Jump to content

User talk:Rhinotate: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Rhinotate (talk | contribs)
Rhinotate (talk | contribs)
Line 103: Line 103:
Apart from your evasion of a block and your totally transparent attempt to vote-stack in a discussion, doing things such as calling other editors "idiots" will not advance your cause. If you want to contribute to Wikipedia then you are very welcome to do so, but only if you are willing and able to fit in with the established ways that Wikipedia functions. Otherwise, there is a danger that you r block, which has already been increased from 1 day to 1 week and then to 1 month, may eventually become indefinite. That would be a pity, as I am sure you could make useful contributions, so I do hope you will think again about how you edit. [[User:JamesBWatson|JamesBWatson]] ([[User talk:JamesBWatson|talk]]) 11:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Apart from your evasion of a block and your totally transparent attempt to vote-stack in a discussion, doing things such as calling other editors "idiots" will not advance your cause. If you want to contribute to Wikipedia then you are very welcome to do so, but only if you are willing and able to fit in with the established ways that Wikipedia functions. Otherwise, there is a danger that you r block, which has already been increased from 1 day to 1 week and then to 1 month, may eventually become indefinite. That would be a pity, as I am sure you could make useful contributions, so I do hope you will think again about how you edit. [[User:JamesBWatson|JamesBWatson]] ([[User talk:JamesBWatson|talk]]) 11:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
::There is no evidence for sockpuppetry here. Please open up the disputed entry so that I may further cite it. This is obstruction of citation. Thanks. [[User:Rhinotate|Rhinotate]] ([[User talk:Rhinotate#top|talk]]) 00:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
::There is no evidence for sockpuppetry here. Please open up the disputed entry so that I may further cite it. This is obstruction of citation. Thanks. [[User:Rhinotate|Rhinotate]] ([[User talk:Rhinotate#top|talk]]) 00:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
::Please link to a specific case of calling other editors "idiots," this constitutes uncited libel [[User:Rhinotate|Rhinotate]] ([[User talk:Rhinotate#top|talk]]) 01:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
::Please link to a specific case of calling other editors "idiots," this constitutes uncited libel. [[User:Rhinotate|Rhinotate]] ([[User talk:Rhinotate#top|talk]]) 01:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:28, 11 February 2013

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome!

This is an automated message from VWBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Jared Mimms, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Jared Benjamin Mimms. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. VWBot (talk) 22:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article Jared Benjamin Mimms has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this newly created biography of a living person will be deleted unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. reddogsix (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 Jared Benjamin Mimms 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 the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent 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. reddogsix (talk) 00:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 Jared Benjamin Mimms 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 the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent 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. reddogsix (talk) 00:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 Jared Benjamin Mimms 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, organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content or organised event, 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 the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent 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. Rhinotate (talk) 01:21, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

February 2013

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Jared Benjamin Mimms. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Click here to contest this speedy deletion, which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. reddogsix (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing speedy deletion notices from pages that you have created yourself, as you did with Jared Benjamin Mimms. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. If you continue to remove the Speedy Deletion tags you will be banned from editing or creating pages. Please stop this disruptive behavior. reddogsix (talk) 00:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you remove a speedy deletion notice from a page you have created yourself, as you did with this edit to Jared Benjamin Mimms. Josh3580talk/hist 01:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rhinotate, you are invited to the Teahouse

Teahouse logo

Hi Rhinotate! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Nathan2055 (I'm a Teahouse host)

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:16, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion over Jared Benjamin Mimms

Seems as though a plethora of issues has occurred on the Jared Benjamin Mimms page. Please work on finishing the article and keep in touch on my talk page if issue continue in regards to reversions. I apologize for the insanity of this and hope it does not put you off from editing wikipedia. Contact me with any questions. Jab843 (talk) 01:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Jared Benjamin Mimms for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jared Benjamin Mimms 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/Jared Benjamin Mimms 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 high-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. reddogsix (talk) 01:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. 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.

Materialscientist (talk) 03:34, 9 February 2013 (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).

Rhinotate (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

I did nothing wrong, just edited posts, did not know about signing, will fix in the future. Rhinotate (talk) 03:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Errm, you receive three messages telling you not to remove speedy deletion tags from an article you created, including two that tell you that doing so is likely to lead to your being blocked, and one of them tells you that you may be blocked next time you do so without further warning. After you have been told that, you remove the tag another seven times, and you don't know why you have been blocked? Well, that is why. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:50, 9 February 2013 (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.

{{unblock|reason=The speedy tags and entry were reverted as the article was being cited. Conscious effort to disrupt citation process. Ongoing citation exempt from speedy delete. Rhinotate (talk) 01:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)}}[reply]

That wasn't why you were blocked, though Materialscientist should have been more specific in his block notification. You're actually blocked for "disrupting deletion processes", though I don't know the specifics and your history only illuminates so much (I count 8 speedy-deletion tag removals, but nothing really sanctionable as regards the AfD unless the IP there is you.) —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 09:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rhinotate for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. reddogsix (talk) 16:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of evading scrutiny for 1 week, as you did at [[:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jared Benjamin Mimms]]. 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.  -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 05:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Rhinotate (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

No evidence of sockpuppetry - all different IPs - entry better known in specific geographic location. User reddogsix is obstructing citation yet again. Reason to believe that reporting user is himself sockpuppeting. Have more to cite on that entry and a few more entries to write. Please open up the entry again and remove collapse so we may properly cite and discuss the entry. Rhinotate (talk) 01:00, 11 February 2013 (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=No evidence of sockpuppetry - all different IPs - entry better known in specific geographic location. User reddogsix is obstructing citation yet again. Reason to believe that reporting user is himself sockpuppeting. Have more to cite on that entry and a few more entries to write. Please open up the entry again and remove collapse so we may properly cite and discuss the entry. [[User:Rhinotate|Rhinotate]] ([[User talk:Rhinotate#top|talk]]) 01:00, 11 February 2013 (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=No evidence of sockpuppetry - all different IPs - entry better known in specific geographic location. User reddogsix is obstructing citation yet again. Reason to believe that reporting user is himself sockpuppeting. Have more to cite on that entry and a few more entries to write. Please open up the entry again and remove collapse so we may properly cite and discuss the entry. [[User:Rhinotate|Rhinotate]] ([[User talk:Rhinotate#top|talk]]) 01:00, 11 February 2013 (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=No evidence of sockpuppetry - all different IPs - entry better known in specific geographic location. User reddogsix is obstructing citation yet again. Reason to believe that reporting user is himself sockpuppeting. Have more to cite on that entry and a few more entries to write. Please open up the entry again and remove collapse so we may properly cite and discuss the entry. [[User:Rhinotate|Rhinotate]] ([[User talk:Rhinotate#top|talk]]) 01:00, 11 February 2013 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Apart from your evasion of a block and your totally transparent attempt to vote-stack in a discussion, doing things such as calling other editors "idiots" will not advance your cause. If you want to contribute to Wikipedia then you are very welcome to do so, but only if you are willing and able to fit in with the established ways that Wikipedia functions. Otherwise, there is a danger that you r block, which has already been increased from 1 day to 1 week and then to 1 month, may eventually become indefinite. That would be a pity, as I am sure you could make useful contributions, so I do hope you will think again about how you edit. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence for sockpuppetry here. Please open up the disputed entry so that I may further cite it. This is obstruction of citation. Thanks. Rhinotate (talk) 00:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please link to a specific case of calling other editors "idiots," this constitutes uncited libel. Rhinotate (talk) 01:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]