User talk:Samsbanned

Archives

Welcome!

Hi, Samsbanned. Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions or ask a question on your talk page. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Hello this is my first attempt at writing a new article, and as such I've run into two snags- (a) I'm having trouble getting a reference number icon (the raised square bracketed number) to show in the body of text (I don't have access to a computer so I'm doing this on my tablet- but I don't think that that is necessarily the issue- more my lack of comprehension of code!;and (b) as a new history article covering a topic that hasn't been documented yet elsewhere that I can find on the net, I cannot provide good references to validate my work.

Hi Sam, I left an example of how to reference at User:Samsbanned/Sandbox 2, it shows how to just add a reference, and how to include a link within a reference. I suggest you read Referencing for Beginners, it has a video that will help too. There are citation templates that make the references look cleaner, and they are encouraged, but not mandatory. It is much easier to do on a computer than a tablet, however not impossible on a tablet. As for your second question, you should read the general notability guidelines for information on notability, basically the subject has to have been written about by a reliable source. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 02:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

My article is ready to be submitted to see if it conforms to the guidelines for "publishing", but I don't know how to do this, nor how to change the topic to "First Reef" instead of Reefriders (it's ambiguous).

In the box at the top of your sandbox, the bottom line reads as: "If you are writing an article, and are ready to request its creation, click here." Click the blue link and then click save to submit your draft for review. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 14:01, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Draft:Reefriders (April 30)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time.
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Reefriders.
To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the reviewer's talk page.

Thank you for your
contributions to Wikipedia!

Please remember to link to the submission!

You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Sionk (talk) 00:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your AN3 report

Thank you for your report to the Edit Warring Noticeboard. The insertion of merely biased material is usually not considered vandalism - that term is reserved for blatant graffiti, blanking, and the like; see Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism for more. You can find any editor's talk page by looking at the history of the article and clicking on the appropriate link. You were correct that the IP was edit warring their preferred material, and I have blocked accordingly. If you have any further questions or I can help with anything, please contact me at my talkpage. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at AfC First Reef was accepted

First Reef, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

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

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Fiddle Faddle 12:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Me, a sock puppet? Never!

Here is the finding regarding the false accusation (c&p'd from Sock Puppet Investigations page) Samsbanned (talk) 06:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)...[reply]

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Rejected as no evidence was provided and the OP has been indef blocked.--Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 18:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

if I want your opinion I'll ask for it

But I probably won't Samsbanned (talk) 22:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikibullying

Here's a good example.

Some bully is trying to scare me into keeping my 'view points' (hey, my view scores points?) to myself. sarcastically/ "Let's all propagate Eurocentricism so that the Myth of White Supremacy can extinguish native dignity". Yeah, like we're still living in the Colonial era of the British Empire! That was so last century, nay, last millennium.Samsbanned (talk) 04:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC) it reads as follows:[reply]

........ WP:ARBIPA Notification ........

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Please make sure that you read and follow all Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I think your statement on Talk:Indo-Aryan migration theory is quite a deliberate distortion of Wikipedia policies. If you continue pushing such view points, you may invite sanctions under WP:ARBIPA. Kautilya3 (talk) 10:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I make no apology for my contrary beliefs. Tell someone who cares about preserving Wonkipedia double standards! Eg. there is no corresponding page: Aryan Invasion Myth, because it is stereotyped as a conspiracy theory, in direct contrast, challenging the Western 'scholarly' view. This whole topic is dedicated to perpetrating the false Aryan Race model. There is no Aryan "race". It is a state of consciousness. Samsbanned (talk) 22:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Samsbanned. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nasty Wikipedians

Really there are some horrible, disrespectful, demoniac lowlifes out there. One of Wikipedia's guidelines is 'be nice to newbies'. Another is 'don't edit just to make a point'. And of course it shouldn't even have to be said, not to swear, degrade, insult or attack someone's personality for expressing a differing point of view.

I am recovering from a recent episode where a "fellow" (?) Wikipedian of the aforementioned ilk mocked my very first efforts at creating a wiki page, "First Reef". Unfamiliar with the correct style of presentation, it took me several efforts to get it right, learning as I went, how to correctly format the page, how to use html markups, what could and couldn't be included, making links and references, etcetera, etc.

As trivial as the content may be, I was quite proud when finally it was accepted. As a sexagenarian who has spent many years away from a computer having suffered horrific PTSD from exposure to Windows 98, my return via Andriod has allowed me to venture once again into the murky waters of cyberspace. Alas, some things haven't changed - except now the attacks come from malicious people, not viruses aimed at Bill's toy.

Once again I have to remind myself that not all God's creatures are aware of their spiritual essence, and that the Material World is a place where atheists, agnostics, and one-eyed religious fanatics delight in hurting others.

As Śrīla Prabhupāda said, "This is no place for a gentleman".

हरे कृष्ण Samsbanned (talk) 05:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of The Nicest People

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 The Nicest People 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 a band or musician, but it 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 removed 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. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 15:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of The Nicest People

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 The Nicest People 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 a band or musician, but it 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 removed 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. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 16:38, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Civility and neutrality

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Cue stick. 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.

If you continue to verbally abuse editors and baselessly accuse them of nefarious motives, or continue to misuse articles on sports, etc., as a platform for vegetarian socio-political campaigning, you will eventually (probably fairly quickly) have your editing restricted, either to prevent you from editing specific topics, or at all. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 19:25, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wankerpedians

Some Wankerpedians think they 'own' a wiki page that they patrol, and take offense whenever someone (like me) adds information outside of their fund of knowledge. The preceding author made a ridiculous comment in their edit that how can non-leather cue tips be "suitable for vegetarians and vegans when no-one eats cue tips"! Being ignorant of the habits of people who wish to avoid unnecessary cruelty to animals does not qualify anyone to label me as a socio-political activist when all I am doing is providing info to round out the article. Not everyone uses leather cue tips. And a lot of vego's like myself go out of their way not to wear leather or use any other by-product of the slaughterhouse.

Eating cue tips? Are you trying to be smart? Who needs a lecture in civility now? Samsbanned (talk) 01:17, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I live with a vegan. The problem is that you are engaging in original research, inserting vegetarianism-promotional claims about why synthetic cue tips were developed (hint: it was for playing characteristics, not vegetarianism; the same reason modern basketballs, etc., are no longer covered in leather). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 13:22, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Samsbanned and CIR/NOTHERE concerns regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 13:56, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent personal attacks, attacks against groups of editors, and unreasonableness. See especially the diffs in this ANI thread.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | talk 22:45, 25 October 2017 (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).

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

Request reason:

I feel they started it with their summary in altering my initial edit where they said "Editor's summary: rm. PoV wording; style cleanup; no one eats cue tips so vegetarianism is irrelevant; citation needed=" which is a veiled sarcastic ad hominem attack against vegetarians and vegans in general. In retrospect I shouldn't have responded with returning their ad hominem but instead provided information about the efforts such people go to to avoid cruelty to animals - not just abstaining from eating their flesh, but also avoiding using animal by-products. Conscientious people who try to follow a cruelty-free lifestyle don't wear or use leather shoes, belts or fashion accessories or sports equipment. I should have politely made that clear to them but I was so offended by their edit summary that I regretfully and stupidly took their bait.

Decline reason:

"They started it" is not a reason for the VAST amount of attacks that you have made over time. It's not just the cue stick edits, but the "Wankerpedians" edit you made among others. RickinBaltimore (talk) 20:38, 26 October 2017 (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.

Already addressed this vegetarianism PoV thing – a drop in the bucket of problems – both at Talk:Cue stick and on this user talk page [1]. So, the above unblock request's rationale is just more WP:ICANTHEARYOU and WP:SOAPBOX / WP:BATTLEGROUND. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 00:23, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]