Jump to content

User talk:NYMets2000

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Until 8/5/2011 | 8/6/2011-2/1/2012 | 2/2/2012-3/2/2012 | 3/3/2012-3/30/2012 | 3/31/2012-4/10/2012 | User talk:NYMets2000/Archive F | User talk:NYMets2000/Archive G | User talk:NYMets2000/Archive H | User talk:NYMets2000/Archive I | User talk:NYMets2000/Archive J | User talk:NYMets2000/Archive K | User talk:NYMets2000/Archive L | User talk:NYMets2000/Archive M | User talk:NYMets2000/Archive N | User talk:NYMets2000/Archive O

User talk:Wikigirl5908

[edit]

While Wikigirl5908 may be a vandalism-only account, you should be aware as a vandalism patroller that WP:BLANKING allows users to remove warnings from their talk pages. You shouldn't have restored the warnings, especially with no current disruptive activity. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 16:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 08 August 2011

[edit]

August 2011

[edit]

Thank you for your report about User:Sexyonyunz (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention (UAA). However, your report was removed as UAA is for name policy infringements that are serious enough to warrant an immediate block. General name policy violations should first be discussed with the user on their talk page. A helpful template to do just that is {{subst:Uw-username}}. Note that a request for comment can be filed if the user disagrees that their name is against the username policy, or has continued to edit after you have expressed your concern. You may find the UAA instructions helpful, and I'd recommend reading them over prior to making future reports to UAA. Thank you. declined by Tnxman307 Waterfox ~talk~ 15:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your report about User:Jjikjkj9okuik (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention (UAA). However, your report was removed as UAA is for name policy infringements that are serious enough to warrant an immediate block. General name policy violations should first be discussed with the user on their talk page. A helpful template to do just that is {{subst:Uw-username}}. Note that a request for comment can be filed if the user disagrees that their name is against the username policy, or has continued to edit after you have expressed your concern. You may find the UAA instructions helpful, and I'd recommend reading them over prior to making future reports to UAA. Thank you. Waterfox ~talk~ 15:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: Frenchy - card game

[edit]

Hello NYMets2000. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Frenchy - card game to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe WP:CSD#G3 applies to the page in question - vandalism implies intent to harm the encyclopedia, or at least not to care about it, but this guy thinks he has something he wants to tell the world about. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:09, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 August 2011

[edit]

Speedy deletion nomination of Valerios leonidis

[edit]

A tag has been placed on Valerios leonidis requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer. Please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. nymets2000 (t/c/l) 00:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Valerios leonidis

[edit]

Hello NYMets2000, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Valerios leonidis, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Is a plausible, useful redirect or is not a redirect at all. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. — Joseph Fox 01:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Luc Quevauvilliers

[edit]

Hi NYMets2000. I see that you have recently become involved in the Articles for creation project. Firstly, thanks for your help as were are generally backlogged and can always use more reviewers. However, I noticed that you moved this [1] to the main space recently. Unfortunately, it was immediately tagged as WP:G4 meaning that it was a recreation of an article that had previously already undergone a deletion discussion. In the case of this article, this happened twice. Additionally, this really should have not been moved anyway as the sources do not establish much notability. As a new reviewer, it is important to look for these types of issues before moving an article to the main space. I would recommend that you don't do any articles other than the most obvious while you gain some experience in AfC reviewing. You are more than welcome to come to the AfC WP:IRC channel so that we might be able to help you handle more complex cases such as these. Cheers! Topher385 (talk) 21:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{subst:db-g8-notice|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Jean-Luc Quevauvilliers|nowelcome=|{{{key1}}}={{{value1}}}}} nymets2000 (t/c/l) 22:55, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to second this. The IRC channel is at #wikipedia-en-afc connect and please: while reviewing the references like at this article Geoffrey Lansdell, check if there are real third party and independent references. In this case the article has no third party references (which are written ABOUT him). All are written by himself... Please be careful next time. mabdul 16:12, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I only corrected the channel, sry my mistake. mabdul 18:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 August 2011

[edit]

RickK2

[edit]

I received correspondence from RickK saying that wasn't him. After verifying it, I blocked it as impersonation. - Philippe 05:36, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Failure to assert significance at Shankar chandraker

[edit]

Hi NYMets. You removed the A7 speedy tag from Shankar chandraker with the statement He is a newspaper journalist. Please note that passing WP:A7 criteria for people requires a bio page to make some assertion of significance -- and editors who remove the A7 tags are expected to provide a credible assertion. In other words, it answers the question: why is this person significant? Simply having a common everyday job is not inherently significant. "He is a newspaper journalist" is no more an assertion of significance than "She is a plumber" or "He is a teacher". Although A7 criteria require a lower standard than Notability criteria -- it is a good idea to be aware of our Wikipedia guidelines for notability. (In this case, you may wish to read WP:CREATIVE as well as WP:GNG). These will provide you with a better understanding of expected biographical requirements. As the article stands, there is still no assertion of significance. Additionally, no independent reliable source is provided for even cursory verification -- a violation of WP:BLP. I had actually already deleted the above article after it had been A7 tagged earlier, then tagged it myself after the same editor recreated this autobiographical article. If you wish the article to remain, you will need to address the above issues. Cheers. — CactusWriter (talk) 18:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Shankar Chandraker

[edit]

The article Shankar Chandraker has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

An autobiographical BLP with no assertion of notability and no independent references. A speedy A7 tag was declined by a reviewing editor with statement "He is a newspaper journalist" yet no assertion of significance was provided. A search for references finds only self-submitted profiles and blog pages.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article 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. — CactusWriter (talk) 22:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 August 2011

[edit]

RfA

[edit]

Hi there. I noticed you're transcluded your request before answering the questions. You'll want to answer the questions first, so I've undone your transclusion for now. I should warn you, though, the request is not likely to succeed at this point; I recommend waiting at least a few more months before requesting adminship. 28bytes (talk) 16:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How many? 3? 4? 5? nymets2000 (t/c/l) 16:16, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Generally speaking, you'll want to have at least 6 months' experience and 4000 edits. There are of course other considerations; I recommend you read up on some of the helpful essays other editors have written regarding requesting adminship; I can point you to some if you like. 28bytes (talk) 16:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Some interesting statistics are here. In particular, the average candidate who passed RfA in 2011 had been a Wikipedia editor for more than three and a half years, and had over 18,000 manual edits (manual edits would be those done without twinkle, huggle or similar tools). Of course, it's possible to pass RfA with less than those averages, but the lowest number of manual edits from someone who passed, was 3894; that editor had been on Wikipedia for 14 months. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:28, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NYMets, you are a great contributor, but you're not quite at the experience level that a potential admin must be at. I suggest you withdraw the nomination and run again in six months to a year. I know that may seem like a long time, but experience is gained through time and effort; the more time and effort you spend here on Wikipedia, the more experience you'll have. With more experience comes a greater potential to succeed at RfA. Kindest regards, The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 16:38, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What? You're not an admin. nymets2000 (t/c/l) 16:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to be an admin to participate in RfAs. The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 16:42, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yet. Malleus Fatuorum 16:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dun dun DUN! ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 16:45, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying, The Utahraptor isn't an admin. nymets2000 (t/c/l) 16:46, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the fact that I'm not an admin matter? The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 16:48, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) You have a series of milestones on your user page, the first of which is "My first RfA will be in March 10, 2012". Is your watch running fast? Malleus Fatuorum 16:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I think I know what's going on here. I tried telling you what experience level you had to be in order to be an adminstrator, but you think I don't know what I'm talking about since I'm not an admin. You don't necessarily have to be an admin to know what it takes, NYMets. I've voted in dozens of RfAs, and I nominated a successful RfA candidate who only got two oppose !votes and who got over 100 support !votes. I may not be an admin, but I do know what I'm talking about. The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 16:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In "You're not an admin", "You're" refers to The Utahraptor.
I'm not an admin either, but I know that Utahraptor is right. Malleus Fatuorum 16:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I'd recommend that you withdraw, as your RFA will not succeed. Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closed

[edit]

I am sorry, but I have closed your RFA prematurely. Simply put, you only have 1500 edits on Wikipedia; while your edit count isn't the only determining factor, and numerous people have their own personal standards by which they judge RfA candidates, this particular RfA was all but assured of not passing.

I am sorry about this, and I hope you don't take it personally. If you continue to contribute to the project in a positive fashion, I am confident that you would be able to submit a successful RfA in the future. You may wish to consider applying for an evaluation by other Wikipedia editors for feedback on how to obtain the necessary experience. Once you are ready to request adminship again, there is a great admin coaching program available, as well as a guide to requests for adminship.

If you have any other questions about becoming an administrator, please don't hesitate to ask me. Good luck! Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What other account(s)?

[edit]

Hi NYMets2000, I see the following on your user page:

"Note: This is ONLY the new account."

...and was wondering what other accounts you may have edited from? Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 00:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you need me, i'll log out. nymets2000 (t/c/l) 00:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC). And I'm the only one who has edited from my main IP.[reply]
(edit conflict) I was rather hoping that you would explain. That would be simpler. :) Have you edited using other accounts?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 00:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. And stop leaving messages frequently. I'm doing some tasks here. nymets2000 (t/c/l) 00:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So...you left a post at AN/I stating that someone should be blocked for failing to respond to you....and this is how you respond to someone making inquiries based on that thread? ...but go ahead and complete your tasks, I don't want to interrupt you.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 00:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Berean, note that the this editor first asked Azumanga if they wanted to be an administrator before they dragged them off to ANI. Carry on, lads, Drmies (talk) 01:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Boomerang: NYMets2000 and WP:CIR. Thank you.Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 02:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure whether you're actively following the discussion that Strange Passerby links to, but if not: concerns have been raised about your editing, and your future at the project is being discussed, with mentorship being the least drastic possibility mooted. If you've a moment to do so, you might want to participate there. Northumbrian (talk) 17:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you particpate at ANI now before someone blocks you. Spartaz Humbug! 19:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with an article Geoffrey Lansdell, that you approved at WP:AFC

[edit]

Hi, I recently came across Geoffrey Lansdell, and noticed that you approved it at WP:AFC. In my opinion the subject of the article fails WP:N and WP:BIO, there do not appear to be sufficient independent reliable sources about the subject to establish notability. Furthermore, the article fails WP:N as all of the references are to works written by the subject, which cannot qualify as reliable sources. I'm leaving a note here in the hopes that you will take steps to clean up the article. Monty845 02:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox2

[edit]

Sorry, but I really don't understand that. Drmies (talk) 19:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't understand what? nymets2000 (t/c/l) 19:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What it was. A redirect? for what purpose? Drmies (talk) 19:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect, because it was redundant to Template:Infobox. nymets2000 (t/c/l) 19:15, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't redundant until you created it, because it didn't exist before you created it. I've deleted it, so it can no longer be redundant. Drmies (talk) 19:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, NYMets2000. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Ezekiel53746 vandalism warnings.
Message added 19:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—GFOLEY FOUR!— 19:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

[edit]

I have blocked you indefinitely, because I do not think you have the competence or the maturity to edit here without causing more disruption, albeit not in bad faith, than benefit. This is evidenced in various sections above, your request for a user to be blocked for submitting AfC requests, your requests for an AfC to be fully protected, the immaturity displayed in your RfA and discussion thereof, you reverting of 28bytes' untransclusion of your RfA using rollback and many other incidents. I think it's time for you depart Wikipedia before you cause serious damage, and come back in a year or two when you're a little more mature and better able to contribute.

This is not a reflection on you personally, merely a necessary step to protect Wikipedia, and I'm sure we'd all be happy to see you back in the future. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For posterity: WP:ANI#Boomerang:_NYMets2000_and_WP:CIR (permalink)

Unblock request(s)

[edit]
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).

NYMets2000 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This does not surprise me. I realize I would explain this to the admins of Wikipedia. And in addition, I was willing to consider mentorship

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. either way (talk) 20:16, 1 September 2011 (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.

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).

NYMets2000 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I promise to not make vandalism on Wikipedia. If I promise, then I'll be a good editor.

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.
You're very close to losing talkpage access too. Additionally, don't place unblock requests on your IP's talk page. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:42, 1 September 2011 (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.

NYMets2000, you seem to misunderstand why you are blocked. No one is accusing you of being a vandal. I would suggest not quickly posting another unblock request until you fully understand why you were blocked. Frequent unblock requests tend to lead to your talk page privileges being removed. 28bytes (talk) 20:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was blocked because of WP:CIR nymets2000 (t/c/l) 20:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much, yes. So the question is, what changes do you think you would need to make to your editing approach in order for WP:CIR to no longer be an issue? Don't hurry to answer, give this some thought over the next few days. If you're interested in returning to edit, you'll need to make a very strong case that the CIR concerns have been addressed. 28bytes (talk) 20:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What are the CIR concerns? nymets2000 (t/c/l) 20:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked User:The Utahraptor if he would be willing to help you better understand the reasons for your block and help you on a path towards eventually editing again. He will stop by here later to talk with you. 28bytes (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative suggestion

[edit]

Here's an alternative suggestion that you could try, if you like. Go to another Wikimedia project (they will hate me for saying so, and you will be watched with care there, but Simple English Wikipedia is a common choice). At that project, concentrate on contributing content. Not administrative discussions, not page protection requests, not block requests, not vandal fighting, not page patrolling, not policy discussions, not userpages and userspace templates, not ANI discussions and the like. Content.

When you've written content there for two months - no drama but lots of useful content contributions - then come back to this talk page and make another unblock request linking to the content you have contributed on that other project in that two months. Don't edit English Wikipedia at all until you have done that. This might have a much better chance of you getting unblocked. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I pick the Simple English Wikipedia. nymets2000 (t/c/l) 21:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a sysop both here and on Simple English Wikipedia, let me just say I do not like the idea of him coming to Simple English Wikipedia to "prove himself" for the "regular" English Wikipedia. We have enough of those type users there and it creates an environment where we have to police and clean up after them (which, obviously, detracts from actual editing). either way (talk) 21:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair comment, and yes I'm aware of the concensus view of this type of experiment. Under the circumstances, I suppose I'll have to spend more time on Simple and do some of the cleanup work in this particular case. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Utahraptor has offered to mentor NYMets2000; I don't know whether Utahraptor is active on Simple but he may be willing to keep an eye on NYMets2000's editing over there to help keep things under control. 28bytes (talk) 21:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He has 7 edits on simple.wp but more than 15 thousand on en.wp nymets2000 (t/c/l) 21:25, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have only one strike left there. nymets2000 (t/c/l) 00:05, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as I explained to NYMets2000 on his Simple English Wikipedia talk page, SEW has a one-strike policy for users who are indefinitely blocked/banned on other Wikimedia sites who choose to edit SEW. either way (talk) 00:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you have seen this before, but for some insight into the mistakes you've made and how you might be able to avoid them in the future (whenever you're allowed to resume editing, or on whichever project), please see Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I'm not active on SEW, but I suppose I could monitor him from there. NYMets, before you make any edits, please consult me on my SEW talk page, and I'll respond as soon as possible. I'll make sure to check my talk page over there as much as possible. Below are some areas we'll need to address. The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 02:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Areas that we will address

[edit]

Throughout your time here on Wikipedia, several concerns have come up. They are as follows:

  1. Concerns regarding your knowledge of policy have been brought up many times. From your CSD tagging to your pre-mature RfA, many of us get the feeling that you don't understand policy very well. I understand that you're new (only 1,500 edits), and that it's hard at first to grasp the concept of all of these policies, but it's important that you understand policies, since these govern most aspects of Wikipedia (there's still WP:IAR, but that should only be applied in certain instances).
  2. Concerns regarding your inability to cooperate have also been brought up. The fact that you rarely address problems brought up (especially the "What other account(s)?" thread above) shows that you're not really cooperating with your fellow editors. One of the most important things to remember here on Wikipedia is that it's a collaborative effort; that is, you work with other users as much as possible to make this encyclopedia run smoothly as well as to address any problems brought up that concern you. I'm glad you responded to the ANI thread that concerns you; that at least shows that you can cooperate.
  3. Concerns regarding your competence came up many times, including the "RfA" thread that unfolded a few days ago. Even after being told that I didn't need to be an administrator to know what it takes to be one, you kept insisting that I wasn't an admin (which at that point didn't matter). The fact that you brought a potential admin to ANI just because they didn't answer your messages is also a concern. You also brought an administrator to the Bureaucrat Noticeboard requesting them to be de-sysopped even though they hadn't been inactive for over a year, but this could've just been a misunderstanding, since the policy governing this wasn't exactly clear.

I'm going to be busy for the rest of this week and Sunday, so we'll start on Monday. Once I become readily available, I will send you a message on your SEW talk page. Sound good? The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 02:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Something cleared up, and I'll be available for the rest of today, but I'll still be busy over the weekend. Just thought I'd let you know. Send me a message on my SEW talk page if you want to start now. The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 20:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that all three of these concerns will be addressed after several years of not editing at all. I predict that simplewiki mentoring will end up just as it did for simple:Special:Contributions/SEPTActaMTA8235 this user. The problematic patterns are so similar that I briefly considered the possibility of socking, but I doubt that is the case. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I agree. Without wishing to add insult to injury, I just don't think NYMets understands why his actions were disruptive (even though they weren't intended to be). One day, and it might be six months or six years or even longer, he'll look back and think "wow, I'm a lot more mature now than I was back then, and I think I can genuinely contribute something to a project like Wikipedia", but it won't happen overnight, and no amount of time expended on mentoring on Wikipedia will make it happen any faster (if anything, it would only delay it). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What does that mean? nymets2000 (t/c/l) 14:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It might mean, that if you struggle to understand comments made in large paragraphs with quotes and parentheses, then you won't yet find it possible to contribute to Wikipedia without problems.
On the other hand, I think it might be useful to keep things separate; The Utahraptor's mentoring can go in one section, and comments by others about whether they think The Utahraptor's mentoring is likely to succeed, would be better in a separate section (or elsewhere). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:05, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It can't hurt to try mentorship. Even if there is a problem, per SEW's "One strike" rule, NYMets will be blocked. I'm working on a mentorship program that could help NYMets, and I would like to see how it goes. The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 02:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NYMets will be blocked where? On simple.wp? nymets2000 (t/c/l) 02:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the community decides to go with the mentorship program on Simple English Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing Simple English Wikipedia if you make a major mistake. You don't have to worry now, though; not everybody agrees with the concept of mentorship just yet. The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 02:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 05 September 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 12 September 2011

[edit]

My interest in returning to editing

[edit]

I'm interested in a return of editing because the block isn't necessary because I want to have good edits. And 28bytes just told me that no one accused me of being a vandal or something. And furthermore, 3/4 of my edits being non-vandalism is a good sign of being unblocked. nymets2000 (t/c/l) 00:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. Your are proving the need for the block just here. You weren't blocked for being a vandal so what has this to do with an unblock? Spartaz Humbug! 02:46, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NYMets2000, the earliest I would consider accepting an unblock request from you is September 14, 2012. In the meantime, you are as-yet unblocked on Simple, so I suggest you go there and edit productively if you are able. 28bytes (talk) 05:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I changed my mind. I will quit using this username and use a different username. nymets2000 (t/c/l) 20:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is sockpuppetry; please do not do so. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:07, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or else what? nymets2000 (t/c/l) 20:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or else you will never edit Wikipedia again after we block that account. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could this be a community ban? nymets2000 (t/c/l) 21:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you sockpuppet, more than likely. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Facepalm Facepalm A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:35, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why facepalm? nymets2000 (t/c/l) 21:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NYMets, this is the block rationale that HJ Mitchell provided: "Competence is required to edit Wikipedia; see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=447909496#Boomerang:_NYMets2000_and_WP:CIR" You were blocked because of your repeated displays of incompetence and your inability to cooperate, among other things. This thread further accentuates these reasons for which you were blocked, and until you can prove you are competent and willing to cooperate, you will not be unblocked. However, as 28bytes said, you are not blocked on Simple English Wikipedia, so if you're still interested in contributing, that's the place you should go. Do remember, though, that SEW has a one-strike policy, so if you make a mistake there, you'll be blocked there as well. The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 22:19, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What if I pretend to be someone else? nymets2000 (t/c/l) 21:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Then it will be incredibly obvious because you'll still edit in the same way. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And it's still considered sockpuppetry if you pretend to be someone else. That's kind of what sockpuppetry means. ;) The UtahraptorTalk/Contribs 03:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 19 September 2011

[edit]

Proposed deletion of Matthew W. Taylor

[edit]

The article Matthew W. Taylor has been proposed for deletion because, under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. RadioFan (talk) 03:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 September 2011

[edit]


The Signpost: 3 October 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 10 October 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 17 October 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 24 October 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 31 October 2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 7 November2011

[edit]

The Signpost: 14 November 2011

[edit]

Proposed deletion of Fowler Beach, Delaware

[edit]
Notice

The article Fowler Beach, Delaware has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable geographic feature mislabeled as a community.

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. –dlthewave ☎ 21:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Stephan Berg

[edit]
Notice

The article Stephan Berg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Besides winning the 1991 Eurovision Song Contest as a songwriter the subject of this article is non-notable and does not warrant its own article.

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. Sims2aholic8 (talk) 15:36, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:NYMets2000&oldid=1186800175"