User talk:Metsguy234

Hello, Metsguy234! 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! —Wknight94 (talk) 21:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome your help to create new content, but your recent additions (such as My Potty and I) are considered nonsense. Please refrain from creating nonsense articles. If you want to test things out, edit the sandbox instead. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Betaeleven 00:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome your help to create new content, but your recent additions (such as The Berenstain Bears Cook-It!: Breakfast for Mama!) are considered nonsense. Please refrain from creating nonsense articles. If you want to test things out, edit the sandbox instead. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Mr.Z-mantalk 00:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Attacks[edit]

Please do not place links on user talk pages which contain personal attacks. Franamax (talk) 15:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, it was a link to a newspaper article that covered the Durova incident. I don't think we should get into the business of accusing The Register of making personal attacks. Carcharoth (talk) 20:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To explain this a little bit, the link had been added and removed earlier in the day and Durova had also responded to the previous poster. I don't think The Register is an attack site but I found the article somewhat lacking in balance and certain quotes and statements could be construed as slipping in a PA in the guise of a news link. I had also just previously removed a definite PA on Durova, so perhaps I acted somewhat reflexively and could have worded this notice better. I was still considering how to answer Mets post on my talk page (where they say that their question has already been answered - so why did you ask then?) when I saw that Mets had been indeffed. I am a little surprised at the severity of the response to Mets' actions - but that is being discussed extensivley elsewhere by others ;) I would support removal of Mets block, perhaps with some kind of a warning. Franamax (talk) 01:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

This account is blocked. I'm sure you can find something better to do then create Wikipedia accounts solely to cause trouble and insult people. Neil ☎ 15:24, 5 December 2007 (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).

Metsguy234 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

User only asked a question about an article he read online and asked for an article to be made more neutral- has never personally insulted anyone- most other edits have been good

Decline reason:

This does not address the reason you were blocked. — Yamla (talk) 19:32, 5 December 2007 (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.

For the record, discussion about this block has taken place at the blocking admin's talk page. See User talk:Neil#Indefinite blocks versus warnings and calming things down (permanent link as at time of writing). I am waiting for Neil to respond there, but my opinion is that the allegation that this account was created "solely to cause trouble and insult people" is not warranted. Another editor has agreed with me, so I am hopeful this can be sorted out when Neil logs back on. I am going to leave a note for Yamla as well. Carcharoth (talk) 20:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the unblock request does not address the reason given for the block. However, if this user makes another unblock request, I hope and expect the reviewing admin to review independently of me and override my decline if they believe it warranted. Such would always be appropriate even when the block has not been questioned, as it has here. --Yamla (talk) 21:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note to reviewing admin. Please note the discussions above and the other discussions linked from those discussions, I'm already engaged in dialogue with the blocking admin, so I don't feel I can unblock without waiting for a response there, but what I see here is an account created by someone from another wiki, not an account created for the sole purpose of causing trouble and insulting people. At the very least, I suggest the indefinite block should be turned into a definite block (say, a week), or overturned completely. But the best thing to do might be to wait for Neil to comment, because I would like to see a note in the unblock log to the effect that the account was too new to properly judge whether the contributions might improve (ie. "No good contributions" is excessive), and that the allegation of creating an account to attack others is not sustainable when you look at the creation history. It was created by someone arriving here from another wiki over a year ago. Carcharoth (talk) 21:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfortunate that no discussion took place at all before the hammer came down. From his contributions at wikiHow, he seems to be capable of positive contributions. I support an unblock and some watching/mentoring. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, sorry for any trouble I caused. I just started using my Wikipedia account recently. When I read about the secret mailing list fiasco- I wanted to know the truth- so, not knowing that it was decided (for whatever reason) to stop pestering Durova with questions- I asked a simple question- which I did not intend to be a personal attack. Sorry if it was taken that way. P.S.- I remember someone (I believe it was Neil) citing my message on an anon's talk page against me because of my comment "I'm looking into your identity.". There's a misunderstanding here. I used to write for a school newspaper and I was doing research on a school computer (not logged in). I found that the IP of the computer I was using had done some bad edits in the past. I decided to write an article about it and also attempt to find who was vandalizing the pages- since it was someone at my school- I never meant it as a stalker-type thing. Sorry if it was taken that way... Metsguy234 (talk) 02:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's bad form for us to simply undo an admin's block and he's offline now so please be patient. Your best bet in the future is to contribute to the encyclopedia content more, and make off-color comments and poke your head into touchy situations less. Hopefully you realize that now and this can be resolved soon. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the news article goes, (almost) everything is on the public record here and you can find and decide for yourself the truth and un-truth of all the statements therein. It is not as easy as asking a simple question, for sure, but I guess you have the time while we wait for the blocking admin to reconsider :( You might also address that "morons" comment you made - that would pretty much clear up the record. Franamax (talk) 02:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have informed Carcharoth (or any other admin) that if they want to unblock you and take responsibility for your actions, they are free to do so. I hope if they do, you will respect the above editors' good faith in you and behave from now on. Neil ☎ 09:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's pointless. I have unblocked your account. Please try and respect other editors in future - remember, they are people, too. Neil ☎ 09:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reviewing Admin should See this also - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Mistakes_need_acknowledging
--Hu12 (talk) 09:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New welcome[edit]

Hi Metsguy234. I'd like to apologise for how all this was handled. I see that you have experience on another wiki. Let me know if you need a hand finding out how things work around here. If you reply here, the first step would be to work through the loose ends from what you said, and correct your misunderstandings. Then we could blank this talk page and put a welcome template in its place. Let me know what you think. Carcharoth (talk) 12:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I said some pretty dumb stuff that I shouldn't have said. I know how a wiki works (Wikihow)- but does Wikipedia have any totally different policies? If so, can you please tell me the important ones?

Thanks again,

Metsguy234 (talk) 20:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put the standard welcome message at the top of this page. Those should help you get properly started. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Wknight. Metsguy, if you want a hand archiving your talk page, let me know. I should warn you that the standards are pretty high around here, so someone might object to SimLeague Baseball on various grounds. The link to WhatIfSports.com is good, but have a look at the article WhatIfSports.com - it already has a section on the SimLeagues. See WhatIfSports.com#SimLeagues. It is probably best to add the information on SimLeague Baseball to WhatIfSports.com, instead of creating a separate page. In general, it is probably best to add information to existing pages, unless you are sure there is a need for a separate page. Anyway, as I'm sure you know, Wikipedia is a very large place, so keep reading and help out with editing where you think you can. Carcharoth (talk) 23:16, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SimLeague Baseball[edit]

Mets, thanks for jumping in to help build the encyclopedia. I wanted to let you know I had tagged the SimLeague Baseball article for deletion because it looked like WP:SPAM. Usually things like price aren't included unless that is a mjaor part of the subject matter. Also, as you contribute more consider using the the AutoWikiBrowser WP:AWB. I think I remember that the Simleague article had some large spaces, odd formatting, etc, and AWB will correct most of that. Thanks again for joining. Mbisanz (talk) 16:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected[edit]

Done Neıl 龱 10:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]