during this difficult time, ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 21:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:DantheWikipedian per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DantheWikipedian. 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 ~~~~}}. Spicy (talk) 20:04, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

Alright, I will be honest with you. Truly and by that I mean truly honest. I have evaded blocks that were imposed so vandalism and disruptive edits cannot be allowed to continue. I have misused the trust of others and lied about who I am. I accept that I have clearly been dishonest and wrong in every aspect of my time here in on Wikipedia. I have done this time and time again which has caused some people to view me in high disregard and distrust. I did this deliberately and most of the time intentionally. When I said I will be truth with you, I meant that, I admit that I have purposely done bad edits, insulted and acted aggressively towards others and many more unforgivable things that I assume you already know. I have been wrong, which I refused to accept out of ignorance and sought revenge against others in often childish and absurd manner. I now fully understand my mistake. Fully understand that I have made mistakes, that I did deliberately most of the time, but this is not an attempt to victimise myself, but a honest and sincere apology and admission of my wrongdoing. My case for unblocking this that for the past month I have been working with editors @Coldupnorth, @Neveselbert and others who have been generous and kind and who helped me get through the most complicated of challenges and issues all the time I had interacting with them. They have made me feel more welcomed and appreciated and finally I felt that I have someone who is willing to support and help my work. I am extremely grateful for them and I will never stop thanking them for the opportunities they gave me in terms of friendship and acceptance. That made me a better person and a changed editor. I know that in the past I have violated copyright guidelines, didn’t cite most of my sources, wrote fake information and added fake unreliable sources. But now, I understand that simply thinking that getting away with things like that, being arrogant enough to lie about yourself being a academic or student at somewhere prestigious and using that importance as a tool to justify and lie so I can do whatever I like. I’m sorry that I have done this much damage to you and this site. So sorry. I have been a real idiot. I ask for forgiveness with my heart. I know that I haven’t been 100% truthful in past and sometimes at present but I cannot lie that I do need have problems. Most are mental. I have a clinical diagnosis of ADHD and OCD. I currently have medication that are proscribed and I have been in solitary isolation once duting a mental health crisis that saw me breakdown and deteriorate. I still have remnants of those issues still. I have no one who cares for me and no one to ask me about my problems and to talk. I’m a broken person. That might explain why I have acted in some rather strange and erratic ways. So now, I ask you to unblock me and if you decline, I will never bother you with any more requests and will never edit Wikipedia again. Altonydean (talk) 10:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

We don't want you to "never edit Wikipedia again" if you have contributions you want to make, but you will need to rebuild trust with us by refraining from editing under any account or IP address for at least six months as a demonstration that you can abide by policies, then make an unblock request under your original account at that time. You'll still need to speak to the reasons for your block, but at a minimum you will need to do as I described. 331dot (talk) 11:21, 27 August 2024 (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.

On Block request

@331dot OK. But there is a slight problem with “unblock request under original account” part because that account was not activated in a long time since last year. If I tried to log in with that account, I would struggle with finding or searching my password as it wasn’t as saved or anything in a while. So is it best if I request the block under this account? After all there are a few dozen accounts that may lead to future conflicts and misunderstandings. Thanks. Altonydean (talk) 10:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that you try to remember it, but if you can't, say so in your unblock request six months from now. 331dot (talk) 12:38, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @331dot. Also I might need some detail on approaching this situation from now on with explanations. Like, I have said that personal struggles and incompetence was the main explanation as well as apologised for past misconduct. In that regard I have also admitted that I indeed lied and misused your trust as well made errors that are at many times deliberate and sometimes unintentional. So, please don’t mind if I ask this but, six months does seem a long time and is there any quicker way of proving my reliability to you in any case possible? Altonydean (talk) 13:34, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a particular reason you need a speedy resolution here?

The chances of you being unblocked before a six month wait are low. We need to see evidence you will listen to community concerns. I advise you against making an unblock request before then, but if you think you can convince an admin to unblock you now, that's still your option. 331dot (talk) 15:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot If that is the case, I won’t be going to ask for such as a request until the remainder of the bock. However, I am a bit disappointed that you didn’t address my reasonings. I have said that so I have certain mental health issues (I have put a user box info on ADHD on my user page after all) and also that I ultimately apologised to you and especially to the Wikipedia community that has been impacted rather negatively by my misconduct and regrettable behaviour. I have admitted to you my errors and that many were on intention, which as I said, will never do and will be committed to keeping my end of the bargain in contributing. Altonydean (talk) 10:12, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Final question

@Spicy and @331dot If that is the case, I won’t be going to ask for such as a request until the remainder of the bock. However, I am a bit disappointed that you didn’t address my reasonings. I have said that so I have certain mental health issues (I have put a user box info on ADHD on my user page after all) and also that I ultimately apologised to you and especially to the Wikipedia community that has been impacted rather negatively by my misconduct and regrettable behaviour. I have admitted to you my errors and that many were on intention, which as I said, will never do and will be committed to keeping my end of the bargain in contributing. Altonydean (talk) 15:30, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Final request for unblocking account

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).

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

Request reason:

@Spicy and @331dot Both of you know that I have done things on Wikipedia that had caused nothing but irrefutable and unnecessary damage with all of my actions. I have been a real nutjob during that period of time. I couldn’t help myself. I am a person who is prone to being quick tempered and have been struggling with mental illness all my life. I have been in a cycle of depression for a few years, even solitary confinement following a dramatic breakdown. All of this is indeed done intentionally, to do some form of irreversible damage and seek revenge against people for blocking me, but this is due to the said quick temper. I also want to confirm that this is not all unintentional or done in a time of mental distress, but done deliberately, to undermine other people’s work because I have failed to make mine a success. I also have done a number of copyright violations, fake sources citations and evading justice. Which are all examples of how I sought to respond to your allegations. I have lied, distorted and insulted people and I take full responsibility for my actions from now on and after. I have come to this realisation last month when fellow editors @Neveselbert, @TimO’Doherty have helped me immensely in the the articles I have vandalised previously. Also I have began to realise that when you write the right information all on your own, not copying from elsewhere and citing reliable sources, have made the pages I have edited for all this time better articles. So in light of this, I ask you to reconsider your decision on this block. I am willing to spend six months without any editing Wikipedia but my depression has me feeling like a total train wreck. I have felt the need to admit all of this because I can’t keep up with this lying and sockpuppetry no more. I just want to tell you because I have been wrong about everything about you. I have come to this realisation too late. But I want to ask you this that at least allow me some form of ability to talk to other editors on their talk pages and be given the opportunity to cooperate with them in expanding my newly created article Premiership of Robert Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool and others too. This attempt have left in a serious sense of shame and deep emotional pain. I have considered options to leave it all together. Even if you don’t accept tbis request, I don’t mind but that you say that you forgive me for what I did for the past one half years of my reckless behaviour. Thank you very muchAltonydean (talk) 20:30, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Absolutely zero chance we'll consider unblocking you at this time. Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of DantheWikipedian is too long to even think about this, not until you've gone at least six months with zero edits. Instead, you make yet another account and continue evading your block. As you yourself note, you are acting in bad faith. Even if you go six months, it will be hard to convince the community you've changed, and I see no possibility of an unblock without a broad WP:TOPICBAN. Yamla (talk) 11:18, 4 September 2024 (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.

further improvement for page

@Neveselbert You have been a great source of assistance and support all the while I have been editing. I greatly appreciate you taking on the responsibility of editing the pages of Premiership of Robert Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool and Robert Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool. I would like you to improve the main page about Liverpool following your recent changes to the both pages. I think that the main page needs more information than mere excerpts. If you think that writing the same information on both pages is wrong, I suggest writing new information. Since I have been blocked from editing for the wrongful things I have done in the past, I must pay the price and wait 6 months to again appeal my case. Also, in light of the revelation of my never-before-heard history of personal distress and lack of effective treatment for my condition, I might be away for a time that will encompass the six month waiting time. If you’re unable to find any information on Lord Liverpool on the internet, I would be more than glad to share and send some online links and two books that I have already cited in both the main and child article. So until I get my case worked out, I wish you the best of luck and success in continuing our work. Thank you. Altonydean (talk) 02:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry that you've found yourself in this situation, Altonydean. I've actually been in a similar position in the past (you can check my talkpage archives), and I too had to wait six months to file an appeal. It's a tough experience, but you can get through it. I'll definitely keep an eye on those two articles and continue working to improve them.

In the meantime, you might consider contributing to the Simple English Wikipedia. It's a great place to showcase your abilities and good-faith contributions, and you should be able to draft articles there as well. I wish you all the best, and I hope everything works out for you during this time. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 17:33, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for your encouraging words of support and kindness. I really do miss editing but I do have to pay this price if I really want to edit Wikipedia again. However, still, your help is all I needed to accomplish what I wanted and I be forever grateful to your assistance. If you want to expand the information in the main article about Lord Liverpool instead of summarising the information in his premiership article I would send you some online web sources that concern him and the two books written by Martin Hutchinson and Tom Robertson. If you have difficulty finding them on your own, I will send you them via this talk page. Once again, Thank you very much for your time and effort. Altonydean (talk) 17:45, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I completely understand. During the time I was banned, I actually edited the Simple Wikipedia, and that experience helped me prove that I still had a lot to contribute. I think it would be a good strategy for you too in convincing this Wikipedia to reinstate you by showing that you're still committed to making valuable contributions.

You could start by contributing to simple:Robert Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool, using those sources you mentioned. I'll keep an eye on it and take note of everything you're able to contribute there. This could be a great way to continue your work while waiting for your appeal. All the best, and I'm here if you need anything. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 18:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to unblock request decline

@Yamla I completely understand your and the wider community’s concerns regarding my past and future behaviour. I agree that my past editing has caused damage and vandalism to a significant extent and I take personal if not professional responsibility for my actions. I won’t be creating any alternative accounts or edit any other page for the next six months as is put in place by the administration of Wikipedia. Although I accept responsibility and respect your decisions, I am disappointed that you still don’t understand the situation in which I have been in for the last 3 years which encompassed the time I first created my account and also for holding on to a deeply flawed conception of me as a evader of justice. I have taken a firm step to face the consequences and I’m currently experiencing those consequences as we speak. I would encourage you to search for any account that I have created recently for the last three weeks in the IP addresses category. Note that this is not me blaming you or anyone else for my wrongdoing and failure to comply with the guidelines, but to ask you to be more understanding of my condition as a mental health patient in light of my admission to that I have been in psychological distress. So that is my response. I swear and vow to wait the following six months to again request a unblock petition. Thanks. Altonydean (talk) 13:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Every edit you make is in violation of WP:BLOCK, WP:SOCK, and WP:EVADE. Every single one. --Yamla (talk) 14:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you didn’t address any of my concerns @Yamla. I repeatedly said that I regret my past editing habits and behaviour since then have apologised on many occasions. Me replying to other editors or admins for basic communication is a violation of those aforementioned guidelines? How come? I’m sorry if I am being rude or harsh, but you did not gave me a reasonable response to my reply. That does not solve anything. However this would be the last of my interaction on this site for the inevitable future. I will return after six months if I can. Altonydean (talk) 14:19, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your apology is obviously meaningless as you keep on evading your block. I won't respond further. --Yamla (talk) 19:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Altonydean, I completely understand your frustration, but I want to gently remind you to consider my earlier advice about editing the Simple Wikipedia during this time. It's a good way to show that you're committed to making constructive contributions and that you're respecting the rules by using only one account. By focusing your efforts there and avoiding this Wikipedia entirely for now, you'll be able to build a case for your appeal when the time comes. I know this is a tough situation, but I believe you still have a lot to offer. Stay positive, and I'll keep an eye on your contributions over there. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 20:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]