No checkuser indication of block evasion. However, Rickyc123's unblock request does not clearly indicate they will adhere to their topic ban. I'd be unwilling to unblock without that topic ban being in effect ''indefinitely'', appealable no sooner than after six months of constructive editing. --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 12:51, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
No checkuser indication of block evasion. However, Rickyc123's unblock request does not clearly indicate they will adhere to their topic ban. I'd be unwilling to unblock without that topic ban being in effect ''indefinitely'', appealable no sooner than after six months of constructive editing. --[[User:Yamla|Yamla]] ([[User talk:Yamla|talk]]) 12:51, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
*::{{reply|Yamla}} I'd be happy to adhere to any bans or restrictions you place on my account until such time that I can prove myself.
Revision as of 12:57, 27 August 2023
Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).
Welcome!
Hello, Rickyc123, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
Nice work on the Chase Sherman page! Gave it a look over and threw up some extra info in there to bolster it some more. Udar55 (talk) 14:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
References
In the future, at the end of articles, please include a section Notes or a section References. Under that, please include a reflist, so your references display there. Example:
==Notes==
{{reflist}}
Thanks.Elliot321 (talk) 17:30, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
[User talk:Sir Sputnik|talk]]) 14:49, 16 October 2017 (U[reply]
RfA
Hi Rickyc123, thanks for volunteering to serve the community as an administrator - your enthusiasm is appreciated! A while back, an essay called WP:NOTNOW was written, and I think your RfA is going to be opposed for the reasons listed there. We expect our administrators to have a wide breadth of experience and knowledge, which in 10 months and 942 edits can't be overly demonstrated. Don't fret though! Take a look at some of the advice listed here, and consider withdrawing your RfA before it is closed early. On behalf of the community, thank you for creating awesome articles (such as UFC 218) and contributing - it really is appreciated, and in time you'll be ready to become an administrator. Perhaps have a look at how to help with vandalism and get involved in some more administrative tasks? If you need any help, or have any questions, let me know -- There'sNoTime(to explain)12:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to begin the process of requesting adminship. Your RfA has been closed per WP:NOTNOW based on the discussions there. I encourage you to carefully review all of the comments made there and on the talk page, and then implement any suggestions you think will increase your chances should you choose to put yourself forward as a candidate in the future. After some time has passed, please consider running again. We appreciate your time, and look forward to seeing you as a candidate again in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kostas20142 (talk • contribs)
There is a long standing consensus described in WP:NMMA. Three top tier fights. Personally I don't get to bothered by close but the last one was to far and really not that notable in context.PRehse (talk) 20:37, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Hello, Rickyc123. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
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.
Wikipedia editor Abishe just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Hello Rickyc123: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Abishe (talk) 04:05, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I see you've immediately recreated a number of the redirects that were deleted at the conclusion of the discussion. Please could you desist in doing that. HornetMike (talk) 16:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on UFC 229 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 an organized event (tour, function, meeting, party, etc.), 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 deleted 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. Vanjagenije(talk)21:43, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since you're not communicating at AN/I, where I tried asking nicely, now I'm warning. Your penchant for cut-and-paste moves has resulted in a drain of time and effort on the part of other editors, and continuing to do so will be considered disruptive, and will result in a block. Please thoroughly review WP:MOVE, and only move pages as instructed there. Cut-and-paste moves literally require effort to clean up after, and are only performed by incompetent users, or users who are trying to falsely take credit for creating articles. Neither will be tolerated. Thanks, Swarm♠00:27, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for creating several articles on women and their works over the past few weeks. We have become aware of your contributions thanks to research undertaken by Bobo.03 at the University of Minnesota. We think you might be interested in becoming a member of our WikiProject Women in Red where we are actively trying to reduce Wikipedia's content gender gap. You can join by using the box at the top of the WiR page. But if you would like to receive news of our activities without becoming a member, you can simply add your name to our mailing list. In any case, thank you for actively contributing to the coverage of women (currently, 17.41% of English Wikipedia's biographies).
Our priorities for February:
[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/67|Black women]][[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/68|Mathematicians and statisticians]][[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/69|Geofocus: Island women]][[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/00/2018|#1day1woman Global Initiative]]
Your latest article Kalindra Faria was clearly taken from Draft:Kalindra Faria, and while you at least made some effort to paraphrase and add some new content, things like the infobox and the mixed martial arts record table were clearly copied from the original draft. If you are going to make an article based so heavily on someone else's draft, why not just move the other editor's draft to the mainspace and make your changes/add new content after? And once more, the draft you based your article on was undergoing the AfC process and will now be rejected on the basis that the article already exists. Pinging Swarm who might want to weigh in on this behavior. Bennv3771 (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OH my god are you actually serious is this what is going to happen every time I make a new article now. I've learnt from my mistakes and I don't copy drafts. This article was done a 100% by me I included everything manually myself and I didn't use anything from the draft. I hadn't even looked at the draft. How stupid do you think I am that I would use a draft especially after already being given a warning like a week ago.Rickyc123 (talk) 16:25, 11 February 2018 (UTC)Rickyc123[reply]
I've seen the draft now and mine and their copy is completely different. We've used different sources, put in different information and the Infoboxes and the record table are different. It annoys me because it took me like 3 hours to make that article and for you to say I haven't done anything and I've stolen it Bennv3771 really takes the biscuits.Rickyc123 (talk) 16:28, 11 February 2018 (UTC)Rickyc123[reply]
Truly an amazing coincidence that there are so many similarities, including this same sentence: "In 2017, Faria was set to make her UFC at UFC 216 against Andrea Lee, however as Lee had previously failed a drugs test, USADA required her to be in the testing pool six months before competing, causing her to pull out." Even the grammatical error (should be "drug test" not "drugs test") and the missing word (it should be "make her UFC debut") are exactly the same! Bennv3771 (talk) 16:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OOOOH! Bennv3771 I made one spelling mistake and that makes me somebody who's copied something and every single UFC fighters article when talking about their debut uses that same format of at what year, at what event and against who it is. The bit about USADA, I copied from this article here.[1]Rickyc123 (talk) 16:46, 11 February 2018 (UTC)Rickyc123[reply]
We are talking about the same wording and exact same sentence structure and the exact same spelling mistake and the exact same missing word. This article you linked uses a completely different sentence structure and wording: "Lee, a first-time UFC fighter, was removed when it was discovered she had a previous anti-doping violation, which required her to enter the USADA drug testing pool for six months prior to fighting in the octagon." Bennv3771 (talk) 16:50, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's as though you're not listening to what i'm saying everybody when talking about drugs tests and debuts in MMA articles uses that format when describing UFC fighters debuts. And nobody calls it a drug test, everyone calls it a drugs test although it may technically be a drug test. I obviously had to reword what was in the article to make sure it sounded right on Wikipedia. And as for the rest of the article tell me where I've supposedly stolen from. That is just 10 words in about 500 words tell me if I copied everything where did i get all that research I had to do myself to find out who she fought, I had to get sources to prove they've fought that person. In fact there infobox is better than mine and has more stuff in it. So if I was such a perfectionist and liked to steal things tell me why I wouldn't just steal all the good bits if I stole it. Bennv3771Rickyc123 (talk) 17:01, 11 February 2018 (UTC)Rickyc123[reply]
No point arguing it between us. Let's wait to see if User:Swarm wants to weigh in, otherwise I will bring this to ANI. And I most certainly do not think that you are in any way a "perfectionist". I don't know where you got that idea from. Bennv3771 (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure now when you can't find anything else that says I copied from a draft. You try and end the conversation but every time you had supposed "evidence" you'd come back and reply straight away. For once when now I actually am in the right. I am looking forward to seeing what User:Swarm has to say about this.Rickyc123 (talk) 17:09, 11 February 2018 (UTC)Rickyc123[reply]
Hi Ricky, I see you're taking yet another break during an ANI complaint, but unfortunately we cannot let this ago any more. No mitigating factors have been provided at ANI, and your defense was not believable to anyone. Given the severity and willfulness of what comes down to copyright infringement, I have blocked your account indefinitely. Swarm♠05:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Women's History Month 2018 at Women in Red
Welcome to Women in Red's March 2018 worldwide online editathons.
Historically, our March event has been one of the biggest offerings of the year. This year, we are collaborating with two other wiki communities. Our article campaign is the official on-line/virtual node for Art+Feminism. Our image campaign supports the Whose Knowledge? initiative.
[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/70|Women's History Month 2018]]
Continuing:
[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/00|#1day1woman Global Initiative]]
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).
When blocking me the admin only waited for 3 people to agree with him all of which have had problems with me in the past and I have never ever vandalised at all in any of my contributions and they have all been good faith edits. When you look at the edits they had a problem with it was like 6 out 1602 edits I've ever made and if it means anything I won't copy and paste drafts because I really don't want to be blocked and it's just annoying when I see little things like an article that has links to the wrong person with the same name and I can't correct it/
Decline reason:
This wasn't just "6 edits", there was a history of multiple times where you took drafts and published them as articles you did yourself. Adding that the only reason you were blocked was people "had problems with you" leads me to believe this block is valid and needs to stand. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:05, 20 March 2018 (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.
April 2018 at Women in Red
Welcome to Women in Red's April 2018 worldwide online editathons.
Focus on:
[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/71|April+Further with Art+Feminism]][[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Meetup/72|Archaeology]][[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Meetup/73|Military history (contest)]][[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Meetup/74|Geofocus: Indian subcontinent]]
Continuing:
[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/00|#1day1woman Global Initiative]]
A tag has been placed on Love Alarm requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer.
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 deleted 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. ~~ CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 10:12, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey User: CASSIOPEIA, I was wondering if you could change the article Hayder Hassan as I can't. In his mixed martial arts record boxit says he last fought Felipe Portela however this is false as he fought Pavel Kusch and not Felipe Portela. Thanks--Rickyc123 (talk) 11:14, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! After the successful pilot program by Wikimedia India in 2015, Wiki Loves Food (WLF) is happening again in 2018 and this year, it's going International. To make this event a grand success, your direction is key. Please sign up here as a volunteer to bring all the world's food to Wikimedia. Danidamiobi (talk) 02:28, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
July 2018 worldwide online editathons:
New:
[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/83|Sub-Saharan Africa]][[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/84|Film + stage]][[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/85|20th-century]][[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/86|Women Rock]]
Continuing:
[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/00|Notable women, broadly-construed!]]
Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!):
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged SummerSlam (2018) for deletion, because it's too short to identify the subject of the article.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.
August 2018 worldwide online editathons:
New:
[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/87|Indigenous women]][[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/88|Women of marginalized populations]][[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/89|Women writers]][[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/90|Geofocus: Bottom 10]]
Continuing:
[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/00/2018|#1day1woman Global Initiative Notable women, broadly-construed!]]
September is an exciting new month for Women in Red's worldwide online editathons!
New:
[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/91|Women currently in academics]][[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/92|Women + Law]][[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/93|Geofocus: Hispanic countries]]
Continuing:
[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/00/2018|#1day1woman Global Initiative]]
Check it out:
[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Monthly achievement initiative: September 2018|Monthly achievement initiative]]
All creators of new biographies can keep track of their progress and earn virtual awards.
It can be used in conjunction with the above editathons or for any women's biography created in September.
Try it out when you create your first biography of the month.
Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!):
Please join us... We have four new topics for Women in Red's worldwide online editathons in October!
New:
[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/94|Clubs]][[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/95|Science fiction + fantasy]][[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/96|STEM]][[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/97|The Mediterranean]]
Continuing:
[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/00/2018|#1day1woman Global Initiative]]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2019 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
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 deleted 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. —Dimsar01Talk ⌚→ 09:30, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Get ready for November with Women in Red!
Three new topics forWiR'sonline editathons in November, two of them supporting other initiatives
New:
[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/98|Religion]][[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/99|Deceased politicians]][[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/96|Asia]]
Continuing:
[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/00/2018|#1day1woman Global Initiative]]
Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!):
TheWiRDecember editathons provide something for everyone.
New:
[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/101|Photography]][[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/102|Laureates]][[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/103|Countries beginning with 'I']]
Continuing:
[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/00/2018|#1day1woman Global Initiative]]
Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!):
TheWiRDecember editathons provide something for everyone.
New:
[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/101|Photography]][[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/102|Laureates]][[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/103|Countries beginning with 'I']]
Continuing:
[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/00/2018|#1day1woman Global Initiative]]
Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!):
I realise now what I did at the time was incredibly immature but I believe that now after over a year of not editing. I have learnt my lesson and will not persist in the copying within Wikipedia violations as I can now see how it actually negatively effects Wikipedia. I am genuinely sorry with what I did and would like to redeem myself and help to improve Wikipedia. I could make a new account as I'm going to University this year however I genuinely want to redeem myself and not make a new account based on trying to hide my identity as the past owner of the Rickyc123 account. I am remorseful of what I did and would politely ask if you could please lift this permanent editing ban for life you have on me as I wouldn't be lying if I said it doesn't annoy me when I see MMA fighters or boxers for example whose record boxes are incorrect and or not updated. Thank you and sorry for my past violation ~~Rickyc123~~
@Dlohcierekim: I wouldn't copy within Wikipedia as I did before and also if you look at all the edits I made apart from my violations, they were constructive. It was only a minority of my edits where I violated the rules although by admission, I shouldn't have even done this in the first place. I am also now willing to accept liability for what I did wrong. ThanksRickyc123 (talk) 13:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC)Rickyc123[reply]
Hey, so the way I worded everything, this wasn't officially a consensus-based block, but a discretionary one. However, I think there was a fairly strong consensus in support of an indef, and I agree that it should probably go to AN/I AN. ~~Swarm~~ {talk} 20:00, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for pinging all of you but not really sure who to ask regarding my situation. The AN Thread on whether or not I should remain unblocked has become archived without a decision being made therefore nobody has commented on what should happen in over 2 weeks. So I'm worried that it has been forgotten about and that my unblock request may never be addressed.
Thanks you in advance for any of you who can help me in finding out what will happen.Rickyc123 (talk) 00:08, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the frustration with Wikipedia's bureaucracy, but I don't really know anything about what's going on here. Do you want the unresolved section restored to WP:AN from the archives? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:49, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@NinjaRobotPirate and Dlohcierekim: I can let honest mistakes slide, but it was after this user asked for and received clarification on their TBAN that they engaged in article creation: 13:55 20 Feb, 18:07 20 Feb (the latter was created in the mainspace and subsequently draftified). I'm not sure what the excuse here could possibly be, either it was a willful violation or this user is a CIR case. ~Swarm~{talk}04:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Swarm: Look above at NRP's comment, "and there doesn't seem to be anything specific about MMA topics." So, well, maybe some wiggle room. Awaiting user's reply, but this is the last straw, really. Dlohcierekim(talk) 04:10, 21 February 2019 (UTC) Dlohcierekim(talk)04:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Dlohcierekim: To be clear, even if this user thought, for some reason, the TBAN was restricted to MMA articles, both creations would still would have been straightforward violations. They're literally both articles about MMA fighters! Facepalm~Swarm~{talk}04:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, and this is a real stretch, thought MMA was exempt from article creation TBAN. I know. But sometimes we hear waht we need to. Not saying it's a valid excuse, just a thought. Dlohcierekim(talk)04:18, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you're unfamiliar with Wikipedia's bureaucracy, I guess all this could be pretty confusing. Rickyc123, you have to be more careful – you just got unblocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
These look to me to be straight-forward violations of the unblock condition. I suggest we reblock immediately, particularly as the recreated articles were inappropriate. Barring that, I suggest stricter conditions. Perhaps, an indefinite topic ban (on all edits, not just article creation) on MMA and wrestling generally, appealable after no fewer than 500 article edits and 6 months, whichever comes first, with no warnings. In general, though, I think this is a pretty clear-cut case. They were unblocked with a ban on article creation and a warning about WP:ROPE. They broke this. We should reblock and be done with them. --Yamla (talk) 09:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake guys, I thought it would've been alright because I didn't technically create these articles right now but I changed them from redirects into normal articles. So I suppose I thought that I wasn't creating it, I was improving them as both fighters are scheduled to have their third bout so I thought that they no longer need to be redirects.Rickyc123 (talk) 09:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I can't apologise enough, I didn't realise I was violating my conditions and I changed redirects into normal articles as I thought I wasn't creating them but just changing redirects into normal articles and I thought it would be OK because the edits are constructive and not in bad faith. My mistake it won't happen again.
One question though, would I be allowed to create articles as drafts and then post them when I have permission from someone who knows something about MMA like User: CASSIOPEIA.Rickyc123 (talk) 09:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can grant a mulligan. Sometimes we hear what we want to hear and misinterpret restrictions. I should have been clearer. No article creation, even as drafts. Please confine your editing to editing existing articles and no redirect conversions into articles. No drafts. What was it? 6 months. Just straight editing on existing articles. When in doubt, please ask clearly and specifically. Dlohcierekim(talk)12:33, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm honestly with Yamla, this is a ridiculous and blatant violation with a poor excuse. A reasonable person couldn't possibly consider writing a whole brand new article to not be "article creation" simply because it was created from a redirect, and if he had read WP:TBAN, he would understand that the scope of these bans is as broad as possible and encompasses any grey areas. Also, users are expected to have the competence to understand and comply with bans, and to ask for clarification if there's anything they don't understand. If the admins responsible for imposing the TBAN want to take the blame for not being clear enough, that's fine, but this still needs to go on record as a violation. A second violation will be intolerable and Ricky should understand that the next one will likely be met with another indefinite block. ~Swarm~{talk}14:16, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A way in which I can prove that fighters reach notability is by using sites such as Sherdog or relevant media articles which prove these fights have occurred or that they will achieve notability. Before I got banned, I often used fighters profile on the UFC website which I also believe to be a suitable source to use. Before creating any MMA article I need to ensure that the subjects have had at least 3 top tier fights or are scheduled for a 3rd fight in a top tier promotion. I can use articles of fight announcements or results to prove they are notable.
I now know that the reason I shouldn't copy within Wikipedia is that everybody should gain attribution for what they create themselves (for copyright reasons and it easier to see who did what when looking at edit history). I now know what I should've done in these cases is that instead of copying and pasting the drafts and then improving it. I should have move the drafts first and then improved it. And rather than trying to copy and pasting it to a name I thought was better. I should have tried to merge the two articles or requested a name change. Can't apologise enough, I didn't really see the severity or issue at the time. Rickyc123 (talk) 18:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but I still don't quite understand what you want me to do however from what I gather or think you want me to do. I believe that although Wikipedia doesn't need to include information such as how many takedowns or significant strikes are included in each fight or the betting odds as such sites such as tapology include. The only information which is required is the date, information, location, round, round time and method of victory an example I can show you I have produced below of Shane Burgos.
In terms of when fights of should be updated. Usually with high profile fights such as UFC fights. The result is on Wikipedia within minutes and usually reliable websites such as MMA mania and mmajunkie also have articles on the results within minutes. So it is very easy to find reliable news resources of fight results.
You say I don't understand it, but the usual convention on all UFC fighter pages is that the result is on within minutes and if you are saying don't put it on because potential disqualifications then fair enough but when you look at UFC fighter pages during events they're already on. So if we're following convention they're already on within at least 10 minutes. So you can't say it's wrong when everybody does it and it's the followed convention. For example Jon Jones following his no contest again Daniel Cornier had his record on his page as a win as there is no way to know if their is a USADA Violation until maybe 2 weeks after the fight and every single fighter I checked on the last ESPN card who had a Wikipedia, had their record updated by the end of the event.
And I'm not talking about updating fights while they happen I was talking about updating records later if they've not been put in yet or incorrect. Like up until about 2 weeks ago Hayder Hassan Wikipedia page had incorrect information and said he'd though Felipe Portela in April when he actually thought Pavel Kusch and his fight result against Hemant Wadekar which happened in September wasn't put up until 2 weeks ago either. And that was just because no other editor had seen or checked his page.
I don't know who to ask about this, but I was wondering if I could have an update on what's happening with my unblock request because it doesn't seem to be on ANI anymore or it's not on the unblock requests page. So I'm worried it may be forgotten about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickyc123 (talk • contribs) 18:35, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's visible at this location. The consensus was that you did indeed copy/paste content without attribution, that there were no mitigating factors, and implicitly, that your unblock request has failed and your block is endorsed by the community. --Yamla (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but doesn't the fact that the conversation has been archived mean that no one can now see it and as a result come up with an end judgement or decision on what is going to happen.Rickyc123 (talk) 10:16, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
February 2019 at Women in Red
February 2019, Volume 5, Issue 2, Numbers 107-111
Happy February from Women in Red! Please join us for these virtual editathons.
February events:
[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/109|Social Workers]][[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/110|Black Women]]
February geofocus:
[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/111|Ancient World]]
Continuing initiatives:
[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/107|Suffrage]][[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/108|#1day1woman2019]]
Help us plan our future events:
[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Ideas|Ideas Cafe]]
Image attribution: Johntex (CC BY-SA 3.0)
Subscription options:
[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Outreach/List|English language opt-in]][[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Outreach/International list|International opt-in]][[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Outreach/Opt-out|Unsubscribe]]
--Rosiestep (talk) 20:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]
Please join us for these virtual events:
March:
[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/112|Art+Feminism & #VisibleWikiWomen]]
Geofocus:
[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/113|Francophone Women]]
Continuing initiatives:
[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/107|Suffrage]][[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/108|#1day1woman]]
Other ways you can participate:
Help us plan our future events:
[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Ideas|Ideas Cafe]]
Join the conversations on our [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red|talkpage]]
Follow us on Twitter: @wikiwomeninred
Subscription options:
[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Outreach/List|English language opt-in]][[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Outreach/International list|International opt-in]][[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Outreach/Opt-out|Unsubscribe]] --Rosiestep (talk) 22:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]
Ways to improve Danny Henry (fighter)
Hello, Rickyc123,
Thanks for creating Danny Henry (fighter)! I edit here too, under the username Onel5969 and it's nice to meet you :-)
I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-
Please look at WP:CIT and WP:CITE on how to properly format citations and footnotes.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Onel5969}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.
Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.
An article you recently created, Brad Katona, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CASSIOPEIA(talk)01:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
You were unblocked on 2019-02-19 under a topic ban on article creation for six months. When you immediately violated that topic ban, we gave you the benefit of the doubt. Rather than blocking you, Dlohcierekim very kindly clarified: "No article creation, even as drafts. Please confine your editing to editing existing articles and no redirect conversions into articles. No drafts. What was it? 6 months. Just straight editing on existing articles." You were warned at that point that your violation was "ridiculous and blatant". Well, you've once again blatantly violated your ban with this submission and this submission. You knew or should have known you couldn't work on Draft:Brad Katona at all during your topic ban. You continued to do so, in blatant violation and you then attempted to have the draft converted into an article. That's it, you are now done. You had six months to prove yourself but instead, repeatedly violated the terms. I have blocked you indefinitely. This block is placed after consultation with Swarm, NinjaRobotPirate, CASSIOPEIA, and Dlohcierekim but does not necessarily reflect their views. --Yamla (talk) 11:47, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But I didn't have a topic ban, I had an article creation ban. All I did was update the Brad Katona page so that when other people saw it was OK they could publish it. I don't see why I have been banned again for just editing a page when my ban was on article creation. It wasn't even a major edit, it was just updating a new fight. I have been very careful recently and made sure that I don't create any new articles and all my edits have been in good faith. I never had a topic ban on MMA articles. Just a ban creating any articles. I don't see why you are banning me for violating conditions which were never set out. I understand I made a mistake 2 or 3 days after I was unblocked but I don't see why it would even seem logical for me to deliberately break rules which expire in a few months anyway. Rickyc123 (talk) 11:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, you are essentially arguing you lack sufficient competence to edit here. What on earth did you expect you were doing by editing a draft page? Did you truly believe by editing draft articles, you were adhering to "No drafts"?!? By submitting the draft to become an article, did you truly believe you were adhering to "No article creation, even as drafts"?!? --Yamla (talk) 11:58, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When you submit drafts for review, you are told whether or not they are competent. They aren't directly submitted. I already created that article in the past when I violated my conditions but all I did was update it and then check if it was alright by sending it to be submitted. I wasn't allowed to publish articles from drafts but nowhere did it say I couldn't edit on them.Rickyc123 (talk) 12:02, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Please confine your editing to editing existing articles" (articles, not drafts), "No drafts", "Just straight editing on existing articles", "Rickyc123 unblocked with a topic ban on article creation for six months." I'm done here. If you disagree with your block, you are welcome to request an unblock review. WP:GAB shows you how. I'll warn you, your reading of the terms is not consistent with what you were told, and not consistent with how the other administrators have understood what you were told. --Yamla (talk) 12:06, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It was literally worded "Unblocked with a topic ban on article creation". In any case, claiming you had an "article creation ban" instead of a "topic ban" is meaningless. We don't nitpick wording here. A ban is a ban, borderline violations are violations, and competence to understand and abide by editing restrictions without violating them intentionally or unintentionally, is required. Your unblock was a second chance. Your subsequent free pass for "mistaken" violations that would supposedly "not happen again" was a third. You're out of rope. ~Swarm~{sting}00:40, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Mjs1991 was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
The comment the reviewer left was:
Brad Katona doesn't meet WP:NMMA. Needs 3 top tier fights
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.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Brad Katona and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Brad Katona, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Hello, Rickyc123!
Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Mjs1991 (talk) 04:08, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Brad Katona, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
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 deleted 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, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. JavaHurricane13:36, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Rickyc123. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Taila Santos brazil, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
It's been over 4 years since I was last banned and although i cant remember why exactly i was banned, I do realise I was incredibly petty just by reading the replies ive sent people during my discussions. In truth I was incredibly immature, I was only 16 when I initially got banned and then 17 when I successfully appealled but still disregarded what the admjns said. I'm now 22 and understand that my banning was completely justifiable. I now believe i can become a valued and helpful editor in this community. And will fully adhere to any rules which have been set. Thanks, RickyRickyc123 (talk) 12:44, 27 August 2023 (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.
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=It's been over 4 years since I was last banned and although i cant remember why exactly i was banned, I do realise I was incredibly petty just by reading the replies ive sent people during my discussions. In truth I was incredibly immature, I was only 16 when I initially got banned and then 17 when I successfully appealled but still disregarded what the admjns said. I'm now 22 and understand that my banning was completely justifiable. I now believe i can become a valued and helpful editor in this community. And will fully adhere to any rules which have been set. Thanks, Ricky[[User:Rickyc123|Rickyc123]] ([[User talk:Rickyc123#top|talk]]) 12:44, 27 August 2023 (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=It's been over 4 years since I was last banned and although i cant remember why exactly i was banned, I do realise I was incredibly petty just by reading the replies ive sent people during my discussions. In truth I was incredibly immature, I was only 16 when I initially got banned and then 17 when I successfully appealled but still disregarded what the admjns said. I'm now 22 and understand that my banning was completely justifiable. I now believe i can become a valued and helpful editor in this community. And will fully adhere to any rules which have been set. Thanks, Ricky[[User:Rickyc123|Rickyc123]] ([[User talk:Rickyc123#top|talk]]) 12:44, 27 August 2023 (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=It's been over 4 years since I was last banned and although i cant remember why exactly i was banned, I do realise I was incredibly petty just by reading the replies ive sent people during my discussions. In truth I was incredibly immature, I was only 16 when I initially got banned and then 17 when I successfully appealled but still disregarded what the admjns said. I'm now 22 and understand that my banning was completely justifiable. I now believe i can become a valued and helpful editor in this community. And will fully adhere to any rules which have been set. Thanks, Ricky[[User:Rickyc123|Rickyc123]] ([[User talk:Rickyc123#top|talk]]) 12:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
No checkuser indication of block evasion. However, Rickyc123's unblock request does not clearly indicate they will adhere to their topic ban. I'd be unwilling to unblock without that topic ban being in effect indefinitely, appealable no sooner than after six months of constructive editing. --Yamla (talk) 12:51, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Yamla: I'd be happy to adhere to any bans or restrictions you place on my account until such time that I can prove myself.
-- There'sNoTime (to explain) 12:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:PreciesJJ continues to add unsourced info, no discussion. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 18:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic ANI noticeboard.
Facepalm ~Swarm~ {talk} 04:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
.jpg)
