User talk:Cmach7

Hello,

Please leave Messages right here if you need my answers to your questions. Cmach7 (talk) 00:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Archives:

1

2012 Archives:

2
3
4

2013 Archives:

5
6

Adopted!

I have accepted your adoption request. Your classroom for adoption has been set up at User:Brambleberry of RiverClan/Adoption/Cmach7. I suggest that you add it to your watchlist so that you know when I have responded to one of your queries. öBrambleberry_{_ meow _ watch me in action} 15:46, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Cmach7. You have new messages at Brambleberry of RiverClan's talk page.
Message added 23:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

öBrambleberry_{_ meow _ watch me in action} 23:38, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail

I have sent you an e-mail about an important matter. Please confirm, either here or by reply e-mail, that you have received it. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Replied. Cmach7 (talk) 01:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1924 in film, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page White Man (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:11, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re. Ocaasi's RfA

Hey, how's it going? =)

I just wanted to stop by and say that I'm sorry if my comments over at Ocaasi's RfA made you feel awkward or did anything to humiliate you. I just figured that, since you're new to the bureaucratic side of Wikipedia, it might help for me to give you some tips on how to participate in an RfA. I never meant for anything to snowball like they have.

I hope this doesn't deter you from making any further positive contributions to Wikipedia. You've done a lot of good work so far, and I hope I continue to see you around the place.

Take care. Kurtis ^(talk) 10:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I came here to leave a message about the same thing. With only just over 500 edits, I am reasonably sure that your experience does not extend yet to participating objectively in such bureaucratic places as RfA. Most of us start our Wiki careers by building content rather than looking at the adminy stuff behind the scenes. That said, if you are really interested in what our RfA candidates have to go through, you will almost certainly find this essay very interesting: WP:Advice for RfA candidates. Good luck, and if you ever need help with anything or some suggestions where you can work on improving article quality, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also. Actually, what you said wasn't inappropriate. It's OK to give a general feeling that someone's demonstrated qualities are not convincing. You should not have been questioned about that. It's OK to question a general agreement if you don't understand the reason for it. I've been a in a very small minority or even a minority of one from time to time, & I will be again whenever I think it worthwhile. Of course, when it is something that doesn't matter it does put oneself in a rather exposed position. Never feel you have to agree with the dominant position. DGG ( talk ) 02:21, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Ermengarde, Countess of Maine; Bosonids; Infante Afonso, Lord of Portalegre; Chilperic of Aquitaine; Constance of Normandy; Infanta Sancha of Portugal; Andrew Simpson (actor); Bethóc; House of Beaufort; Richard FitzRoy; Simon I de Montfort; Kate Norgate; Lulach; Banking in France; Aria Wallace; Margaret, Countess of Pembroke; Eleanor of Portugal, Queen of Denmark; Galan Erilich; Guardian of Scotland

Cleanup: Feodor Chaliapin, Jr.; France in the Middle Ages; History of Toulouse
Merge: House of Plantagenet; Fast attack craft; Aimery I, Viscount of Châtellerault
Add Sources: Chlothar IV; Clovis IV; Dagobert III
Wikify: Malleco National Reserve; SnT Radio.com; List of untitled nobility of Austria-Hungary
Expand: 21st century; Michael I of Russia; Frederick V of Denmark

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Activity warning

While in the past I was usually on every day for a few hours, my schedule has been ramped up. I probably won't be able to get on Mondays at all with few exceptions, and when I do get on I will probably be on for a shorter period of time.

While I will do my best to ensure that I get all your queries answered as soon as possible, I can make no guarantees of when "as soon as possible" will be anymore. By late May my schedule should be winding down again, and I will go back to my usual period of activity.

I apologize for any inconvenience. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 14:17, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Margaret, Countess of Anjou; Provisions of Oxford; Talorc II of the Picts; Yantai Economic and Technological Development Zone; Emenon; Infanta Branca, Viscountess of Huelgas; Richard, Count of Évreux; Joan of Lusignan; Elisabeth of Sicily, Duchess of Bavaria; Drest Gurthinmoch; Getchell Mine; Gartnait I of the Picts; Urraca of Portugal; Francis I, Duke of Brittany; Catherine of Valois, Countess of Montpensier; Yuzhny Island; Talorc I of the Picts; Drest V of the Picts; Maria of Aragon, Queen of Castile

Cleanup: Czech cuisine; Charles I of Naples; Prince of Antioch
Merge: Administrative divisions of France; Frank Zhang; List of heads of state of Spain
Add Sources: Sigebert II; The Sims 3: University Life; Carloman II
Wikify: Union of the Crowns; Marie of Anjou; Prince Ferdinand Philippe, Duke of Orléans
Expand: Zombi (video game); Charibert I; Urraca of Castile, Queen of Portugal

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 16:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RfA: thank you for your support

Thank you for your support during my recent RfA, Cmach7. Your late-breaking support, even in the midst of a lot of sound and fury at the end, was heartening. Warm regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. C mach 7 19:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Cmach7. You have new messages at User:Brambleberry of RiverClan/Adoption/Cmach7.
Message added 22:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I've been waiting for you at adoption! öBrambleberry of RiverClan 22:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RfB's

Cmach7, I've reverted your addition of the RfB's. The candidates have to accept first. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, sorry. C mach 7 02:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to find more useful things to do than all the RFA/RFB related things you've been into lately. Didn't this area get you into trouble a while ago? Seems like a good subject to discuss with your adopter. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More: I've deleted all 4 nominations. I'm sorry, but they demonstrate such a low level of understanding how things work around here that I need to ask you not to nominate anyone else for adminship or bureaucratship for a long while (as in, a year or two). You don't have a good understanding of the process. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are these nominations a joke? --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 02:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I salted my "nomination" as the timing is poor, and even if I never lost my administrative tools, I don't have the technical ability to become one, never been interested. Secret ^account 02:59, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RfB

Thanks for your consideration, but I must decline your RfB nomination. As noted by Floquenbeam (t c) above, your nominations unfortunately reflect a lack of complete understanding of the process, and as I told you by email when you asked last month, I don't feel I would be ready for such a position anyway. —Darkwind (talk) 02:36, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your involvement with RFA, RFB, and rights requests

It came to my attention that you inappropriately nominated four users for RFB today. Because of this, it is clear that you have very little understanding of user rights, and are one of the users that we have on all WMF wikis who goes around requesting userrights that they do not understand. Your actions, such as those that you have done today, have been disruptive, and show little respect for the users that you have nominated, and for the community. Editors have tried to counsel you and help you in this area, to no good. Wikipedia is not a game to try and get as many rights as you possibly can; we are here to build an encyclopedia.

Therefore, I am giving you a final warning, as you have already been blocked for something similar. Except for voting, please stay as far away from RFA, RFB, RFPERM, and any other related process as possible. Specifically, do not nominate yourself for any userrights, do not run for admin or bureaucrat, and do not nominate any others for any userrights, including but not limited to admin or bureaucrat. If you do any of these things, we will have no choice but to block you indefinitely in order to prevent disruption to this site. You are welcome to continue editing articles, but you cannot continue disrupting our already broken RFA process like you have been doing for the last few months. --Rs chen 7754 05:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to suggest a potential topic ban, but seeing as Cmach7 edits almost exclusively in RFA/RFB, I am inclined to agree with the indefinite block if this behaviour continues. Giant Snowman 10:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In a sense, the above is essentially the same as a topic ban without the stress of ANI, in that if the user continues the behavior they will eventually wind up indefinitely blocked. I considered another indefinite, but was talked out of it by some other admins. --Rs chen 7754 11:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked Brambleberry of RiverClan (talk · contribs), who has adopted this user, to have a word, see if that helps. Giant Snowman 11:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your behavior

I have been politely asked to talk to you about your behavior at RfA and RfB. I know that you're a well-meaning user, but what you have been doing is becoming very disruptive and you might be blocked indefinitely. User rights are a big deal and should be given only when they would further benefit the building of an encyclopedia. Nominating as many people as you can for these rights shows little to no respect to anyone here. I can try and educate you further on your adoption classroom if you so wish.

In addition, I would like to remind you that as it says on the Adopt-a-user page, adoption is not a shield. You remain solely responsible for your behavior. I cannot force you to change, and blame cannot be placed on me if you choose to continue making disruptive edits. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 20:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I concur. Nobody wants to see you blocked. Consider doing some mainspace work: Wikipedia:Requested articles/Images. Let me know if I can help. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Block

Hi Cmach. I'm sorry, but I've just had to block you due to some privacy-related concerns. It's not because you've done something purposely wrong, but nevertheless given your recent behavior, in combination with your recent file upload, I'm not sure you're able to operate safely and competently here on Wikipedia right now considering that we can't always be here to supervise and guard your edits. I know you absolutely mean well here, and I don't intend for you to be blocked forever and ever or anything, but right now I think you need to take some time away until you have a little bit better of a handle on how to use the internet safely. Please don't respond here by giving any personal details; if you'd like to speak about what real-life related stuff has to do with this block, please email me using the email function, or use the Unblock Request System to privately appeal the block to Wikipedia's administrators. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Block Appeal

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).

Cmach7 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I will not put down any personal information. I will create some pages that I know I can site sources on and edit constructivley. Regards, C mach 7 22:39, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I've just spent some time reveiwing this case, and I have to agree that it is in both Wikipedia's interest and yours that at this time you remain blocked. Wanting to contribute is great, but at the end of the day you need to be able to actually do so. We all made mistakes when we were new here, that is to be expected when entering into an undertaking as complex as Wikipedia, but over time we learned from our mistakes and improved. That doesn't seem to have happened here. I would encourage you to try and see this not as a bad thing but as an opportunity to find another hobby that you enjoy. And maybe, some day, when enough time has passed and you have matured a bit, you will be welcomed back to Wikipedia and will find that you can particpate in a constructive manner. Best of luck in your future endeavors. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2013 (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.

Considering that you have demonstrated a lack of understanding of how to create content in the past, what will be different if you are unblocked? --Rs chen 7754 22:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding reliable sources like in a silent film called Falling Cat. C mach 7 22:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this irony, but I just happened to this page to inquire of Cmach7 if there was any way I could help him with editing. A very very late follow-up from the past I had just remembered. Of course that would require granting the unblock, which I am inclined to favor.—My76Strat (talk) 07:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the blocking admin, I obviously won't be reviewing this unblock request myself, but it might be useful to either Cmach or the admin who does review this to hear my thoughts: as I said in my blocking notice, I don't think Cmach is trying to do anything wrong, but I do think he currently lacks the judgment to know whether any given action he thinks about taking is a good idea or not. We've seen repeated behavior over the past six months or so that indicates this, and now that it's gotten into the realm of not only poor political choices (things like excessive RFAs, RfB noms, etc) but poor safety ones, I personally don't think it's in Cmach's best interests to continue editing unless and until he can demonstrate (via things like an unblock request or private communication with arbcom or an oversighter) that he has developed the required competence. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:41, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to say it but I agree with Fluffernutter. Unblocking Cmach7 is not in Wikipedia's best interests and it's not in Cmach7's best interest. To some extent, we can live with editors who make poor choices but it's really difficult to deal with editors who continue to make the same poor choices once they've received repeated advice on how to proceed otherwise. This has been the pattern of behavior from day 1. Looking at the talk page archives, I think other editors have shown a lot of patience but it still has to be somewhat stressful to face a constant barrage of "you're doing it wrong". I'm not sure that the criticism will forever be kind and calm and in fact, it's safe to say that some editor will at some point lash out at Cmach7 and I'm not sure he would be able to handle that. Pichpich (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, Cmach7 is a well-intentioned, but inexperienced editor. Most of us were attracted to Wikipedia because we felt compelled to contribute to certain articles that were of particular interest to us, not because we were attracted to Wikipedia's internal politics and administrative issues (God help us if we were!). Most of us began to comment on and participate in the resolution of administrative issues only after we had gained some experience in actually editing mainspace articles, as well as some practical understanding of Wikipedia's culture and politics. Cmach has done the exact reverse of that, and has committed several Wikipedia faux pas as a result. Personally, I winced when I read his serial RfB nominations of several recently promoted administrators. An experienced editor, with an understanding of wiki-culture, would not have done that. My advice to Cmach is that he should pick several subject areas and focus on editing articles, not on the "man behind the curtain" stuff that already attracts far too much prurient attention. That, of course, presumes that (1) Cmach is willing to refocus his Wikipedia efforts, (2) Cmach understands enough to present a convincing unblock rationale, (3) an admin is willing to unblock him, and (4) he is willing to accept some gentle advice to help him avoid problems until he gains more experience.

In considering what to do in Cmach's case, I ask the contributing administrators to consider that Cmach is well-intended, but inexperienced. He is not a vandal, he is not intentionally disruptive, and he does not appear to be contentious in his interactions. Surely we can find a gentle way to counsel him and turn him into a productive contributor with some help. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy to get the impression that Fluffernutter and I are heartless bastards not willing to lend a hand to a well-intentioned newbie but actually we did try to reach out and help him. You have to take into account that Cmach7 is not the typical newbie [1] and that it's very difficult to get him to listen to advice. Back in 2011, Cmach7 created a whole bunch of unreferenced 1-line stubs and not so surprisingly got a bunch of warnings about it. Typical entirely forgivable rookie mistake. At some point, DGG gave him kind and detailed advice on the subject. Well it literally took months before he stopped despite the fact that he continued to get warnings and advice on the subject. This same pattern occurred last November with the RfAs: many people tried to explain the problem and they did so in a friendly and forgiving manner. But the message never got through until the block. Counseling has been tried repeatedly but in this case, it does not seem to work. Pichpich (talk) 16:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I am fully aware, without equivocation, that Cmach's best interests underpin the motives that have led to this discussion. I wish the best for Cmach as well. If that means he returns to editing, I am willing to work closely to assist in developing productive habits. I have the luxury of available time. I won't second guess whatever decision is made, and there are several factors which I am not aware of. I am therefore standing by to observe the outcome.—My76Strat (talk) 17:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PichPich, I do not believe, nor did I intend to suggest that you and Fluffernutter are "heartless bastards," generally, or in this particular matter. I apologize if my comments gave you reason to infer otherwise. I do understand and sympathize with the reasons for the present block, and that it is intended as something of a wake-up call. My larger point was that I would see it as a systemic failure if we can't find a way to make a positive contributor of Cmach. My perception is that he is well-intentioned, but ventures into areas in which he is not yet competent with far greater frequency than he should. It would be a shame if he is permanently blocked or banned, and I trust that would happen only as a last resort.

My direct advice to Cmach is that you have to help yourself, and you have to help us to help you. The best way to start that process is to focus on the substantive editing of mainspace articles, avoid the drama boards, and restrict your participation in RfAs to !voting. The best way to learn is by doing, and to absorb the policies and guidelines regarding article editing as you go. Pick something that genuinely interests you, and work on articles in that topic area. If you're really not interested in writing, editing, sourcing and researching, then maybe Wikipedia is not the thing for you. If 76Strat has the time to work with you, I suggest that you accept his generous offer to do so. Please consider carefully. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, Dirtlawyer, the wakeup calls came repeatedly and a while ago. This is more of a "we've tried repeatedly to help you understand, but you've now gone so far as to require Oversight of your edits for safety reason, and we can't let you have any more rope until we know that won't happen again". That's why a commitment to focus on article editing would be, to me, missing the point: it's not about article work; it's about competence, failure to listen, and failure to protect himself. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Points well made, and well received, Fluffer. I defer to your greater involvement and greater knowledge of Cmach's personal history. If we have already reached and surpassed the point of "last resort," then I must trust your judgment in this matter. I've spoken my piece. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the record Dirtlawyer, I know you don't seriously think we're heartless bastards and I wasn't trying to blame you. All I meant to say is that it's not fun defending the "he'll never be competent" side of the argument, especially because we're not heartless bastards. Pichpich (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)are no a[reply]

There are a few things I feel are too important not to say. First, everyone talked of a day when Cmach7 might hopefully return able to handle productive editing. So it seems clear that at some point Cmach7 will have to make an irrefutably clear request, that is of the likes that are hard not to approve. I'll be glad if that day comes. Second, I looked and did not see a block against talk page editing? On one hand, talk page access opens some of the vulnerability that was stated as being prevented by the block. On the other hand I'm certainly not aware of a reason why Cmach7 should not be allowed to edit his talk page. So I hope maybe to see what Cmach7 has to say, about the things we've been talking about.—My76Strat (talk) 21:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While there apear to be no comments either from Cmach or the community that directly address his/her age, I am convinced not only, but also by this comment, and this edit, that Cmach is a very young user. In spite of MyStrat's optimism therefore, I believe that we will be in for a very long wait because while we can teach users about policies and how to use editing tools, maturity only comes with age, and helping people to grow up is not within our remit. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]