Seventh Ward Dragon

Archives

1

2

3

1-3 months old

3-12 months old

>12 months old

Hi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.217.198 (talk) 20:58, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Greg Fleming Wikipedia page

The statement surrounding him 'Comparing civil unions to incest' is both incorrectly interpreted and insufficiently substantiated with proper referencing or quotes. Thus, it should be removed on the grounds of potential misinformation. 101.98.138.184 (talk) 02:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

The statement is substantiated by two local news outlets. How is it incorrectly interpreted exactly? I have already explained how it isn't. The material is properly cited and should not be removed without proper explanation, which you have yet to provide. SWDG 02:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

April 2024

Your edit to Rick and Morty – Corporate Assets has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Staraction (talk | contribs) 05:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I have removed the offending content, and the offensive content has been REVDEL'd. SWDG 19:19, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

So are you making Wikipedia pages for all the Rick and Morty comic book series, or what? 38.95.10.252 (talk) 13:45, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

January 2025

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

---

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 why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

---

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Spicy (talk) 18:03, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I made a ridiculous edit but immediately reverted it. Should not have happened in the first place, I apologize for the activity. I took it a step too far by creating the article, but I took steps to remove that too by moving it to draft space and CSD the remnants. I understand that was not cool, but you probably could have just WP:revdel it and move on. I will not do that again.

Decline reason:

Repeated vandalism (per below), lying in unblock request (about it being "one" time, and about thinking this is about your legit sock), violating previous unblock conditions. Go away for a good 6 months, and maybe we'll think about it. This is not a playground. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC) p.s. Do not make another unblock request that does not address all of the actual behavior that you know you did. It will result in reblocking with no talk page access.

---

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 is a checkuser block and your unblock request does not address the actual reason for the block. Cullen328 (talk) 10:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Would you care to further explain the reason for the block? SWDG 10:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

You are blocked for abuse of multiple accounts. PhilKnight (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I don’t operate multiple accounts. You’re considering this as an abuse of multiple accounts because I made one edit while logged out? SWDG 20:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Allow me to clarify my statement, I do own user:SWDG. However, this account I am currently writing from, is the only account I ever use for editing, hence my terminology “operate”. I don’t actively use SWDG and it wasn’t involved in this incident whatsoever.

Per WP:MULTIPLE I am allowed to have multiple accounts, as long as they act within ‘established policy’. WP:DG further clarifies that this account is a legitimate Doppelgänger account. My reason for creating SWDG was to allow me to be found easily by only typing four characters, rather the nineteen characters of “Seventh Ward Dragon”. This is well within established policy, there are no violations here.

there are very clear indications on the user page of SWDG that it is a valid account which belongs to me. Firstly, it redirects immediately to my user page. If you cancel the redirect and view SWDG’s user page, a message is displayed informing you that this is my alternative account. SWDG 21:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I blocked you for the dozens of edit filter hits that you generated by attempting to blatantly vandalize while logged out, in addition to the blatant vandalism that you performed while logged in. (It looks to me like you intended to continue vandalizing while logged out, but didn't realize that you were logged in, hence the immediate self-reversion). And this was after you were previously blocked for socking and unblocked on the condition that you wouldn't sock again. You weren't blocked for having the SWDG account and I suspect you know that. I think you need some time off of Wikipedia to grow up. Spicy (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

While it’s a good theory, that’s not quite what happened - I didn’t mean to edit while logged out, not at all. I use a private browser window and it didn’t automatically log me in. I didn't realize this until I kept getting hit by the filters. It was never my intention to edit while logged out, and it was always my intention to remove the content immediately. I did so with haste.

”I suspect you know that”, well if you want me to give you a straight up answer that actually addresses your concerns, which I’m completely willing to do, perhaps you all should be more thorough with your accusations. It has not been clear so far what you are trying to investigate. PhilKnight stated “you have been blocked for abusing multiple accounts.” The only other account I operate is SWDG, so what else am I supposed to think?

I have already spent time away from Wikipedia. I haven’t been here in months, even longer since I spent a considerable amount of time here, and I would suspect you know that. SWDG 21:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam I would suggest you carefully review the information here, as it does not correlate with the reasoning for my block request being denied. It’s quite hilarious you think I’m lying, especially where you claim I’m lying that I thought it involved SWDG, when it’s painfully obvious I was not provided enough information to adequately answer for myself. The administrators here, except for Spicy in their follow-up response, have not provided enough information to assess the situation and provide a rational answer. SWDG 21:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Additionally, you claim that I’m lying about it being “one” edit, yet this seems to be the crux of the problem here - the fact that I made one problematic edit while logged out. I’m not claiming I only took one problematic action in total, rather that I made the edit while logged out. The fact that this IP was involved is the sole REASON you are categorizing this as a sock. I’m not sure how there was room for confusion here, when my exact text was “because I made one edit while logged out?” SWDG 21:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

It makes it hard to take the moral high ground when you added (and tried to add repeatedly) the crap you added to Mr. Men. Adding that crap, and then pretending you don't know what you did wrong? Adding that crap, and then wikilawyering about terminology (one edit vs multiple attempted edits)? Adding that crap, and then claiming it's not a big deal because you were going to remove it immediately (it was actually 7 minutes later)? I'm trying hard to imagine what possible benefit to the encyclopedia you might be. Feel free to be outraged by your treatment here; I don't imagine anyone else is going to agree. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree that the ridiculous content that was added to the dictionary clashes with the approach I am taking here, nonetheless that should not detract merit from my statements. Would you like to explain how I’m “pretending I don’t know what I did wrong”? I asked for clarification on the reason for the block because, despite Cullen’s statement, my unblock request clearly acknowledges what I did wrong. You can agree that seven minutes on this site is very short notice. And that seven minutes was me switching to the Desktop view and logging back in, so that I could access Twinkle to properly remove the content. I’m not “outraged” by my treatment here, I just feel that my efforts to genuinely explain what happened have been greatly overlooked. SWDG 22:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)