User talk:Middledistance99

I am on here every day, so I will get back to you very quickly. Middledistance99 (talk) 09:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have been blocked. I am Alex Gurteen, a sockpuppet of Oscar1994alex1999 and all the rest. I want to be allowed back properly on my main account, Oscar248 to demonstrate my notability. It is better than just continuing as sockpuppets. Middledistance99 (talk) 21:49, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Banstead Woods Parkrun

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Banstead Woods Parkrun requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organized event (tour, function, meeting, party, etc.) that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. reddogsix (talk) 22:17, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

reddogsix I do not think this meets the CSD as the event is significant for being started very early in the history of parkrun (only the third event), with a large number of individual having taken part. I believe this page does not clearly comply with CSD A7. Can we have a deletion discussion to bring in editor's opinions? Middledistance99 (talk) 22:28, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Wolff moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Daniel Wolff, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:15, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Hi, you should not nominate an article for AfD if you want to keep it. If you want to discuss the merits of an article that should be done on the article talk page, or at an AfD discussion if someone nominates it for AfD who wants to delete it, regards, Atlantic306 (talk) 15:08, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, apologies for that. Middledistance99 (talk) 15:28, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about Banstead Woods Parkrun

Hello, Middledistance99,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Banstead Woods Parkrun should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Banstead Woods Parkrun .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

Natureium (talk) 19:00, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Wimbledon Common Parkrun for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Wimbledon Common Parkrun is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wimbledon Common Parkrun until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Natureium (talk) 19:49, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Barack Obama, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening. Why was my edit not constructive? Middledistance99 (talk) 21:25, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just because people have made claims without evidence that Obama wasn't born in Honolulu doesn't make it "disputed" to the point that it should be mentioned in the infobox. The edit comes off as something between POV-pushing and trolling. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:27, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was disputed, but I understand if the credibility of the doubts does not warrant a mention in the infobox. Not trolling, but I do think this should be prominent in the article as this was a signifcant story over a number of years, even involving is presidential successor. Middledistance99 (talk) 21:32, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary Sanctions Notification - American Politics

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:24, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Banstead Woods Parkrun

The article Banstead Woods Parkrun has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable event lacking in-depth, non-trivial support. Sounds like a popular event, but popularity does not equate to Wikipedia based notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. reddogsix (talk) 23:44, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Nonsuch Parkrun

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Nonsuch Parkrun, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:11, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to remove speedy deletion notices from pages you created yourself, as you did at Nonsuch Parkrun, you may be blocked from editing. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:22, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon. This is not intended to be disruptive. I am trying to improve the page, through adding more content and references. This notice was put on the page within 5 minute of the page being created. As I added more content I felt that the tag was no longer appropriate. Middledistance99 (talk) 16:26, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And as the template says, you should not remove templates on articles you've created. This is nearly the same as the deleted version. If it is different an administrator will decline it. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:27, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, my apologies. Hopefully the page will stay. Plenty of independant sources. Middledistance99 (talk) 16:28, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call this an independent source, this is not significant and it's hyperlocal, this is an interview with a non notable guy in a local paper. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 16:33, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

- TNT ^💖 20:06, 24 August 2018 (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).

Middledistance99 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not here to cause trouble. This is my clean start. TheGraciousFew who you also blocked is my Dad. He has done nothing wrong and should be unblocked. You can see he is not a sockpupoet by the lack of overlap between our edits. I may not share the opinions of some editors in terms of articles, but I am here to edit constructively.Middledistance99 (talk) 21:15, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are not an editor in good standing, thus not eligible for a clean start. In fact, you have so many confirmed violations of WP:SOCK that we now consider you de facto banned under WP:3X. You have repeatedly demonstrated you are not here to be constructive. If you were, you'd stay away for at least six months, then apply under WP:SO. Instead, you continue to set up accounts to evade your block. You are indeed in a cycle of sockpuppetry. It's in your power to stop. Yamla (talk) 22:23, 24 August 2018 (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.

Clean start is only available to editors in good standing. What is your original account? There's substantial evidence you have multiple blocked accounts here. --Yamla (talk) 21:52, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla Hi. My original account is Oscar1994alex1999, created in 2010, active from Sep 2012. This was blocked because it was the same name as my YouTube account, not for any other reason. I then used Oscar247 and Oscar248. Oscar248 was my main account from Nov 2012 to December 2017, which I used in good faith until I made a joke article about myself. I then made a string of sockpuppets from Dec 2017 to Aug 2018, which can be found at Wikipedia sockpuppets of Oscar1994alex1999 and reused Oscar247. This is the last of them, they have all been found out and beeb blocked.

I would like to come back at Oscar248, previoisly my long term good faith account. Thegraciousfew is my Dad - same IP should be unblocked as he has nothing to do with this. This can be proven by the edit history. I genuinely want to come back with a single account and edit properly, my previous use of Oscar248 shows this. I am in a cycle of sockpuppet useage and I would like to end it in this way.

Thanks

Alex

Middledistance99 (talk) 22:04, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. Thegraciousfew has overlap with your account, and technical and behavioural links to other accounts. As for "This is the last of them", I'm not convinced and I'm still looking. You could save me a lot of time and effort by giving me a list - TNT ^💖 22:36, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1.User:TinyTemper (2012) 2.User:BNP2018 (Aug 2018)

That is it. There may be links with others due to similar editing habits but that is it. The Gracious Few is not me, knows far more about the site than me and has been on it since I was 7 years old. He is an innocent party to this. He has edited a few of the same articles that I have. He is a reviewer. Middledistance99 (talk)™

So, not your "dad" then? - TNT ^💖 22:45, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes he is. Sincerly why do you think he is not? Middledistance99 (talk) 22:47, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you have not found it already, the category of all my sockpuppets are at the bottom-

TNT Thegraciousfew is my Father. There is no vandalism on his account. Please unblock him. A few months ago anither check user found his account and did not block him because it was clear he is not me and is a constructive contributor. Middledistance99 (talk) 23:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Note: Of interest may the WP:BROTHER essay (note: it's not policy and includes humor). But more importantly WP:STANDARDOFFER has good recommendations. —Paleo Neonate – 23:26, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paleo

He is. I am Alex Gurteen, aged 19. I created a page about myself. Here is my athlete profile. It shows I was born in 1999. https://www.thepowerof10.info/athletes/profile.aspx?athleteid=357957&viewby=agegraded

Dad's account has been up since '06, when I was 7, editing constructively. It cannot possibly be my account. I have never used it. The reason I want the account unblocked is that he is a longstanding contributor with thousands of all good faith edits who has been unfairly blocked due to my actions. Middledistance99 (talk) 23:36, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to request revdel of that information and use WP:OTRS if you would like to keep your information private and/or prove your identity. Some editors prefer to use their real name too, that's fine if so. —Paleo Neonate – 23:40, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Paleo This info is already in the public domain. I just wanted ti demonstrate instrate the account is not mine, because it deserves to be unblocked. This is what the CheckUser acknowledged last time. This is unfair on him. I take responsibility for this. Middledistance99 (talk) 23:44, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Yamla, User:Doug_Weller, User:Richie333 TNT Please unblock my Dad. He in only a technical match because I have edited a few of the same articles on my sockpuppets. He has done absolutely nothing wrong and therefore should be unblocked. I routinely used the home PC to edit. I will quit Wikipedia and stop the disruption, clearly some time away from editing is in order for me. Middledistance99 (talk) 19:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Middledistance99: Thegraciousfew is highly

Confirmed to this account, though your explanation of using the same computer would go some way to explain this. The sticking point for me is the content area crossover. You've both edited Draft:Nonsuch Parkrun for example - why is that? - TNT ^💖 20:34, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This was not a draft back then. The page was deleted in July after being up for 5 months. We both live next to the park and regularly attend the event, which is probably why he found it. I probably mentioned the article to him as well. Middledistance99 (talk) 20:39, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the discussion here, I'm going to take this at face value - I have unblocked Thegraciousfew. This account will remain blocked. I strongly recommend you read and consider standard offer. - TNT ^💖 20:49, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Thegraciousfew claims to be based in Raynes Park, which is very near to Nonsuch. That explains the editing overlap I see. I would recommend un-blocking TheGraciousFew and commuting Middledistance99's block (under this or his original account) to be 3-6 months. Their parkrun edits were somewhere between "radical inclusionism" and "disruptive", and edits like [1] were also disruptive (though possibly in good faith). power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:27, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My long time account is Oscar248. If I was allowed to return at some point, I think there would be best. Middledistance99 (talk) 20:31, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you TNT, much appreciated. Should the edits of my sockpuppets be merged together to show all them are one individual? Oscar248 is the main one. Middledistance99 (talk) 21:05, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Daniel Wolff

Hello, Middledistance99. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Daniel Wolff".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Dolotta (talk) 12:47, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]