User talk:Misterdc

April 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article D.C. Douglas, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Please give suggestions on talk page and refrain from editing this actual BLP. If Lance Baxter isn't your real name, we would have no problem using it as an AKA as reported by secondary sources. Regards. MookieG (talk) 17:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit

[1] - you may think so but I disagree. Your own judgment on what is significant in your life may not accord with what independent outsiders think, and you are giving the impression of pursuing a certain agenda. That is why we tend to encourage article subjects to restrict themselves to proposing changes on the article talk pages (see WP:AUTO and WP:COI for some thoughts on this). We do not include disputed material in biographies unless it is credibly sourced from reliable independent secondary sources; in this case the sources seem to be primary and arguing the WP:TRUTH of the case rather than documenting it from the standpoint of independent observers. Can you see what I am getting at here? Guy (Help!) 09:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then this disputed infformation should not be put into my biography at all as it is ALL based on my press release. All of it. I started the controversy. In fact, if you call GEICO, they will tell you I was not fired or ever worked for them. Dispute #1. Lance Baxter was reported as my real name and user Mookie would like to include it as an AKA. A cursory search would reveal I am not known as that name and that the media misreported that info. The name was a character name used in the phone call to FreedomWorks. That was the only time. I have never been credited with that name in any work I've done. It was only a character name in the film Falling Words and a Cabaret Show. Dispute #2. Matt Kibbe posted erroneous information conflating me with the "voice of GEICO" and the gecko. Many news outlets and irresponsible bloggers propagated this misinformation. A single call to GEICO or even a look at the ACTUAL spots on my website would reveal this. Dispute #3. I could go on, but I think you see what I'm getting at here, as well. This information should not be included in my biography. And a final note; we are only dealing with this because of two editors (one who seems to have quite or been blocked) that obviously are on one side of this dispute. I doubt in 6 months anyone will know or care about this event - an event made public by my press release. Misterdc 18:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Please see my most recent comment at Talk:D. C. Douglas. The controversy section has been removed entirely from the article, and as I mentioned at the talk page, I support the removal based on policy-based reasons, including WP:Recentism.

I hope the situation in that article is under control now. Feel free to comment on the talk page there if you have concerns; if you wish, you can also contact me directly on my talk page. Also, for your reference, here is a link to WP:Autobiography#Problems in an article about you, which has guidance for handling any future issues that come up. —C.Fred (talk) 19:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help and perspective. It's much appreciated. Misterdc 10:56, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Misterdc 18:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited D. C. Douglas, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NCIS. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited D. C. Douglas, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Legion, Chase and Laura Bailey. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:DCDouglas.jpg

Hi there, I just noticed that commons:File:DCDouglas.jpg is up for deletion at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:DCDouglas.jpg. As I noticed you already have some experience with ORTS this should be fixable. Agathoclea (talk) 18:37, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not consider IMDB as a reliable source

Hello, DC. I would like to inform you that Wikipedia never cites IMDB for a very specific reason - we do not consider the website to be a reliable source as it is very prone to uncited, user-generated content. I have fixed your citation by citing the actual website for your new political series instead. Also, please note that citations are inserted after punctuation, as opposed to preceding it. Hope you have a great evening. MizukaS (talk) 02:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:D.C. Douglas - high res.jpg

The file File:D.C. Douglas - high res.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Orphaned image with no foreseeable encyclopedic use.

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 files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Pkbwcgs (talk) 20:34, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:D.C. Douglas - high res.jpg

The file File:D.C. Douglas - high res.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

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 files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

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

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited D. C. Douglas, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Director and Producer. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Duck, Duck, Goose! for deletion

A discussion is taking place to determine if the article Duck, Duck, Goose! is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Duck, Duck, Goose! until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

BriefEdits (talk) 23:09, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:DC-DouglasPSA.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:DC-DouglasPSA.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to [email protected], stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{permission pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to [email protected].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 04:03, 1 November 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) 00:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Misterdc. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page D. C. Douglas, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template)—don't forget to give details of reliable sources supporting your suggestions;
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 19:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this. I appreciate it. Granted, I did start this page 20 years ago so perhaps it just gets deleted? But if not, when I use this COI form on my talk page, what happens if no one sees it? Since there are years that go by with no one seeing that page? Misterdc (talk) 19:11, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have to wait for the COI edit request to get fulfilled. It is all volunteer work by editors like myself, we are not obligated to help you. You have been told once that you should stop editing your own Wikipedia article and now it may need a whole rewrite for the amount you wrote about yourself. There are multiple other editors who have their own pages but do not touch them because they understand the COI rules. You are allowed to start pages about yourself (WP:AUTOBIO) but after that, it's generally not accepted to write about yourself. I personally advise you to stop editing your Wikipedia article or you may face a block for it. Thank you, Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 19:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And how do I stop my stalker from trying to get her defamation included in the post? And for spurring all the editors she can find to do the same? Specifically referring to DeadDoveMoli - though I think she deleted her account. Misterdc (talk) 19:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can go to WP:ANI and put a report there about the editor and the editor's behavior while on the article. But, do not claim that another editor is editing under the direction of your "stalker". This is a personal attack and you can get blocked for this as well. Thank you, Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 19:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you User:Cowboygilbert. Misterdc, it's real simple. You can report your issues and let administrators deal with. If you throw more accusations around you may be blocked from the article talk page as well. Drmies (talk) 19:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, accusation? I simply inquired if a certain editor had been contacted by DeadDoveMoli - which is my stalker. Search for her messages and you will see she was reaching out to editors. Misterdc (talk) 19:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (D. C. Douglas) for disruptive COI editing.

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 ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 19:28, 29 June 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

I simply am removing my stalkers defamatory insinuations and vandalism on the talk page of DC Douglas article. The edits made to the actual article are all within the parameters and requirements of wikipedia policies and the information can be validated easily. The language used was neutral. Misterdc (talk) 19:31, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Please reread WP:GAB to understand how to craft an appropriate unblock request. -- Yamla (talk) 22:04, 29 June 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.

Request for Guidance on an Editing Issue

Hi C.Fred,

I hope this message finds you well. I am reaching out to seek your advice regarding a recent incident on Wikipedia involving an edit I made. You might recall our tea party discussions a decade ago where I admired your judicious approach.

Recently, I reverted a deletion of a picture on a page I created, which unfortunately led to a block. Several administrators seem to prefer that I abstain from editing this page further, citing concerns about potential disruptions. However, my primary intention has been to protect the page and talk page from what appears to be persistent defacement by my current stalker.

I understand and respect the community’s guidelines and have no issues refraining from further editing the main content if required. Nevertheless, I believe it is critical to have the capability to address and correct any malicious edits made by stalkers and/or trolls.

Could you please review this situation and offer your guidance? Any advice on how to proceed in defending the integrity of the page without overstepping community norms would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you for considering my request.

Best regards,

Misterdc (talk) 00:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the situation, here's one thing I am obliged to point out. Please review WP:No legal threats. Messages such as this that indicate the potential of off-Wikipedia legal action are incompatible with continued editing on Wikipedia. Since you have removed the message in question, there is no action necessary. However, if there were to be a repeat occurrence, you might be blocked without any further warning until the legal threats are rescinded.

In addition, please review WP:Outing and be very cautious about discussion of editors' identities. —C.Fred (talk) 03:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. Yes, these things will protect the anonymity of users (whether legitimate or my stalker). Seeing as I am the one who is not anonymous and this is about my page/identity, what procedures/protections may I avail to prevent libel and defamation? Thanks in advance. Misterdc (talk) 03:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The guiding principle there is WP:BLP. Information, especially contentious information, about a living person needs to be backed up with a source. When material is presented about a living person and no source is presented, that material is subject to removal. That includes talk pages as well as articles. —C.Fred (talk) 03:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Misterdc (talk) 03:53, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]