User talk:Wittycorrector

Welcome!
Hello, Wittycorrector, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @  19:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

August 2018
Hello, I'm Chrissymad. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to Out-of-home advertising have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. CHRISSY MAD ❯❯❯  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  18:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose. 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:. MER-C 18:31, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

See also User:Mercurim. MER-C 18:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I agree to stop adding these links. My mistake and it won't happen again. Wittycorrector (talk) 02:24, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

You've had four months to do other stuff than add links to broadsign.com and thechalkdown.com. Why haven't you done so in any appreciable amount? MER-C 19:06, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Because I have stayed with topics that I know I am an expert in and felt as if I could contribute to. Unfortunately, I was not aware that I needed to branch out and add elsewhere and from other sources. Those are sites in which I consume and which provide useful information to the topic at hand. If this has been construed as being "spammy" or "advertising", I very much apologize and will do a better job understanding how to edit pages - if given the opportunity. That being said, I stand by the value of the edits which I have made, and I hope you can view them to see how they add positive momentum to the articles. It's hard to convey my disappointment in the situation, and while I am not looking for charity, I hope you can understand that I had no bad intentions here. Wittycorrector (talk) 19:18, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

How else can I remedy the situation? Again, I truly hope you can understand "spamming" or "advertising" was not my intention. Wittycorrector (talk) 19:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Did you see my responses above? Just wanted to ensure you received my messages on this talk page. Wittycorrector (talk) 20:10, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. I'll leave it to another admin to evaluate the appeal. MER-C 20:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for you input. I look forward to speaking with another admin at their earliest convenience. Wittycorrector (talk) 20:18, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Feel free to post another unblock request, then - otherwise admins won't see you. Max Semenik (talk) 20:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Since you have agreed to not add those links anymore, what will you do on Wikipedia if unblocked? 331dot (talk) 09:29, 12 August 2018 (UTC) First and foremost, I've taken a better look on how to source material and how to contribute in a more neutral way. Secondly, I'd like to spend some time learning how I could be of value to clean up some pages that require some language work. I do this on a volunteer basis, and as I want to give back to the wikipedia community. It helped me immensely in college. Would you have any other suggestions for me? Wittycorrector (talk) 01:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC) — Berean Hunter   (talk)  01:23, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Give several examples. Also, do you have or have you ever created any other accounts?

Give examples of what? Yes, I had another account with my name and real-name initials which I do not use anymore, as I thought it would tell people who I was in real life. The account is mercurim Can you explain to me what else you need from me? I've apologized. I've told you how I am going to change my behavior. What else is required of me? Wittycorrector (talk) 01:27, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

— Berean Hunter   (talk)  01:36, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Examples of edits that you would make. Your previous account is Mercurim, however, I have the account, as being created on one of your two static IPs and it is ✅ to you. That account was created the day that you were blocked with no one else using the same IP.

Answering your questions: One of the edits I was proud of was on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_city#New_York_City I was responsible for the NYC entry on this page and felt as if I added some value to it. I feel like I would continue to make edits like this, with the difference being from neutral sources. The account with Hobbeson...I do not know that account. I had discussed my ban with a friend and it is possible he created it. I cannot log into the account with all of my usual passwords...I have tried to password recover with my emails and nothing either. Wittycorrector (talk) 02:06, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Dude...I have promised to not link to that website anymore. I was asked what type of edits I would make and this was a good example of a sound edit that still requires more objective sources. Let me clarify: I would like to make edits that add substance to the page like the edit I referenced, while using RELIABLE, OBJECTIVE and AUTHORITATIVE sources. As I am blocked, I cannot actually show you any of the improved edits that I want to make. Here is an example of another edit that I was happy with, with my other account which I have disclosed above: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Income_taxes_in_Canada&diff=prev&oldid=828108041 I used the government website to improve that to help with the clarity of taxation. My note: "As seen on the Revenue Quebec website (For the 2017 taxation year onward, the income tax rate for individuals has been dropped from 16% to 15% for the first bracket of taxable income.))" Wittycorrector (talk) 19:41, 5 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi. I'm generally sympathetic to your request. Can you explain, in your own words, the difference between a reliable source and an unreliable source? Can you give some specific examples of articles that you would like to improve, and nominate one that you will suggest specific edits to while blocked (only if the blocking administrator agrees with me offering this as an option)? Also, I understand that you're frustrated right now, but I suggest not yelling in caps lock – I assure you administrators have read everything you've written here carefully. Thanks, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 19:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Kevin, thank you very much for your understanding. I do appreciate it. I get your point about the caps lock. I find myself in a situation where I am doing everything asked of me and I keep getting handed over to another admin to deal with. I would have no issue using the second chance template. Explaining the difference between a reliable and unreliable source: Based off of what I have read within the wikipedia articles outlining these things, I believe a reliable source comes from a place with a neutral POV, does not have financial incentive towards publication (e.g., a person paid to write an opinion on something) and is verifiable by others (e.g., can I check the source myself). Clearly, blogs do not usually fit into this template of a reliable source. I would even add that a reliable source should be based in objective facts and distinguished from opinion pieces. The reputation of a verified source is also key, and is very much central to objectivity. Am I missing anything critical to my interpretation of this? Regarding an article edit that I would make, this article hits close to home: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MLS_Eastern_Conference_Champions - As suggested, there should be a differentiation between regular season champions and playoff champions. This would be reflected here, the MLS website which hosts the historical standings for part of the edit: https://www.mlssoccer.com/standings - The MLS conference champions can be derived from here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MLS_Cup#History (I understand a wikipedia self-reference, but this provides a starting point) and sourced from here: https://www.mlssoccer.com/history/mls-cup - I took this off from the list of pages that need to be improved for September 2018. Is this helpful? What else can I do? Wittycorrector (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd like to get your opinion as the blocking admin before we proceed with Template:2nd chance. Best, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 04:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm skeptical. It's not just the links that suggest spam, it's the topics edited as well. That said, I can find no fault in the responses. I would begrudgingly not mind if there was an unblock, but if there is any more SEO nonsense from this editor it's bye bye and the spam blacklist as well. MER-C 15:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with MER-C that following an unblock, if any spam or other disruption recurs, the block should be swiftly reimposed. Additionally, given some indications of multiple accounts above, I'll need you to agree to a single-account restriction (use this account only) before any unblock. Wittycorrector, if that is acceptable to you, please go ahead and follow the procedures listed here. Thanks, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 17:57, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes I agree to that. I will use the DB-user code on that other account and follow the second chance guidelines. Thank you for your help. Wittycorrector (talk) 18:00, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

My 2nd chance code is below. I have also put the db-user and rationale in my other account for you (account = mercurim). Do you think this is a quality edit? Wittycorrector (talk) 20:02, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

MLS Eastern Conference Champions
This is a list of MLS Eastern Conference Champions. The title can be given to the top finishing team in the conference or to the winner of the Eastern Conference Playoffs. As of a league format change preceding the 2011-2012 MLS season, the winner of the Eastern Conference playoffs plays the winner of the Western Conference playoffs in the MLS Cup.

Eastern Regular Season Champions

 * 2017 - Toronto FC
 * 2016 - New York Red Bulls
 * 2015 - New York Red Bulls
 * 2014 - D.C. United
 * 2013 - New York Red Bulls
 * 2012 - Sporting Kansas City
 * 2011 - Sporting Kansas City
 * 2010 - New York Red Bulls
 * 2009 - Columbus Crew SC
 * 2008 - Columbus Crew SC
 * 2007 - D.C. United
 * 2006 - D.C. United
 * 2005 - New England Revolution
 * 2004 - Columbus Crew SC
 * 2003 - Chicago Fire
 * 2002 - New England Revolution
 * 2001 - Miami Fusion
 * 2000 - MetroStars
 * 1999 - D.C. United
 * 1998 - D.C. United
 * 1997 - D.C. United
 * 1996 - Tampa Bay Mutiny

Eastern Conference Playoff Champions

 * 2017 - Toronto FC
 * 2016 - Toronto FC
 * 2015 - Columbus Crew SC
 * 2014 - New England Revolution
 * 2013 - Sporting Kansas City
 * 2012 - Houston Dynamo
 * 2011 - Houston Dynamo
 * 2010 - Colorado Rapids
 * 2009 - Real Salt Lake
 * 2008 - Columbus Crew
 * 2007 - D.C. United
 * 2006 - D.C. United
 * 2005 - New England Revolution
 * 2004 - Columbus Crew
 * 2003 - Chicago Fire
 * 2002 - New England Revolution
 * 2001 - Miami Fusion
 * 2000 - MetroStars
 * 1999 - D.C. United
 * 1998 - D.C. United
 * 1997 - D.C. United
 * 1996 - Tampa Bay Mutiny