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 20:29, 15 August 2012 (→Proposed deletion of Chris Maragos). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Retired
This user is no longer active on Wikipedia as of August 2012.
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]

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]

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]

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).

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.


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'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:

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]

Decline reason:

I am convinced by the evidence offered at the SPI, especially since Checkuser could not be used. — Daniel Case (talk) 18:31, 13 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 think your best case is to consider the standard offer. Don't sock for 6 months, then ask to come back. Ryan Vesey 18:25, 13 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 taking responsibility for the edits at an IP address that I do not use. I would like to be reinstated as soon as possible because I really enjoy this website and making it better for all. I am sorry for any confusion that this has caused. I would like a time frame of when I can return. I can only plead and beg that I be reinstated on August 16th like it was stated before. If this is not possible, I beg and pray that 2 weeks is the longest that I would be shut out from this wonderful site. Please do not shut me out of this great site for a long period of time as you can see from my previous posts above, I am very remorseful and sorry for all the trouble I may have caused. Please give me a chance to prove myself that I have changed and only want what is best for the overall well being of the site. I believe the best way to do this is to let me be reinstated and prove myself that I have changed. Thank you for your time and consideration and I really hope to hear good news. Carthage44 (talk) 18:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

"Taking responsibility for the edits at an IP address that I do not use" is contradictory on its face. I implore you to listen to Kudpung's advice below; 6 months isn't forever. Trust me, it'll go faster than you think, and if you can get through that without any more block evasion we'll talk. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 13:55, 14 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.

Well, if I'm honest, the answer you have given sounds empty to me, so no, I am unlikely to unblock you. What's more, I wouldn't rely too heavily on the standard offer, it's no gaurantee of anything. Perhaps it'd be a good idea to spend some times contributing to one of Wikimedia's many other projects, where you are not blocked, to prove you have the ability to edit productively and civilly. If you do that for me, then leave a message in a couple of months, I'd be happy to review your contributions and possibly unblock you then. WormTT(talk) 07:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retired
This user is no longer active on Wikipedia as of August 2012.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Carthage44&oldid=507585611"