Jump to content

User talk:Carthage44

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Carthage44 (talk | contribs) at 18:19, 13 August 2012 (→August 2012). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Hello, Carthage44! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous

Welcome

It is always good to welcome a fellow White Sox fan to Wikipedia, so welcome, and I hope you enjoy editing. The big template above has links to policies and other areas where you can get help, if you need it.

I reverted one edit that you made to the article Chicago White Sox, and wanted to explain why. Generally, once an item is wikilinked once in an article, it is usually not wikilinked later in the same article, as you did to Steve Stone. In addition, there are several articles about Steve Stone, but the one you wanted was Steve Stone (baseball), which can be made to look nicer by doing this: Steve Stone. Rather than delete and walk away, I though I would explain what I did. Best of luck to you! LonelyBeacon (talk) 03:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stats update

Hi, and thanks for all the stats updates. Please note however that Wikipedia does not use ordinal suffixes ("-th") at the end of dates. WP:DATE#Dates has more info. Thanks again, Kevin Forsyth (talk) 01:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Hey there

Hi there, yes I am indeed a big college sports fan. For my user page, I used Template:User infobox. As for creating new pages, these pages may help you:

If you are interested in improving college football and basketball on Wikipedia, you can join Wikipedia:WikiProject College football and Wikipedia: WikiProject College basketball. If you have any more questions feel free to ask me on my talk page. Also, please remember to sign your posts on others' talk pages by typing ~~~~. ~Richmond96 t • c 03:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

...for keeping the article clean, and Roll Tide. Drmies (talk) 05:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You bet.

Nice job on the article too, by the way.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tips for creating articles

Hello! It's nice to encounter a fellow Carthage student/alumnist. I encountered the article you created, 2008-09 Wisconsin Badgers men's basketball team, while patrolling new pages, and I thought I'd make a few minor suggestions of things you can do to improve your articles: 1. Be sure to "categorize" your articles whenever possible (I added [[Category:2008–09 Big Ten Conference men's basketball season]] to your article). 2. Since the article you wrote refers to a past season (not the current season), the information should be presented in the past tense. That is all. Keep up with the good work! --Tea with toast (talk) 18:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

College Football Project request

Hello! You are listed as an active member of the College Football Project! We have a large number of unreferenced biographies of living persons, but it works out to be just two or three articles per active participant. I've divided up the articles that need help and put them in a table on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football/Unreferenced BLPs. Please assist the project by researching and sourcing the articles that have been "assigned" (so to speak) to you.--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:41, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2009–10 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team GA

Thanks for getting involved in this article

This user helped promote 2009–10 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team to good article status.

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Protection expired

Proposal to add disputed player - see Talk:Wisconsin_Badgers_football#Protection_expired_-_add.3F. Exxolon (talk) 17:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Chris Maragos

The article Chris Maragos has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:NSPORTS, hasn't played in any game yet. Only becomes notable after his first NFL play.

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 {{dated prod}} 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 {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fram (talk) 08:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

Thanks for your support of keeping the Jon Leuer page, which I read on his talk page. Right now, they are voting on whether to keep or delete his page. If you get a chance, it would be cool if you would let them know how you feel here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jon Leuer. Thanks much! Tipsweeney (talk) 07:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of J.J. WATT

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 J.J. WATT 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 person or group of people, but it does not 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 see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, 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. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Big Ten standings

The College Football project on Wikipedia doesn't parse league tiebreakers when ordering teams in the standings (except, perhaps, at the end of the season for 1st-place teams). Teams are ranked by their league record first, their overall record second, and alphabetically after that. MrArticleOne (talk) 22:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Random Smiley Award

For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award.
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

♠TomasBat 01:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 2011 NFL Undrafted Free Agents for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2011 NFL Undrafted Free Agents 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/2011 NFL Undrafted Free Agents until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good 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 template from the top of the article. Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC) 07:48, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could always keep a redlinked version in your userspace, and add/remove names based on when the articles appear. That's what I'm doing for questionably notable athletes/alumni from Georgia Tech; if an article from this userpage is bluelinked, I disambiguate or move the entry to the main lists (alumni, athletes). I'm a bit behind on that at the moment, admittedly. Perhaps something along those lines would work for you? —Disavian (talk/contribs) 15:02, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good Faith Advice

Carthage44, if I may step in here, you do some good work here at Wikipedia. Some of the things you do are very valuable, because they involve details that other editors won't dedicate the time to putting in. Thanks for all that you do.

That being said, Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. When other editors ask you to stop doing something and talk about, you need to do so. As you know, edit warring just leads to editors getting blocked. Discussion is key to being productive. Glancing at the root of this problem, I personally don't mind you adding the remaining rounds of the MLB Draft. However, if consensus is against adding them, discussion must take place. Wouldn't it be better to discuss these things and show other editors the benefit of your additions, rather than just fighting over it and getting blocked?

When you return from your block, feel free to ask me any questions you have about Wikipedia. I'd be glad to help. I'd hate to lose you as a contributor, when the work you do is such a benefit. Take care! Dayewalker (talk) 01:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your assistance in taking this to WP:GA. Let's look for an even better season next year though.

This user helped promote 2010–11 Michigan Wolverines men's basketball team to good article status.

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Wisconsin Badgers football seasons

Hello, I'm making an article on a List of Wisconsin Badgers football seasons. I was wondering if you could help contribute things to the article, such as linking the seasons and bowl games to the individual articles and such. Thanks Thomsonmg2000 (talk) 14:35, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1963 Wisconsin Badgers football team

Hello Carthage44, I just wanted to let you know that I took a look at your recently created article 1963 Wisconsin Badgers football team-- The layout of the article makes it very clear. And have a beautiful day! Cheers, Amy Z (talk) 15:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spring Training

I have restored the Spring Training game log on the Angels page as I see you have on the White Sox page . . . the anti-game log rhetoric IMO is absolutely ridiculous and I hope that you and other individual editors will support keeping these logs. I am under the persuasion that more information (as long as it is up-to-date and factually correct) is better. I have posted something on Wikipedia talk:BASEBALL#Spring Training Game logs, if you could back me up, it would be great. --CASportsFan (talk) 01:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for keeping these logs as it is a part of the game. The 2011 White Sox and 2012 White Sox page has the Spring Training log and it was never a problem before so why now? Once the season starts the whole log will be collapsed so what is the big deal. I will back you up on the talk page. Thanks again. --Carthage44 (talk) 01:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Humber GA

On behalf of WP:CHICAGO, I would like to thank you for editorial efforts that helped Philip Humber become a WP:GA.

This user helped promote Philip Humber to good article status.

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:49, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.—Bagumba (talk) 02:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

August 2012

You have been blocked from editing for a period of two weeks for making personal attacks on other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 07:09, 9 August 2012 (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).

Carthage44 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I see that I have been blocked but I feel that the block is too harsh for giving my opinion on a topic. Two weeks for giving an opinion on a topic seems very unfair and for all the great edits that I do for Wikipedia seems very harsh. If a someone took my opinion as a personal attack, I am sorry for that but I really enjoy making Wikipedia a better place for users and readers. I really hope you accept my apology and reconsider my block of this great site. Thank you for your time. Carthage44 (talk) 14:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You're not blocked for giving an opinion on a topic, you're blocked for discussing contributors instead of their edits. Max Semenik (talk) 14:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry you feel this way and I wish you would be willing to give me another chance but thank you for your input. Carthage44 (talk) 21:38, 9 August 2012 (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.

(Non-administrator comment) It's clear from reading the ANI discussion that you do make useful contributions. However, even useful edits become disruptive if they sour the atmosphere of Wikipedia by attacking other editors. Give the thread at ANI a look-over. You will see that other editors value your contributions but worry about page ownership and incivility. Read the thread and the policy pages and take them to heart. People are quick to forgive if you own up to your mistakes and learn from them. --Jprg1966 (talk) 16:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have owned up to my mistakes and I am sorry. I respect Wikipedia and I know that I am not perfect. I really enjoy editing Wikipedia pages and I think that two weeks is somewhat extreme. I just wish someone can see that I am remorseful and can reverse this block to I can get back to helping improve pages. Thank you Carthage44 (talk) 21:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you are remorseful and have good intentions. Getting a block undone is possible, but you'll probably have to write out very clearly and calmly the following things:
  • An acknowledgment that you have made mistakes. (You already have, but putting it in as part of the request is good.)
  • A description of the mistakes you made. It is important for the reviewing admin to know that you have internalized the policies you breached. Point to specific things you have done that you will not do again.
  • Explain how you will handle difficult situations in the future.
I can't guarantee that that will lead to an unblock, but it won't hurt. And even if your block is upheld, Wikipedia will still be here in 2 weeks for you to edit. --Jprg1966 (talk) 05:21, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for taking the time to help me improve my use of the site. I am very grateful that you are willing to help a somewhat inexperienced user like myself. I hope that my block will be lifted so I can continue to improve this great site. Thanks again! Carthage44 (talk) 21:43, 10 August 2012 (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).

Carthage44 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am sincerely sorry that I made personal attacks on other users. I now see that I do not own pages and if I disagree with a users edit, I should use the talk pages to discuss the matter in a constructive manner. I apologize to the users, admins and readers that I have disrespected. I feel that I now have a better understanding of how to handle situations that may arise on this site. I hope that my block can be removed so I can get back to making constructive edits on this wonderful site and also make personal apologies to the users that I have disrespected. Thank you for you considerations. Carthage44 (talk) 21:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your block log has a fairly extensive record of being blocked for edit warring, which, along with this most recent block for making personal attacks, suggests that you have a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality regarding Wikipedia. However, considering your recent remarks in the conversations here, and the supporting remarks of others, I have decided to reduce the duration of this block to 1 week, which is the same duration as your prior block. It is nice of you to agree to a 1RR restriction, but I won't hold you to that, trusting you instead to comply with WP:BRD with the understanding that further battleground behavior will result in a block of a longer duration. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:11, 10 August 2012 (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.

I would support an unblock on the concept of WP:ROPE assuming Carthage44 agreed to a reinstatement of a new 2 week block for any instance of edit warring or similar behavior before this block would have been lifted, all at the discretion of the blocking admin. Ryan Vesey 21:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Ryan Vesey for taking your time to respond so quickly to my request. If I was to be reinstated, I agree that if any instance of edit warring occurs then the 2 week block should be put into place. I really enjoy this site and am very eager to get back to editing pages to make them better for all. I am sorry and really look forward to a speedy return. Thanks again Ryan for your comments. Carthage44 (talk) 21:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If an administrator doesn't respond in the next 2 hours, I'll leave a note at WP:AN (barring any objection from you). Ryan Vesey 21:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've also contacted the blocking admin. Ryan Vesey 21:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much Ryan Vesey. You are truly a great person. You do not owe me anything but you are "going to bat" for me and I really appreciate it. Carthage44 (talk) 22:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, sorry to see that you weren't unblocked, but I'm glad to see that the length was reduced. On another note, it is obvious that you love sports, but have you considered helping out at Dispatcher or 9-1-1? Ryan Vesey 03:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How so or what do you mean? Carthage44 (talk) 19:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The articles just need work in general. I picked those since you work as a dispatcher. Ryan Vesey 20:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I will check them out once I get reinstated. Thanks Carthage44 (talk) 21:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would also suggest that a one-revert rule be enforced and WP:BRD practiced to embrace the value of discussion and as a sign of good faith. Behavior aside, your edits are valuable and you are knowledgeable about baseball, and it would be a shame to not have your input here.—Bagumba (talk) 22:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Bagumba (talk) for your input as well. I would agree to the one-revert rule as long as it as some sort of an expiration date just because sometimes you get unnamed users that will make false edits and continue to revert the revert. That being said, I am willing to do this so I can improve my communication skills on the site and get back to editing. Thanks again! Carthage44 (talk) 22:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reverting under the the normal exemptions at WP:3RRNO is fine. For other things, what I have found is that even if "I am right", it's better to have someone else revert and reaffirm my opinion than to aggravate the other editor with constant reverts.—Bagumba (talk) 22:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Carthage44. Thank you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely now from editing for Block Evasion: continuing to edit without logging in while blocked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

This user is asking that his block be reviewed:

Carthage44 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

What is going on? I was blocked for a week now it is being reviewed again? What happened? I have not been on this site for the past few days since I have been blocked but I guess someone thinks I am still editing? This is completely false because I have not been on the site for days now. I am not sure what more I need to do to get reinstated. I have not been on the website and I for a FACT have NOT made any edits using another user name or IP address. I have been very cooperative through this process and am looking forward to be reinstated in a few days like I was advised. Thank you Carthage44 (talk) 18:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

  • In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
  • Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=What is going on? I was blocked for a week now it is being reviewed again? What happened? I have not been on this site for the past few days since I have been blocked but I guess someone thinks I am still editing? This is completely false because I have not been on the site for days now. I am not sure what more I need to do to get reinstated. I have not been on the website and I for a '''FACT''' have '''NOT''' made any edits using another user name or IP address. I have been very cooperative through this process and am looking forward to be reinstated in a few days like I was advised. Thank you [[User:Carthage44|Carthage44]] ([[User talk:Carthage44#top|talk]]) 18:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=What is going on? I was blocked for a week now it is being reviewed again? What happened? I have not been on this site for the past few days since I have been blocked but I guess someone thinks I am still editing? This is completely false because I have not been on the site for days now. I am not sure what more I need to do to get reinstated. I have not been on the website and I for a '''FACT''' have '''NOT''' made any edits using another user name or IP address. I have been very cooperative through this process and am looking forward to be reinstated in a few days like I was advised. Thank you [[User:Carthage44|Carthage44]] ([[User talk:Carthage44#top|talk]]) 18:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=What is going on? I was blocked for a week now it is being reviewed again? What happened? I have not been on this site for the past few days since I have been blocked but I guess someone thinks I am still editing? This is completely false because I have not been on the site for days now. I am not sure what more I need to do to get reinstated. I have not been on the website and I for a '''FACT''' have '''NOT''' made any edits using another user name or IP address. I have been very cooperative through this process and am looking forward to be reinstated in a few days like I was advised. Thank you [[User:Carthage44|Carthage44]] ([[User talk:Carthage44#top|talk]]) 18:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Carthage44&oldid=507245399"