User talk:Dantebish

February 2018[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Hansel DeBartolo. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Home Lander (talk) 04:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC) They are not constructive at all but very constructive and I site all my sources and fix inaccurate facts and ad legitimate facts and site my sources from legit sources so how do you figure it is unconstructive and vandalism? Please tell a person why what they did was incorrect in your view instead of just accusing them of "disruptive editing" and "vandalism" and threatening them...if the person is trying to do the right thing and an honest mistake has occurred the person deserves to be treated with respect and explained why what they did was not right instead of just threatened and accused of policy violations.[reply]

Hansel DeBartolo is dead. Home Lander (talk) 04:16, 10 February 2018 (UTC) This is a site to list noteable people not troll you have been reported[reply]

Why are you harrassing me? All I am doing is what this site is intended for. Listing noteble people and siting sources to verify things and according to you that is cause for intense anger and you deem it as "vandalism"...why? My sources are legit and my facts true and noteable so why do they inspire anger in you and a believe of vandalism? It is sad that stating facts and backing them up with legit sources can be wiped away by someone angry for no reason. You are a failure in life so you bully and troll on here? Everything I mentioned in my edits was noteable and accurate so for you to erase and call it vandalism is not true and your motivation for doing it is something sinister.

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at User talk:Home Lander, you may be blocked from editing. Home Lander (talk) 04:45, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:57 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Do you think this is an appropriate addition to an encyclopedic article about Hansel DeBartolo? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:05, 10 February 2018 (UTC) Yes I do, there was already info about his son who is noteworthy and I edited what was already there and corrected it siting my sources and added more noteworthy stuff and sited my sources. I am new to wikipedia and thought that noteworthy info and people and legitimate source provided was good. I fail to see how what I posted was not good. Can you explain to me so that I can learn? The only notes I was given were the abbreviated profanity of "WTF" and you implying that I should look at noteable facts followed by legit sources and it should be obvious to me which it is not. So please explain it to me.[reply]

{unblock reason: =ok, I think I see why I was blocked now, I put too much info about Hansel DeBartolo's son on Hansel's page because he son is also noteworthy but if I feel this is the case instead of putting it on his dad's page I should constructively edit 10 articles and then create an article for Sexy Vegan (Hansel's son who legally changed his name to Sexy Vegan & was featured on Dr. PhiL & has credits on IMDB and released an album among other things) and cite legit sources. Now I understand why it was considered "distruptive editing" because I was filling up one person's wikipedia page with the information of a different person which disrupts the achievements of the person who earned the first wikipedia page and I do apologize for that. The reason I did it was that there was already info about the son on the page and if you look at the page before I edited it half was the son already but that was even pushing it I now see and when I added even more to the son it overshadow the father of who the page was intended for and if the son is worthy of his own page it needs to be done in the proper way...I see that son and in the future this type of thing will not occur again and I do apologise and hope I can get unblocked.}

When you wrote the above, you said you understood why the edits were inappropriate. So why did you make the exact same kinds of edits to the same and other pages, right after your block expired? --bonadea contributions talk 07:51, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that her block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

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

UTRS appeal #20585 was submitted on Feb 10, 2018 06:52:52. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 06:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Marmion Academy, you may be blocked from editing. PabloMartinez (talk) 01:59, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you feel me adding a noteable alumni and listing his noteable achievements and citing legit sources constitutes vandalism in your opinion?

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sexy Vegan (February 12)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Velella was:

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability. Wikipedia requires significant coverage (not just mere mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject—see the guidelines on the notability of people, the golden rule and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. Please improve the submission's referencing (see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners and Help:Introduction to referencing/1), so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. If additional reliable sources cannot be found for the subject, then it may not be suitable for Wikipedia at this time.

The comment the reviewer left was:

No evidence of any notability provided by reliable and independednt sources. Reads very much like a promotional article

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Sexy Vegan and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Sexy Vegan, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and save.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Velella ^{Velella Talk} 08:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dantebish! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Velella ^{Velella Talk} 08:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree, I have no relation to this individual and have never met them so you claiming I am promoting is utter nonsense. They are one of the most noteworthy people I have ever seen and if you google then this person has SUBSTANTIAL coverage, much more coverage than lots of current people who have their own pages and not just mere mentions.

February 2018[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Dr. Phil (talk show). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

When you insert new content and several other editors revert, you need to discuss and listen, not simply revert back. bonadea contributions talk 09:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC) The reasons given by the person who took away my hard work were not accurate. I have tried to engage in conversation and they do not do so. They state obvious lies and it is very obvious they are a "hater" of the noteworthy person. I listed the most noteworthy person I can think of that I have no ties with and she claims the person is not noteworthy which is obviously false and I list very credible sources and she lies and claims they are not. So, you really cannot debate a person who does not listen to truth and just lies and obvious is a "hater" of the noteable person.[reply]

Your recent editing history at Dr. Phil (talk show) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

You have reverted five times. Read the information above and stop reverting, now. bonadea contributions talk 09:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC) YOU ARE NOT READING WHAT I SAID. I SAID IF SOMEONE IS INCORRECT THEN THERE IS NO POINT IN ARGUING WITH THAT PERSON. IF THEY ARE JUST GOING TO LIE OR NOT SEE THE TRUTH. IT IS LIKE ARGUING WITH SOMEONE SAYING THE EARTH IS FLAT. NO POINT. YOU ARE ALSO LYING TOO.[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Dantebish reported by User:Bonadea (Result: ). Thank you. bonadea contributions talk 10:31, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for the following reasons. While you may be editing in good faith, sincerely believing that what you are doing is of benefit to the encyclopaedia, you appear not to grasp the fact that Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and works by discussion and consensus, not by individual editors persisting in doing what they individually think right and ignoring the fact that consensus is against them. You persistently post content for which there is a clear consensus that it is unsuitable. Rather than taking note of messages from experienced editors and trying to learn from them how Wikipedia works and what is acceptable, you just dismiss them contemptuously and insist that your own view is right. Your approach to other editors with whom you disagree is belligerent and aggressive. Your grasp of English is not as good as would be desirable for contributing to an English language encyclopaedia, but you just dismiss any suggestions from other editors that there are problems, and insist that there are none. You have edit-warred, and not only have you continued to do so after warnings, you have even openly stated your intention of continuing to do so. Your sole purpose here is clearly to promote and publicise one person. Above all you stated in an unblock request what you understood that you had done wrong, and unequivocally said that you would not make the same mistake again, and yet after the block was over you proceeded to do the same again, on a number of articles, which must cast doubt on your good faith, your ability to understand what the problems are, or both..

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Dante Bish" is a fictional character created by Sexy Vegan/Hans DeBartolo[edit]

Note that "Dante Bish" is the main character in a genre fiction book written by Sexy Vegan as "Hanz DeBartolo" under vanity press Createspace. The book is titled After Death (ISBN: 9781514866276). This user has also recently been caught using the username "Kristin carlicci" (an account recently warned to stop making bad edits) earlier this afternoon. PetSematary182 (talk) 20:03, 13 July 2022 (UTC)PetSematary182[reply]