User talk:Barron Mickey

This is Barron Mickey's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

AfC notification: Draft:National Heritage Life Insurance Company has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:National Heritage Life Insurance Company. Thanks! Legacypac (talk) 06:01, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thanks Legacypac for the feed back.. i added some more citations, whith news articles.Barron Mickey (talk) 17:10, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: National Heritage Life Insurance Company has been accepted

National Heritage Life Insurance Company, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Legacypac (talk) 03:34, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

Your addition to National Heritage Life Insurance Company has been removed, 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 more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. 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 violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Natureium (talk) 01:41, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2019

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 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 ~~~~}}. Hut 8.5 21:28, 11 September 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

I was not vandalizing any pages on Wikipedia, I was editing and updating pages that i am doing research on and user:Galatz keeps on vandalizing the pages, please unblock me.. Thank you

Decline reason:

It appears you've been making POV edits to the article at Sholam Weiss for quite some time. Today, you began replacing a tempalte you did not like with an imaginary one. I assume this is some form of POV commentary. You then began making more POV edits, and then stalked another editor to a page he had been edting to vandalize it and add a tit-for-tat tag. All the while accusing a long term editor of vandalism? This is not a convincing unblock request. Kuru (talk) 01:53, 12 September 2019 (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.

@Hut 8.5: and @Kuru: the users block has expired and their first edits are to once again remove the COI template without explanation [1] - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 17:13, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hut 8.5: i asked User:Galatz why he keeps on adding COI to sholam weiss page, without any explanation, which he responded "for obvious seasons" [[2]]... for obvious seasons" is not a good reason for adding a COI, User:Galatz keeps on vandalizing the sholam weiss profile.

Barron Mickey: please stop removing the COI tag. The editor who added it did give a reason. If somebody disagrees with you then you are expected to discuss the issue on the article talk page or some other talk page. If you just revert repeatedly, as you're doing, then that is considered edit warring which is disruptive. You're doing this after coming off a block for making disruptive edits to the same article. If you carry on making disruptive edits then you will be blocked again, and that block may not have an expiry date. Hut 8.5 17:54, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hut 8.5: I am a bit new at this, but I am learning. I asked User:Galatz in his talk page [[3]].. why he keeps on adding the COI, and he didn't give me a reason, he wrote " for obvious reasons ... at what point can i undo his COI, which he recently start to add to the page without explanation.. he is clearly not looking to have a conversation--Barron Mickey (talk) 18:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are reading only what you want to read. You were just pointed to a reason given by the user who added it, who was not me. In addition I pointed you to the WP:COI information, but you only keep talking about the number of references not the content of the article itself. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 18:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

you still haven't explained the reason for the COI, what issues do you have with the article, the article was written and edit by 100s of users in the past 15 years, the article has been hashed out in the talk section by multiple users. references were added, i still doent understand why you keep on adding COI to the artical --Barron Mickey (talk) 18:13, 16 September 2019 (UTC) [reply]

There was an explanation provided when the tag was added, as I noted above. The reason given was that the article contained language which was promoting the subject. "at what point can i undo his COI" is not the queston you should be asking, see WP:DR for how disputes are supposed to be resolved here. Repeatedly edit warring is not part of it. If you want to get some more editors involved in this then one of you could ask at WP:COI/N. Hut 8.5 18:18, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hut 8.5: the User:Galatz again deleted a big section of the Sholam weiss article (sentencing chart), he keeps on vandalizing the page. can I undo his deletion? --Barron Mickey (talk) 18:32, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You need to talk to people constructively and not just accuse them of vandalism and revert their edits. If you can't do that then you shouldn't be here. Vandalism is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia, the fact that someone disagrees with you does not mean they are vandalising. Hut 8.5 20:42, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand, Hut 8.5 already told you what to do if you disagree with the COI tag, yet you removed it again [4] stating it was based on discussions with me. When did we discuss that it makes sense for you to remove? In addition I explained that the chart was removed because it was WP:OR and WP:TRIVIA yet you added it back without an explanation or discussion [5]. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 13:03, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Enough. Even after being blocked for disruptive editing on this article and plenty of guidance from me and others you are still editing it disruptively, including lying about another editor agreeing to your changes in order to carry on edit warring, when in fact you've just given them inappropriate vandalism warning templates. I've blocked your account indefinitely as it's clear to me you aren't here to collaborate. If you want to appeal the block see the instructions from the previous one. Hut 8.5 17:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hut 8.5: you are clear in cahoots with User:Galatz you might even be the same person, User:Galatz deleted 85% of the sholam weiss page yesterday and you didn't stop him from disrupting the page, YOU DID NOTHING. sholam weiss's page has been referenced and edited by 100s of people for the past 15 years.. you accused me of lying... look at history at sholam weiss User:Galatz yesterday clear says that he discussed with Barron mickey... https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sholam_Weiss&oldid=916053702 (see; 18:57, 16 September 2019‎ Galatz talk contribs‎ 27,044 bytes +23‎ Undid revision 916037439 by Barron Mickey) Adding back tag based on conversation at User_talk:Barron_Mickey#September_2019)... please unblock me.. thanks you--Barron Mickey (talk) 18:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you think you are so sure we are the same person, I suggest you open a WP:SPI. I would love to see how that goes for you.... - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 18:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Really? You think we are the same person? I've got about 50,000 edits to Wikipedia and about 20,000 administrator actions, Galatz has about 100,000 edits. Both of us have been editing for more than ten years. Galatz appears to be Jewish and American, I'm neither. Do you really think one person would go to all the effort of doing that while pretending to be two completely different people just to confuse you? I don't recall ever interacting with Galatz previously, so it must have been solely for your benefit. Hut 8.5 20:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sign your posts

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, 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 necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. - FlightTime Public (open channel) 17:47, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

September 2019

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian, as you did at User talk:Galatz. - FlightTime Public (open channel) 19:01, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

why did you add you give me warning, i was told to write my comments in the talk section to discuss the issues, which I did. User talk:Galatz keeps on deleting information on the Sholam weiss page. --Barron Mickey (talk) 19:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You need to discuss this on the article talk page, not on user talk, but I suggest you read the information given to you and just quit responding without reading. - FlightTime Public (open channel) 19:14, 16 September 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

please unblock me from editing sholaom weiss page. Administrator Hut 8.5 must be in cahoots with User:Galatz and might even be the same person, User:Galatz deleted 85% of the sholam weiss page yesterday i complained to administrator Hut 8.5 did nothing, he said i need to talk it over with other editors,. once User:Galatz deleted everything he did i took off the COI. sholam weiss's page has been referenced and edited by 100s of people for the past 15 years, but in one hour User:Galatz deleted everything he felt was necessary, Administrator Hut 8.5 accused me of lying... look at history at sholam weiss User:Galatz yesterday clear says that he discussed with Barron mickey... https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sholam_Weiss&oldid=916053702 (see; 18:57, 16 September 2019‎ Galatz talk contribs‎ 27,044 bytes +23‎ Undid revision 916037439 by Barron Mickey) Adding back tag based on conversation at User_talk:Barron_Mickey#September_2019)... please unblock me.. thanks you Barron Mickey (talk) 19:04, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Editor shows no understanding of what he did wrong, and no indication he plans to improve, and is attacking the blocking admin in his unblock request. Killer Chihuahua 19:16, 17 September 2019 (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.

Just because something is sourced, does not mean it belongs on Wikipedia, see WP:NOT. Also I did not say it was discussed with you, I pointed to the discussion where you were told what you need to do in order to remove the tag. If you look at the edit history I gave a detailed explanation on everything that was removed, yet without discussion or rationale you added it back. Just because something has been there, doesn't mean it should be kept. Most of what was removed was WP:OR ot where conclusions were drawn or WP:BLP violations. - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 19:14, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and lets not forget your clear history of block evasion [6] - Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 19:18, 17 September 2019 (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).

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

Request reason:

I was not deliberately disturbing the sholam weiss page, i was adding edits and fact of the case. please unblock me.. I don't have a unblock expiration. thanks

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. If you don't understand how your edits were disruptive, then we have no way of verifying the disruption won't continue if you were to be unblocked. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:39, 17 September 2019 (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.