Jump to content

User talk:Ryancoke2020

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

Ryancoke2020, you are invited to the Teahouse!

[edit]
Teahouse logo

Hi Ryancoke2020! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like 78.26 (talk).

Visit the Teahouse
We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Adding Copyrighted Images

[edit]
@AmandaNP: Dear Amanda - I'm hoping all is well. I have several images that I am hoping to include as part of the Wikipedia page I am creating. They do not belong to me, nor have I uploaded them to Wikipedia Commons. I have, however, contacted the owner of these photos and he is willing to grant permission. I've read through much of the information re: uploading copyrighted material and how to proceed, but I'm still mostly unsure which is the best way to proceed. Should he use the Interactive Release Generator? Should he upload his photos to Flickr and, from there, I'd be able to use them? Should he use the Declaration of consent form? Any advice would be greatly appreciated, Amanda. Thank you, kindly.

Ryan (Ryancoke2020 (talk) 22:59, 15 August 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Concerns / Getting Nervous

[edit]

@AmandaNP: - Hey Amanda! I genuinely hope all is well in your corner of the country. I'm currently still plugging away at the Wikipedia page I'm creating, but I have to admit that I'm getting nervous. I'm really trying to do everything by the book, but it's inevitable that I'm going to violate a rule or standard - and, that's definitely not my intention. For example, for convenience sake and only temporarily, I am referencing as much as I can using external links so that I remember where the information came from. That said, some of these links (YouTube, IMDb, etc.) will likely be prohibited (from what I read). I feel as though it's still important that I know where the information originated and, as I progress, I could potentially find a link that would be more suitable / appropriate (thus, replacing the previous link). Is this OK to do in the meantime or am I at risk of someone noticing, and having my page deleted or blocked? Is it perhaps better not to reference or cite anything until I am more knowledgeable about what's acceptable and what may be prohibited or even frown upon? Any guidance would be greatly appreciated. Just trying to head off any issues before they manifest themselves. I think you'll understand what I mean.

Thank you, Amanda. Wishing you well,

Ryan (Ryancoke2020 (talk) 03:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Your page won't be deleted just due to improper sourcing while you have it as a draft. You can put down what you need to for now, and fix it before publishing. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


@AmandaNP: - That's a big relief! Thank you! ... Ryan (Ryancoke2020 (talk) 04:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Tomos Roberts (December 31)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Curbon7 were:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Please see WP:NPOV and WP:REFBOMB.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Curbon7 (talk) 02:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Tomos Roberts (January 13)

[edit]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:
This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources. Please rewrite your submission in a more encyclopedic format. Please make sure to avoid peacock terms that promote the subject.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Theroadislong (talk) 14:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Tomos Roberts has a new comment

[edit]
I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Tomos Roberts. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 14:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Theroadislong... Thank you for the clarifications. I will endeavor to correct these issues. Apart from said issues, do you believe it's still worthwhile to continue improving?
Also, I have no conflicts of interest. I suppose I simply tend to write a bit too effusively.
Thank you, kindly.
Ryan (Ryancoke2020 (talk) 14:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

It is hard to ascertain if they are notable because of the extreme ref bombing, we can't see the wood for the trees, content should be reduced to what is reported by any independent sources, we have no interest in what his own websites, YouTube etc say about him. Theroadislong (talk) 15:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Tomos Roberts

[edit]

Are you connected in some way to Tomos Roberts? Uninvolved editors rarely go to so much effort. Possibly (talk) 17:06, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Possibly... No, I have no relation or connection to Tomos Roberts. Ultimately, my dedication and hard work are in the service of Wikipedia, and my genuine goal or hope is to become a reviewer/editor/volunteer for the site. I believe, with additional experience and devotion, I can achieve this. I do realize that I've tackled a rather large project, but I remain undaunted and I assure you that I will continue to work diligently, even if I stumble along the way. Thank you!
Ryan (Ryancoke2020 (talk) 17:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Ok,thanks. Are you being paid or compensated to write this article? You might want to try writing a much smaller article next time. You have created a gigantic article that also has potentially a hundred or more problems that need to be corrected before it's published. Very few experienced volunteer editors are going to do that work. 17:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello Possibly... No, I am not being compensated or paid in any way to write this article. I enjoy taking on challenges, especially those involving the composition or editing of various projects such as CVs, cover letters, letters of reference, medical school applications, government funding requests, letters of intent, etc. I'm able to undertake these projects in either French or English. But, ultimately, especially during these difficult economic times, I do not charge for my services. I simply don't have the heart to do so, tbh.
Regarding my draft, I think it may be best if I "chop" it down to its core elements, then once it's approved (hopefully), I could potentially build upon it. Would that be a wise approach? Thank you for your concern and advice. I do appreciate it!
Ryan (Ryancoke2020 (talk) 17:51, 13 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

I can't think of anything nice to say here, but good luck. Possibly (talk) 17:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021

[edit]

Information icon Hi Ryancoke2020! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Possibly (talk) 01:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Possibly... I'm still working on my draft. My article has yet to be accepted. Does this matter or do the editing rules still apply?
Additionally, could you let me know what it was that I edited (that shouldn't have been marked as "minor")?
Thank you, kindly!
Ryan (Ryancoke2020 (talk) 01:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

we tend to not say "my article". There is no ownership of articles on Wikipedia. Possibly (talk) 02:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Possibly... I just noticed a large portion of my draft is missing. I have no idea where it disappeared to, in fact. Is this the "minor" edit you're referring to, perhaps? I'd like to know what happened. Thank you.
Ryan (Ryancoke2020 (talk) 02:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Hi. You should avoid marking anything as minor until you get more editing experience. The missing parts are probably the sections I chopped out; articles in draft space can be worked on by anyone. I think he is probably notable, but about 90% of the article needs to be cut before it can be published. Anything using Youtube, Facebook or IMDB as a source can be cut. Those are the things I cut.Possibly (talk) 02:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly... I am in the process of editing my draft. Why are you editing my page prior to me completing it and submitting it for review? I do not appreciate this one bit and I would ask you to immediately refrain from undertaking any additional changes. You even managed to make a syntax error (capitalization) which I immediately noticed.
I've been working on this page for ~6 months. I do not want someone - at the eleventh hour - for all intents and purposes, vandalizing my page!
Ryan (Ryancoke2020 (talk) 02:23, 14 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

See WP:OWN: Wikipedia is collaboratively edited. I was actually giving you a hand after seeing your posts saying that you are having a hard time with reviewers. However, I will stop and let you continue for the moment. A large draft such as the one you have created has zero chances of being published without help, as it contains literally hundreds of errors that are preventing that. Possibly (talk) 02:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly... I am too upset to discuss this right now. I would ask that you restore the changes you made to my page. I will make the necessary changes as per the various recommendations given to me and, when I require assistance, I will kindly ask for it.
Thank you,
Ryan (Ryancoke2020 (talk) 02:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

I have your talkpage on my watchlist for I don't know why, but I am going to give you some advice - stop thinking you own the page. Seriously. You do not. It is not "your page", and you don't have the right to bully other editors into not helping you. If they want to help, they can. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Possibly is trying to help you with your article, and you are fighting them. You do not get to "approve" or "deny" changes to the draft, nor do you get to tell people to not edit a page on this website. You have next to zero chance of getting this article approved unless you let others come in and help you. Put simply, you are wasting your time if you expect to get this article approved without taking Possibly's and other editors help. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:47, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) See WP:OWN: anyone can edit this page. As soon as you post it here,it can be edited by others. Now, I can see how you maybe attached to what you wrote... but it is unpublishable as is. This is a quite common situation, since writing a new Wikipedia page is very complicated as there are so many rules. However, as many reviewers have pointed out, the way you have written the page, it will not be published as it has a quite large number of problems. Possibly (talk) 02:50, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Berchanimez... I am not fighting anyone, nor have I bullied anyone. You are harassing me and I would ask that you immediately stop. I never claimed that I "own" any page? What are you talking about? I've been working diligently to improve my draft throughout the past ~6 months and to have someone suddenly slash and burn my work is disrespectful, unwarranted and highly presumptuous. I reached out to a specific reviewer for help and I am following the recommendations they provided me. I don't appreciate your threatening tone and I find it harassing in nature. I am not here to fight or to argue with people. Please be better than this going forward!
Ryan (Ryancoke2020 (talk) 02:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

You have continually referred to it as "my" page/draft. You've said that someone's being disrespectful for doing what is their right - this is a wiki and they have the right to edit the draft if they so desire. If you do not wish to collaborate with other editors, then Wikipedia is not the place for you. It is not disrespectful to help you publish an article. That is not at all disrespectful or presumptuous. You are the one choosing to fight/argue with others when you are refusing to take their advice and help. You may wish to review WP:TNT - because honestly, at this point, it may be better to just start from scratch. I feel you are too attached to all the writing you did to let it go - but the vast majority of the draft is inappropriate for an article. Possibly tried to help you by removing parts that had no chance to make it into the article... and your response was to tell them they're wrong and they should undo it? That's not the type of attitude that's expected from a collaborative editor here. I strongly encourage you to apologize to Possibly and ask them humbly to consider making suggestions to you here about the draft so you can learn - instead of telling them to undo their helpful edits and basically "piss off". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Berechanhimez... I am asking, once again, that you stop harassing me! You are fabricating lies about me and putting words in my mouth. You are also making wild, unfounded assumptions and accusations. This is unacceptable behaviour on your behalf and you need to immediately refrain from harassing me and attempting to intimate me. Additionally, I will be filing a complaint against you for this utterly shameful display! I'm embarrassed on your behalf, tbh! Now, PLEASE leave me alone. Enough is enough!
Ryan (Ryancoke2020 (talk) 03:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

As you request, I will post no further on your talk page, beyond to say that you need to seriously reconsider your attitude here if you wish to be a part of Wikipedia. Best of luck to you with the draft - you'll need it since you've become determined to alienate anyone trying to help you. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Berchanhimez... You've already been reported. This was unprovoked, unwarranted and it has caused me a great deal of stress. Please just stop harassing me. That's all I'm asking!
Ryan (Ryancoke2020 (talk) 03:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

@Ryancoke2020: I see you reverted 100% of my edits to the article. If you are trying to go it on your own and publish without any assistance, these policies and guidelines will be helpful to learn: notability, reliable sources, overlinking, reference "bombing" and some general notes on biographies for living subjects. Also, you will need to remove the Daily Mail source entirely, as reviewers will not publish any article that contains sources from the Daily Mail. They have been deprecated. Sorry if we were not of assistance to you. Best of luck. Possibly (talk) 04:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly... Thank you. I've taken note of your suggested changes and I will implement them. Take good care!
Ryan (Ryancoke2020 (talk) 04:45, 14 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Possibly (talk) 17:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly - Disruptive editing? You provide zero evidence, but you continue to harass me. Be better!
Ryan (Ryancoke2020 (talk) 17:51, 20 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Possibly... Also, perhaps it's best if you re-familiarize yourself w/ GNG.
Good luck and be sure to smile more!
Ryan (Ryancoke2020 (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Possibly (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Stéphanie Colvey shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Theroadislong (talk) 10:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Theroadislong - Good to know! Thank you for the information. I will definitely follow up as per your recommendations. Have yourself a wonderful day! Ryan (Ryancoke2020 (talk) 10:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Tomos Roberts has a new comment

[edit]
I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Tomos Roberts. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 17:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source?

[edit]

Hi. What is your source for the middle names and date of birth in Draft:Tomos Roberts? ("Tomos Rhys Francis Roberts, 18 April 1994"). I do not see it published anywhere other than on wikis that have taken it from your draft. Possibly (talk) 02:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly... You just referred to the draft as though it was mine ("your"). The draft doesn't belong to me. You encouraged me not to use possessive pronouns the other day. Is this still the case? Thanks! Ryan (Ryancoke2020 (talk) 03:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Sure, the draft. So where did you get the middle name and birth date? Source? Possibly (talk) 03:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly... I'd simply encourage you to abide by the same standards to which you hold others. Additionally, could you kindly refrain from making changes to draft Draft:Tomos Roberts without first discussing it with me. The changes you are making are affecting the aesthetics of the draft. They may be warranted, but they're sloppy in nature - and it's causing me additional work. Finally, at this point, I believe you have a conflict of interest. Although you've provided reasonable advice in the past (for which I thanked you), I suspect you weren't pleased that I reverted your changes a couple of days ago. It began with you questioning whether I had a financial stake in the draft and whether I had a connection to the topic (subject matter) - despite being asked these questions numerous times in the past. Then, you took me to task for marking something as a "minor" edit, when it shouldn't have been. Then, you began anew because I innocently used the pronoun "my" rather than "the" (referring to the draft). Then, you began removing large portions of the draft without giving me the courtesy of discussing it beforehand. Now, you're back at it again, altering the draft before I even have a chance to, first, make the changes myself. Then, on your talk page, you openly disparaged me by mentioning to another contributor that 'some people just aren't meant to be collaborative' or something akin to this (which is untrue). This is beyond petty and tiresome. I think it's safe to say that you're targeting me at this point and I would respectfully ask that you cease. I also have a life outside of Wikipedia, which includes being a first responder. The necessary changes will be made to the draft, but I can't dedicate every waking hour as per your schedule.
Ryan (Ryancoke2020 (talk) 03:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

As you have been told a half dozen times, anyone can edit this draft. You do not get to be the "owner". I am just asking what your source is for the date of birth and middle name? Did you get it directly from Tomos Roberts or his manager? I see you have been in touch with them (see talk history), despite your claim above that you had no connection to them. Anyway, source for the DOB? Possibly (talk) 04:00, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly... I never claimed to be the "owner". That's something that you invented and, now, you're trying to gaslight me. Please stop with the unfounded accusations. The other night, you deleted ~30 of my references/citations and, now rather conveniently, you want specific references - that you most likely deleted. You can't have it both ways.
Also, the other day, you mentioned that you "can't think of anything nice to say (to me)". I think you're now demonstrating this prejudice towards me, though it's unfounded and it's abusive at this point. Ryan (Ryancoke2020 (talk) 04:14, 16 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]
A couple things. I have more than 40,000 edits on literally thousands of articles. I know what I am doing when I edit. Now, I have cleaned up the article to the point where it is quite close to being publishable. I would suggest waiting to see what the reviewers say (I submitted it again) Since you have pointedly avoided answering the very simple question of where you got the birth date, I have removed it except for the year. Possibly (talk) 05:37, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Tomos Roberts for deletion

[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tomos Roberts 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/Tomos Roberts 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.

Possibly (talk) 06:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

[edit]

Information icon Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomos Roberts. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 13:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomos Roberts. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Theroadislong (talk) 10:08, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Theroadislong... Quite the opposite. These are absolutely NOT personal attacks. In fact, these as in defense of personal attacks put forth by Possibly (against me). You may disagree, but these attacks towards me are unjustified / unwarranted and they need to be aired and followed up on. I won't be muzzled or censored, my friend. I've done nothing wrong. And, while you can threaten me ('blocked from editing') and you can attempt to justify Possibly's behaviour, this does NOT help advance your case. In fact, it looks a wee bit desperate.
You've been fair and helpful throughout, but please don't tarnish your reputation by taking sides here. Please remain impartial. This is important!
I hope, at the very least, that you've encouraged Possibly to refrain from engaging in personal attacks. Respectfully, have you?
Impartiality and consistency are still alive and well, are they not?
Kindly,
Ryan (Ryancoke2020 (talk) 10:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomos Roberts

[edit]

Your enormous monologues at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomos Roberts are not helping the discussion, please see Wikipedia:AFDFORMAT for advice on how to respond to WP:AFDs. Your additional list of sources for the "60 million views" contains no reliable sources that I can see. Theroadislong (talk) 16:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Theroadislong... LOL!!! Ryan (Ryancoke2020 (talk) 17:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

I'm uncertain why you find that funny? Goodreads is NOT a reliable source, neither is The Star, Pocko is rehashing content from the publisher Harper Collins so is not independent, Medium.com is an interview, so not reliable. Theroadislong (talk) 17:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Theroadislong... 10-4, captain! Ryan (Ryancoke2020 (talk) 17:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Sorry I don't understand that either? Theroadislong (talk) 17:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Theroadislong... Gotta go! Maybe another time, my friend! Ryan (Ryancoke2020 (talk) 17:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

When responding on a WP:AFD all that is required is a bolded keep and a single sentence explaining how they pass the criteria at WP:GNG, posting enormous walls of impenetrable texts, lists of reasons (that do not as it happens support notability) and attacking all and sundry is just going to lead to you being blocked. Theroadislong (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Theroadislong... I know you're trying to help, but I'm done at this point. This is absolutely disgraceful and infuriating. They know it's notable, my friend! I think you probably do, too. This isn't right! I've been targeted from the get-go and they won't relent until they take me down. It's so discouraging! Ryan (Ryancoke2020 (talk) 22:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Theroadislong... I appreciate you looking out for me - truly! Ryan (Ryancoke2020 (talk) 22:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

[edit]

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ryancoke2020, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

-bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Oh, please, please show me leniency!!! LOL!!! I have no clue what this clown - Berchanhimez - is talking about! Ryan (Ryancoke2020 (talk) 02:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Please do not remove edits from AfD discussions

[edit]

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at WP:Articles for deletion/Tomos Roberts. Please do not remove comments from AfD discussions as you did here:[1]. Instead use the strike-thru feature to strike out your own earlier comments. You may add additional comments but do not delete previous ones. This helps to preserve the discussion. Just so you know it is never appropriate to edit or remove other editors comments. Thank you. Netherzone (talk) 02:31, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Netherzone... How 'bout you start being a little bit consistent in your criticism??? Your double-standards are growing old and your threats are unwelcomed! I think you know precisely what I'm talking about! Ryan (Ryancoke2020 (talk) 02:41, 21 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Please refrain from suggesting that I am in any regard "threatening" you. I am certainly not. Rather I am asking kindly that you refrain from your disruptive editing and personal attacks, and to allow processes that have been established in good faith through long-standing policies and guidelines and consensus to unfold naturally. Several experienced editors here have been trying to help you; think about it. Thank you Netherzone (talk) 02:53, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Netherzone - I removed my own comment because I thought better of it. I didn't remove anyone else's content / comments. If this goes against the rules, I apologize and I won't do it again.
I have no doubt that these editors are experienced. That doesn't prevent them from having personal agendas.
Berchanhimez has now gone after me personally, has mocked me and just cursed at me, but you've said NOTHING to them! You're quick to go after me, but you won't rein in this individual. How is this fair??? Ryan (Ryancoke2020 (talk) 03:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Netherzone - Can you assure me that there's no coordinated attack going on here? I'm going to pursue all of this (regardless of what happens to the draft), and inevitably, the truth will be uncovered. I'm just looking for reassurance that you're not part of this? Ryan (Ryancoke2020 (talk) 03:08, 21 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Netherzone - I think it's rather obvious that they've managed to scuttle the draft. What would you suggest going forward? Ryan (Ryancoke2020 (talk) 03:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

You have made further personal attacks and ignored all polite, policy based advice given to you, it is YOU who has scuttled the draft, there is no personal agenda against you by any one, I don't feel I can help you further. Theroadislong (talk) 08:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan, I suggest backing off with the insults and accusations toward other editors. I also suggest that you read some of the links and advise I, and others, provided in the multiple messages left for you here and elsewhere on WP. I don't believe I can help you again in the future. Netherzone (talk) 22:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retaliatory notability tagging

[edit]

Stéphanie Colvey and Aisa Amittu meet WP:NARTIST. Please don't tag based on policies you do not understand, and with retaliatory intent. Your behaviour on Wikipedia is extremely poor. Possibly (talk) 09:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly - Please assume good intentions. Retaliation isn't something I ever engage in. I'm simply attempting to help. Have yourself a wonderful day! Ryan (Ryancoke2020 (talk) 10:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]
@Ryancoke2020: That wasn't simply trying to help and was clearly vindictive behaviour. I would advise against more of that "help" in future or it could lead to you getting a ban. NZFC(talk)(cont) 12:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@NZFC: - I would NEVER engage in retaliatory behaviour. That's simply not my nature. Just trying to help improve pages that don't meet notability. Thanks you! Ryan (Ryancoke2020 (talk) 17:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

ANI

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Possibly (talk) 20:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly... Thank you! It was time for a break and, although I may not agree with certain things, I do appreciate your willingness to help and your guidance. Cheers, Ryan (Ryancoke2020 (talk) 02:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Follow-Up

[edit]

Hello Berchanhimez... Clearly, I've made some really bad decisions throughout all this and, in fact, being blocked from editing is a 'blessing' in disguise. I got way too involved (I was actually really proud of all the work I had undertaken, but much of it simply didn't meet Wikipedia's standards and I understand this now), I got too attached to "my" own work, I became far too bold, too combative and down right rude in my attempts at defending myself, I failed to see when experienced editors were simply trying to help and on and on. I'm not necessarily looking for redemption, but I am someone with a heart... and, I'm embarrassed with how I treated you and others. For this, I truly apologize and I ask that you forgive me. That's all I'm asking for. Thank you! Ryan (Ryancoke2020 (talk) 11:07, 23 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Hello Berchanhimez... Re: Tomos Roberts, do you still believe it may be appropriate for inclusion in COVID-19 pandemic in popular culture? Thank you! Ryan (Ryancoke2020 (talk) 14:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

I’m sorry, but as you’re blocked, it really wouldn’t be appropriate to continue discussing content edits with you. If someone feels it appropriate, they can add it to that article themselves - but it is not permissible for you to attempt to have someone do it “by proxy” for you while you’re blocked like this. If you feel you shouldn’t be blocked, feel free to make an unblock request. If you really want to contribute, I encourage you to consider the standard offer of unblock after six months for sock puppetry. I’ll also point you to WP:MEAT, the short story being that even if the most recent sock puppet wasn’t you, it is clear that it is someone you had off wiki coordination with, and that is also a violation of the policy on sock puppetting. I won’t be responding to you here further while you’re blocked, and I ask that you please do not ping me here again. Regards -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 16:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-Up

[edit]

Hello Theroadislong... I really messed up, huh? I deserved this one, however. If I'm ever permitted to edit again, I promise to do much, much better. I promise that I'm not a jerk, though I am human - and, as such, I make mistakes. I think, in the future, I could be a decent contributor. Regardless, I also wanted to apologize to you. You were kind to me and I failed to reciprocate. I truly don't feel good about all this, but I'll continue to reflect and to learn from this. Take good care! Ryan (Ryancoke2020 (talk) 12:03, 23 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Sock Puppetry

[edit]

Dear Sir Sputnik... I am fully cognizant that I've said and done some dumb stuff on Wikipedia and I don't intend on making any excuses. I own my mistakes, I learn from them and I move on, while attempting to do better (going forth). If I got banned for being a turd, then I deserve it. Respectfully, however, if I got banned for sock puppetry, I remain unequivocal in my denial (that I did not engage in this). When I first created a Wikipedia account (about 6 months ago), I did, indeed, open multiple accounts. What kept on happening was I'd get lock out of my account (based on my IP), even though I wasn't using a VPN and my internet provider uses a static IP. I wasn't attempting to do anything malicious and I was clearly naïve about creating more than one account. I was understandably forced to explain myself back then - and I did so honestly - and, eventually, under the Ryancoke2020 account, I don't believe I ever ran into future IP issues. But, this latest apparent sock puppet is absolutely not me. I know it's best to be forthcoming and honest if, indeed, I was guilty of this (and, the thought of admitting guilt even though this isn't my doing has crossed my mind), but I remain steadfast in my denial. I'm really not sure what more I can say or do. Do I have any recourse at all? Any guidance would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! Ryan (Ryancoke2020 (talk) 13:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]
P.S. - The Ministry of Silly Walks (Monty Python) is probably my all-time favourite MP skit! An absolute classic! lol

Hello Sir Sputnik... Do I have any recourse re: the sock puppetry charge and, therefore, the indefinite ban? I don't know what else to say, but that I have not engaged in this action. I am absolutely adamant and unequivocal about this. As I've mentioned previously, I'd own this if it was, indeed, I. Again, I've said and done some stupid "stuff", but not this (sock puppetry). I'm also aware that it's likely best to simply admit wrongdoing, but if I did (admit this), it'd be a false "confession". If you require additional information from me (IP address, internet provider, geographical location, etc.), I'd be happy to provide this. I'd prefer to do so more discretely, but if I'm required to post this information here (talk page), I'll do it. Please advise at your earliest convenience. Thank you! Ryan (Ryancoke2020 (talk) 16:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]
Hello Theroadislong... Like this, right? May I ask (re: AfD) who makes the final decision and how long the process typically takes? Also, is it ever appropriate to plead one's case directly to the those who have already chimed in (keep vs. delete)? I'm not holding out much promise, but hope springs eternal - sometimes. lol Thank you! Ryan (Ryancoke2020 (talk) 18:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]
An admin will consider all the responses and make a decision based on policy, you cannot plead your case directly as you are blocked, it is rarely a good idea in any case. Theroadislong (talk) 18:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tomos Roberts

[edit]

Hello NealeFamily... Re: Tomos Roberts, do you still believe it may be appropriate for inclusion in COVID-19 pandemic in popular culture?
P.S. - I live in Canada, but I spent an entire month in NZ (in 2013). Although I am partial to Canada, NZ tops my list in terms of foreign destinations. I often describe it as an 'enchanted' land. Driving on the left side of the road took some getting used to, however. Cheers, Ryan (Ryancoke2020 (talk) 11:37, 26 January 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ryancoke2020&oldid=1003146060"