User talk:DunnsMainDeliFan

Welcome!

Hi DunnMainDeli! 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! I dream of horses ^{(Contribs) (Talk)} 22:59, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023

Your account has been indefinitely blocked from editing because of the following problems: the account has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and your username indicates that the account represents a business, organisation, group, or web site, which is against the username policy.

You may request a change of username and unblock if you intend to make useful contributions instead of promoting your business or organization. To do this, first search Special:CentralAuth for available usernames that comply with the username policy. Once you have found an acceptable username, post the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with your new username and replace the text "Your reason here" with your reasons to be unblocked. In your reasons, you must:

Disclose any compensation you may receive for your contributions in accordance with the paid-contribution disclosure requirement.
Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked.
Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

Appeals: If, after reviewing the guide to appealing blocks, you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal it by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your reason here" with the reasons you believe the block was an error, and publish the page. Kinu ^t/_c 23:02, 1 June 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

I created this account to edit Montreal smoked meat resturants. BTW Dunn's and Main Deli are actually competitors, with Main Deli having just closed down recently. DunnMainDeli (talk) 23:04, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Duplicate request. 331dot (talk) 08:17, 2 June 2023 (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.

Based on your statement above, I now believe that you are editing in good faith. Given the concerns regarding both your previous and current usernames, I feel that a change in username would be a necessary condition of unblock to confirm that you have no conflict of interest here. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:32, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I might have to rename my account to something like "SmokedMeatLover". Guess I would not be able to use the names of the Montreal restaurants in my username (Main Deli Steak House, Dunn's, Bens De Luxe Delicatessen & Restaurant), although I meant this as a tribute to the now-closed establishments. DunnMainDeli (talk) 03:52, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No reason not to use 'em, just make it clear you're not somehow representing any of them. It's about looks, not intent. So for example, DunMainDeliFan would make the looks problem go away. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 04:01, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Requested username:

DunnsMainDeliFan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

Like your suggestion, with my slight modification. DunnMainDeli (talk) 04:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Name changed, and no COI.

Kinu I've changed the username. 331dot (talk) 08:18, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. However, I'm still blocked despite the change in username. DunnsMainDeliFan (talk) 12:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

{unblock|reason=The changed username does not seem to be in violation of any guidelines. DunnsMainDeliFan (talk) 13:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC)}}[reply]

Thank you. DunnsMainDeliFan (talk) 15:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Thank you for your patience and understanding. Also, thanks to 331dot and Jpgordon for handling the username change and unblock, respectively. --Kinu ^t/_c 15:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Hi DunnsMainDeliFan! Thank you for your edits to Smoked meat. It looks like you've copied or moved text from Montreal-style smoked meat into that page, and while you are welcome to re-use the content, Wikipedia's licensing requires that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. If you've copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thanks! DanCherek (talk) 02:24, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To add to the above, your edit to Schwartz's has copied text from Bens De Luxe Delicatessen & Restaurant directly added to that page (see paragraph: "Smoked meat fans debated whether Schwartz's or Bens had the best smoked meat..."). I wrote most of that article back in 2007 (it was originally just a stub), though I believe it was an another editor who contributed that particular bit of text. As such, from working on that article often and closely years ago, I did recognize it when it appeared under Schwartz's. Please be sure to provide attribution it as well, thanks! --Apple2gs (talk) 02:39, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inserting Quebec language politics into articles

Hello DunnsMainDeliFan. I thought I'd reach out to you concerning your recent edits to Schwartz's and Dunn's, and what's rapidly descending into an edit-war. You inserted sections in both articles (using identical text!), titled either "Bill 101" and "Quebec language dispute", that have little to no relevance to the articles in question. And beyond that, I found them written in a very slanted and personal point of view that I found offensive and antisemitic.

First it needs to be pointed out, Quebec's language laws have been around for almost 50 years, and have been a source of contention and division. They violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as well as fundamental basic human rights as pointed out by the United Nations. They fall into the same category as the Jim Crow laws and need not be pasted to restaurant articles. Furthermore, these draconian and human right violating laws have been applied to ALL businesses and operations in Quebec, Dunn's and Schwartz's are not unique here, not by far. Nor is the incident of perceived antisemitism by the nationalistic Quebec government. The government (PQ/CAQ) has openly shown itself to be antisemitic on many an occasion (see: the "Matzah Gate" incident, or Bill 21--that bans teachers, doctors, police, etc from wearing Kepas or the Star of David on jewellery, or their harassment and targeting of the Hasidic community and schools during the pandemic. If you wish to add this information, please add it to the articles on Bill 101, Bill 96, not here.

I feel I need to quote what you added to previous edits: "several Jewish delicatessens ran afoul of the law" and "Dunn's got into trouble with Bill 101 for having the English term". Talking about the Jewish community running afoul, or getting 'in trouble' for fighting against these laws is a very slanted and POV form of writing.

I perceive what you've added as more a platform for these so-called laws, or a way of shaming for opposing them (as so many countless other business have done over the decades). Do we need to talk about Bill 101 for EACH and EVERY business that has fought a legal battle against these vitreous and hateful laws? No. If Dunn's and Schwartz's had been ground breaking legal cases, reported about internationally, I could perhaps see some relevance, but adding this in is just a way of shaming a specific group (Jewish persons) for as you say, running afoul of the law.

I have asked you several times to stop undoing my reverts and bring this to the Talk page of each article if you wish to discuss it, assuming it was a edit in good faith. If so, perhaps we can work in anything of relevance regarding the topic into the article(s), if it merits it. I welcome your edit contributions as long as they follow Wikipedia's guidelines and rules, and always happy to assist, I wouldn't want to see you blocked again which is why I'm reaching out. Thanks for your understanding!--Apple2gs (talk) 22:04, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with having the deli content solely in Bill 101 is that this completely omits the history as it applies particularly to Dunn's and Schwartz's establishments, who went to court to fight the order to change their store signs. Furthermore, Myer Dunn was instrumental in getting "smoked meat" as an official term in both languages, and that is quite groundbreaking. If you think it is POV then by all means you can tag it and rewrite it, but whitewashing this allegedly antisemitism is unacceptable. DunnsMainDeliFan (talk) 13:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another way of saying it is that Dunn's and Schwartz's history is incomplete if Bill 101 is omitted, the language dispute is as relevant if not more relevant than change in ownership and location. I don't see this content as "shaming" a particular group since these delis had longstanding practices, rather it was to illustrate how overzealous the law was in disregarding tradition. Lastly the reader should not have to dig deep into Bill 101's article to find this content. DunnsMainDeliFan (talk) 13:31, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply! I suggest we move this discussion into one or both articles (I think Schwartz's to start, as it likely has more editor traffic and others can give their thoughts). I'll set it up for you, and respond in a bit. Click on the 'Talk' tab and you'll find it there.--Apple2gs (talk) 00:40, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

October 2023

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.

Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]