User talk:Samej1902

Welcome!

Hello, Samej1902, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! GiantSnowman 09:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC) Getting started Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles How you can help Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, 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 necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 09:28, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

2 accounts

Please decide which account you wish to edit under; I will then block the other account. GiantSnowman 11:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

You can get rid of the g account - as I don't feel right using that name - I signed up using it due to the article I intended to write for wiki. Though, I wold rather that name be done with. I would however like to have all the work that I did, not to be blocked or deleted along with that... a simple merge into this newer username would be the best option, though I dont know if that is possible.

I wanted to add some saved pdf's and jpg items from my computer to add as references - is there a way I can do this?

You ideally should have used Wikipedia:Changing username, as "Accounts cannot be merged or deleted. They can only be renamed." I will block the old username. What kind of things are you trying to upload? PDFs cannot be uploaded anyway. GiantSnowman 12:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry - I tried to merge accounts and change names... but this was much outside of my wiki talent :/ I would like if possible to add some things like newspaper articles and other posters and advertisements that I either took photo's of or have in clear scanned jpg format also... which would be some very good references for the article.

If you want to use something off-line (i.e. newspaper clipping) as a reference then you are able to do so, there is no need to 'upload'. GiantSnowman 12:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

GiantSnowman - I assume you knew that blocking the one account would also block me from editing material (or adding citations) to the article I wrote...? I would appreciate if you unblocked - I have been very honest with you about my dealings. Why did you state that I am 'Abusing' multiple accounts? I simply felt in FEAR of using my other using name, which you seem to make very public over and over being mine. Is there a way I can get this thread read by more than one administrator? I am starting to feel unfairly targeted. I WAS TOLD BY A PREVIOUS ADMIN IN WIKI - that the easiest option is to sign up a new account... and now I get blocked for doing the action that was suggested to me. GiantSnowman, please let me be able to add discussion - without unfairly blocking my input for no real reason.

This user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Samej1902 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

109.45.2.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

---

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Georgeff9". The reason given for Georgeff9's block is: "Abusing multiple accounts: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_tal

• Blocking administrator: GiantSnowman (talk • blocks)

---

Accept reason: Auto block removed, apologies. GiantSnowman 12:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Apologies, forgot to 'untick' the autoblock IP function when I blocked your previous account. But which Admin told you to open a 2nd account? GiantSnowman 12:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

It was an honest mistake, you need to assume good faith and stop thinking the worst of people, and stop SHOUTING about being targeted when you are not in the slightest. If you want further help then use {{help me}}. GiantSnowman 12:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much... I am sure you can understand how I was feeling... I was assuming you just blocked my voice with the click of a button. But, thank you for being honest, and letting me continue. Yes, I will assume good faith from now on. Sorry - my emotion comes out in writing... I was told on this random page about opening a new account, and read it on wiki also... because I didnt want the previous username to be everywhere as I originally just used it as a test... and ended up writing the whole article... and I would like to not be associated with that username...

My advice at IRC to Georgeff9 about his username

I met this user first at IRC. He came on regarding his draft. During the discussion, he said he did not wish to have that username. I told him that he could either abandon his old name or seek to change it at Wikipedia:Changing username. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC) Yes this is exactly right. (Samej1902 (talk) 23:39, 14 August 2013 (UTC))

Samej1902, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Samej1902! 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! Jtmorgan (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:15, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Some friendly advice

Firstly, please sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Secondly, I would like to show you this AFD, in which an editor had his account indefinitely blocked for posting large walls of text, and for repeating and repeating the same points over and over again to the point where it became disruptive. That is how your edits to the James Georgeff AFD are now starting to appear. You have made your point, multiple times, and people still do not believe he is notable. Either introduce something new, or let others have a say. GiantSnowman 10:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I understand - but why is the question being raised about professionalism??? WP:NCOLLATH - this is the only standard that the article claims...Is there any other first overall draft picks in any Major League Sport that do not have the notoriety to have an article submitted? GiantSnowman, some of the people involving in this discussion seem to have many dealings with you, and I believe are reiterating your exact point over and over... It would be like me asking a few of my friends to get involved and write my input with a different signature over and over.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Samej1902 (talk • contribs)

I would like to officially you ask for help to have this issue seen by someone who I feel is not unfairly against me. In your initial appraisal of this article you said it was 'likely written by the subject' and 'promotional'. Are these the points we are clearing up, or are we spinning off topic and just answering any reason why it is NOT acceptable to keep this article? The subject does not pass the professional swimmer criteria also, but has this got anything to do with the article?! The input from the people commenting is purely NOT following the guidelines or the actual article content itself. The article notes the notoriety matter, and it has nothing to do with professional sport playing. p.s. I am not stating you are against me, just that this seems to have started on the wrong foot, and now I think someone with fresh college knowledge in soccer may help this issue most, rather than seeing this reasons for deletion change over time.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Samej1902 (talk • contribs)

I have requested outside assistance on your behalf, to see if somebody else can try and explain this to you as you seem to be unable, or unwilling, to understand everyone's concerns with the article. GiantSnowman 10:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Help request answered below. JohnCD (talk) 14:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you GiantSnowman. I just got off the phone with an editor in FL at the University of Central Florida, the college of the previous source, and as it so happens, he received some type of coveted award for the notable event described in the article. This is the equivalent of a hall of fame addition as per the editor. This would clearly pass WP:NCOLLATH now right?

Wow, what a coincidence that you have a friend who you just spoke with on the telephone and who has confirmed notability! GiantSnowman 12:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

GiantSnowman...? I don't understand your comment. I called a sports editor at the subjects last university... you mention friend?? Not everyone I reach over the phone is a friend. I was just stating that according to the WP:NCOLLATH criteria, the subject passes on this recent discovery also. Why does it seem you are treating my comments with sarcasm? Unfortunately, it seems like you are assuming a lot and not taking my points seriously.

I just find it amusing that when you failed to prove notability as a professional athlete, you are now trying to show he is notable as a college athlete, and you have a contact at his old University who happened to mention he won an award which means he is definitely notable? Nope, it doesn't work like that. Is his award a major, national award? If so, why is it not mentioned in any of the sources? Why did you have to call the University to get that information? GiantSnowman 13:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

And further, how does anyone verify that source? If you haven't read WP:42 I suggest you do as it may help you get a clearer understanding of expectations. Flat Out let's discuss it 13:50, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the key word I heard from the editor was - equivalent of hall of fame. To receive the equivalent of hall of fame for the drafting acheivments of the subject, from one of the top few largest universities in USA. Seems to fit the criteria of WP:NCOLLATH pretty fairly. You are correct, it was just a phone call for now, just to ask some independent sources, but I did ask for all the links and sources of info on the topic, which is on its way. So, hall of fame like award which has been given out a grand total of (ONE) 1 time in the college's history should suffice.

Please get some college athletics specialists in this conversation if possible. Thank you

p.s. the article hasnt changed in essence - the article was NEVER claiming some type of full professionalism according to certain leagues and etc, the 'noted' event is still the same noted event. I just cannot find reasonable ways to argue that wiki shows unprofessional leagues as professional, just because, without relevant citation. I cant argue that, its like me arguing with a colorblind person that colors exist, the argument would go no where - I would use real sources, those against my argument would use this web site as a source even though its been stated as unreliable. One thing that cant be undone with ridiculous sources is WP:NCOLLATH which fits the actual article better than any other Notoriety affiliation.

p.s. I called the university because I like using my phone.

No, you began by claiming he was notable for being the first Aussie in MLS, now you are saying it is because he won a college award or something? Hmm. As I advised you above, your lengthy posts that repeat the same point over & over again are not getting you anywhere. If you don't stop posting them then I will unwatch this user page and stop replying and trying to help you. GiantSnowman 14:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that if you took the time to really read and understand the relevant policies, you would see that this article doesn't meet WP:NCOLLATH. Flat Out let's discuss it 14:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality

Now, I never directly asked, nor did you tell, exactly what your relationship is to the subject. I have a "don't ask, don't tell" policy per WP:OUTING. But, you are fighting pretty hard for this article -- more than what a neutral editor might do. We, the community, are aiming for what's best for the encyclopedia. Are you, or do you have a conflict of interest? Are you neutral? Is your interest solely in improving the encyclopedia? If so, then you ought to abide by the general consensus, which is that the article should not remain. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

My relationship to the subject is none. I am a soccer expert (as far as I am concerned) and new to wiki. This is my first attempt at trying to bring a little more 'realism' into the soccer specific parts of this web site that people so often take as truth! I can already tell you my next step after this article will be showing how this very silly (for who ever approved such a thing) professional soccer leagues page on wiki. If I knew how, I would contact the higher management of wiki and let them see clear evidence that flys in the face of the a lot of the soccer specific information on this web site. I would purely like to make things more soccer specific news worthy, and from what I can see, the worthiness in the soccer specific things is not all that great. I am beginning to understand why more and more, when I show articles to editors showing clearly disproving a silly fact displayed on a page it seems they are happy is approved, it is almost like trying to talk to someone who shuts their eyes and blocks their ears - and you get no real response, or a response to the info you provide.

So to answer your question better though Anna - you did ask me my relationship and I told you there is no conflict of interest. I am sure this is still able to be seen on that talking log where you communicated to me. Please read the article I submitted to see if it sounds neutral... Of course, I think it is overly neutral, I would have added extra info unrelated in there, all I added was based from easily found independent, trustworthy sources online.

My SOLE aim at this point is to improve this junk information as it is related to soccer. I had one editor tell me that the Major Indoor Soccer League is NOT fully professional, yet in the same breath says the 'minor leagues' of soccer in the US like the USL are fully professional. Now, that is purely, wrong. I am sure you can source info any which way on the topic, but someone with real soccer knowledge and someone who has played or coached or been involved at a high level knows that is a little obtuse. To think a league called the 'major league' indoor soccer, called fully professional on its website is not, whereas a league that is known for players having to work at low paid flexible jobs in order to fund 'living' in the USL are considered fully professional. Now that is just the tip of the iceberg. The more I learn about this website the more I am seeing how disambiguated the information, especially regarding to soccer is, and how some editors seem to not be neutral enough for my liking. To be a person submitting or showing intention that doesn't sound or look neutral is one thing... to be an experienced wiki editor and show or submit intention that does not seem neutral is a whole other subject.

I would welcome a meeting or phone call with people associated with this website at a higher level to discuss some terrible untruths that are being not only allowed, but promoted, for a reason I cannot easily understand from behind this computer.

ps. thank you Anna for your help with originally giving me advice on how to write and source this article, it was of great help! Without your help I may have never decided to enter this interesting realm.

Response to help request

This is to answer the helpme placed above. I am an administrator here, which gives me no special authority on content disputes, but I have no previous connection with this case, and enough experience to be able to advise you. When you find that absolutely everyone disagrees with you, it is time to consider that perhaps you are the one out of step and, rather than being in a conspiracy against you, others understand Wikipedia's notability criteria better than you. I advise you to read:

• Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass
• Wikipedia:No amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability

Finally, your first username makes it seem at least probable that you are, or are related to, the subject of the article, in which case you have a WP:Conflict of interest; if that is so, see WP:BESTCOI#Don't push. You have made your case, at length; now leave it to others to comment, and an uninvolved administrator to close the discussion in due course. JohnCD (talk) 14:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback JohnCD. I understand your point. Just to ask this question directly and plainly, if my argument was to say this article showed notability according to a) WP:NCOLLATH as it clearly does. The fact that everyone commenting on this seems to be answering a question that is irrelevant makes it very strange to me. I understand now, when I was threatened earlier by an administrator on here, stating I would feel something like a 'boomerang' effect from him, I understand. It seems to me, once someone on here who has been at it for a while gets enough contacts on here, they can publish and promote what they please - regardless of truth. I am bewildered at this point

No editor here can publish what they like. We all are bound by the same policies and guidelines. You are convinced that the article meets NCOLLATH but others, including me, are not in agreement. The guideline says that the individual must have been the subject of non-trivial media coverage, then gives an example of Gained national media attention as an individual, not just as a player for a notable team. The broader context of WP:SPORTCRIT also helps to guide the editor. Your provided sources do not seem to meet these criteria and this is why I disagree that NCOLLATH is "clearly" met. Flat Out let's discuss it 10:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I understand this is your view. I recently touched base with the past college of the player where he was drafted and apparently he is on some 'hall of fame' like status for this exact event. Which being so in a top 3 or 4 largest colleges in USA seems to also pass the 'notable event' WP:NCOLLATH criteria from my perspective. I think just this example alone provides enough to meet WP:NCOLLATH standards of notability. (Samej1902 (talk) 15:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC))

August 2013

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, 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 necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Flat Out let's discuss it 10:33, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Htownsports

Say, you wouldn't happen to also be operating the Htownsports account, would you? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:09, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

No. Why do you ask? Do you ask all users how many accounts they are operating if someone agrees with their inputs? Im a little offended to say the least.

Please don't be offended. I don't ask all users. Just ones where there is cause. Htownsports just registered an account, found the AfD, and editied only in defense of the article, which is highly unusual. Also, behavioural evidence is quite strong. Compare Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/James Georgeff to User talk:Georgeff9#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.2FJames Georgeff and other talk post you made. There are editing similarities:

• Both cite external links the same way.
• Both make a single word all caps the same way.

I'd be surprised if the two accounts weren't related. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

lol,hahaha 'both use SINGLE word caps'... thats very uncommon... you should maybe look into being a private detective. Very perceptive. Anna, why dont you contact the person/account you think is related?... I see a website, profession, and more than enough info to contact the person - why dont you contact... Even better, Im sure you have some smart people who can check IP addresses... If the two IP addresses are not on the same continent... Im sure you can sleep a little better knowing they are probably not related. Lets not forget - you approved this article in about 20 min according to the article and references. Now... you seem to change your tune... Please - stop asking silly questions to make me look less credible - please stop posting unrelated junk on my page or I will ask for help to get you off my back with offensive messages. Thanks Anna. (Samej1902 (talk) 19:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC))

My suspicions are soundly-based. We see this all the time. When a new account gets created and finds it's way to the defense of an AfD as the first edits, it smells like sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry. How often does it happen when it's not? A teeny percentage of the time. So, posting this at your talk is not silly, nor unrelated junk. It's my responsibility to point it out.

I approved the article at IRC in good faith. I asked you a number of times whether or not it passed Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/the subject competed at the highest level. You said yes. But the fault is mine, and it's resulted in wasted time for many. I guess I didn't really understand what a fully pro team actually is.

Now, have you been acting in good faith, or are you concealing a conflict of interest? Considering that your original username is the same as the subject, and that you've been fighting unusually hard for an article in which you claim not to have a vested interest, I suspect, (and certainly others do too), that you have a strong conflict of interest here, and are not pushing for this article solely because you think it's best for Wikipedia and its visitors. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:58, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have added this article in the right interest. Please, as I said, go to the website the user added, and his contact detials seem to be there - you dont need to ask me, simply email/call the person who confirmed the subject on the dynamo website as being a fully pro player. I will say it once again - no conflict of interest. The conflict of interest, or strange thing I see is, in having a browse of players that this subject played with in his MLS team, most of which never touched foot on a league game, all have profiles, yet this one is being singled out for not being in line with the rules...? I see this article passes at multiple levels through wiki rules. Please take a look at the subject 'Johnny Alcaraz'. This page is of a player who played in the MLS with Georgeff, this player passed as a pro athlete based on the same MLS stats as georgeff. And let me add, the article I submitted, the subject by my understanding also passes notoriety on basis of WP:NCOLLATH as being the first ever australian drafted as number 1 pick to a major league sport. If you would like countless other examples, that seem to have run on slightly different rules, I will add the large list here if you would like Anna. Again, I have explained this more than enough times - the name usage as a username was purely because I NEVER used wiki before and KNEW i was about to attempt to write an article about the subject and then as I succeeded (which with my computer talent thought would not happen) I realized using that name was a bad idea so I hastily (within the first 2 hours of making an account, and you have those records I assume) asked to change my username. So stop writing things against me, when you know the facts. Yes, this is my first article and I am absolutely bemused to say the least, that 'managers' of this website which SO MANY people take as REALISTIC can withhold or promote what they please without due citation or realistic due diligence (obviously except when wanted). Anna, purely, this is getting silly. This person which I looked up and added the comment about the subject being a full pro is a Houston Journalist. Not only that the website itself mentions the subject as a full pro. Who holds more notability - the Major League website refering to the subject as a pro, or the wiki page? As I said, I am new to this, but this is just my first article. If you look at my history you will see I have tried to correct a few wrongs on here, like showing a 'point blank' article stating league 2 in England is NOT fully pro. When asking the wiki admin who approved this info, he pointed me to an article which was an article about a league two player who worked as a school teacher... and that was the reference he claimed showed 'full professionalism'. If you are scratching your head... dont worry, so was I. Then I had to ask myself, why... would this admin take now 2 legitimate articles saying league 2 was NOT full pro, and dismiss them? I cannot figure it out either - so in saying this, I will without a doubt continue to fix some of the false soccer info on this medium. (Samej1902 (talk) 11:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC))

Inline refs at AfD

I see you have added many <ref>...</ref> to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Georgeff. We don't use inline references in AfD discussions. It causes problems on pages like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2013 August 13 where many AfD's are shown together. In an AfD you can just place an external link inside square brackets like [1]. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC) Thank you for the info, sorry I am quite the beginner. (Samej1902 (talk) 19:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC))

Your use of multiple Wikipedia accounts

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Samej1902, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. GiantSnowman 10:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem - please feel free (my permission granted) to look at my IP address... and look at the IP address of any other person that GiantSnowman feels is "me" and you will find the answers you need. Additionally, if it would help, I will give my contact detials, one of the others 'htownsports' already offered his contact details with confirmation, and it is rather plain to see I have one account. I am not well versed in 'wiki language' but if it is really necessary, I will give the easy and clearest evidence, and will politely ask the other users that Giantsnowman seems to have an issue with if they could also verify identity. Will this do? Please advise me the best way to go about this. Thanks. (Samej1902 (talk) 12:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC))

You do not need to release any personal information about your identity unless you wish to do so, and if you do choose to do so you can do it privately, please see Wikipedia:Identification for more information. However, this is not required for the purposes of the SPI. GiantSnowman 12:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the info. Can I address this to the investigating officer? Thank you (Samej1902 (talk) 13:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC))

Blocked for sockpuppetry

• I personally have no sympathy for this editor on this particular block reason. I attempted to help this user avoid this situation of which this must have misunderstood (me attempting to agf) my intent and gave some two bit excuse to unlink them. If their story was correct, then they should be waiting out this block and then having both this account and the other account disintegrated via their right to vanish and then create a new account and have a clean start. I truly hope they understand and take my advice on this. They may feel free to find me for additional help doing these things with their unblocked account on IRC -- #wikipedia-en-help ^connect -- or via the "Email me" link on my user page. Technical 13 (talk) 20:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello - I tried to send you an email but it does not allow me. I would like to know why I am being accused of whatever this term sock puppetry is... I have one account. This account. No other. I asked an admin to block the account I don't use. As for other usernames, I dont have any. If you would like to run an IP address check please do. Maybe try contact the users before blocking. It seems to me that a particular user has a conflict of interest in accepting the article that has caused a stir for him... How can I please contact someone high up in the management to take this issue further in terms of the user against me (and associated users possibly being involved in conflict of interest toward which information they push and withold, and also the use of cyber threats? Please advise me on a direct way to email you, or the appropriate person, as it is not working for me. Thanks (Samej1902 (talk) 08:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC))

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).

Samej1902 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have one account. I do not take part in multiple accounts, or abusing multiple accounts. The user suggesting this has I believe a conflict of interest which I would like to pursue via the correct means, and info on how to do this would be helpful. The reason I should be unblocked is because I quite simply have one account. I cannot understand how my IP address here in Europe, being obviously different from another which was shown as linked to me, is from the references the gentleman gave, in another continent, yet linked to me. At the end of the day, this is all happening because I mentioned that the user GiantSnowman who is the acclaimed "knowledgeable one" on soccer, I must have offended him calling some of the false info on wiki, relating to soccer laughable. I would appreciate even a phone conversation, or direct emails with someone regarding this, because from my perspective, a 'well promoted' wiki page, may in fact, for a young, starting out professional in soccer, be a huge financial benefit to have, and the fact that the rules seemed to be pursued a little oddly from case to case in regards to this user and his close network is very interesting. Regardless, this is not my immediate goal. Immediate goal for me is to unblock my account purely based on the fact I operate only one account. You can check my identity, and I would suggest to kindly ask the identity etc from the other users you listed (which one of them already gave in the posting acting on good faith). I find this blocking to be a personal attack. I have not added any statement on this medium without due knowledge, due diligence, and adequate sourcing. How can this be a fair medium of information exchange and offering when I get blocked due to having less 'wiki user knowledge' than another who has a personal vendetta against me, and has even threatened me to the like. Please, please advise on some logical next steps I can take to get this to a high level manager. From wanting to simply contribute to fixing the false info in regards to soccer, and adding some good articles, to now being blocked for no reason - makes me very skeptical about the credibility of this site and the users who have ultimate power to control the information to great extents. Samej1902 (talk) 4:10 am, Today (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

The CU evidence states otherwise. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 12:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

---

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.

P.S. How can I be blocked for taking the actions an admin told me to do? I was told by an admin if I didnt like my name, the best and easiest way to do this was not 'change my username' like I attempted (and eventually now I see succeeded) but to just sign up a new account, which I did!! This means 3 usernames were created (2 linked as a changed name, which I requested to be blocked and was blocked!) Now, I have one account. I did this the way the admin 'Anna' explained. Just additional info... (Samej1902 (talk) 09:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC))

Good advice from Anna

I think you're probably a very nice person. Honestly, I do. But here's some good advice:

Please, stop pitching. No administrator in his right mind is going to buy it, and it's wasting precious resources.

This isn't about you changing usernames, and you know it. Wait until your block expires then edit constructively elsewhere. Never promote James Georgeff again. We will welcome you back with open arms.

When people try to get through international customs, and they think they are looking and acting perfectly normal, they are always mystified at how the border guard picks them out. How does he do it? Experience.

After you've edited for a few years, you will fully understand how overwhelmingly obvious this deception has been. We see this all the time.

You first register an account under the name "Georgeff", but claim you are not Georgeff, and are unrelated to him. You upload commons images as "own". At IRC you said you own at least one of the images and have more at home. You fought for the article as those without a conflict of interest never would. Two new accounts (Htownsports and CoachJB) suddenly register (whether they are you or your friends) and magically come to your defense. All overwhelmingly telling. Not slightly. Overwhelmingly. We've seen this many, many, many times.

Now, you can choose. You can blame us and blame Wikipedia, and leave. Or, you can just drop this, and become a Wikipedian and help this project. I'd prefer the latter because after a few years, when you have lots of experience with COI editing and sock/meat puppets, you will look back on this and turn bright red, and we can all have a laugh together.

No hard feelings, and best wishes, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Anna, no hard feelings at all. To just clarify quickly - I wouldn't know how to upload a picture on 'commons' if I tried. I think you are referring to me sending 'you' the pictures and telling you that they were my own pictures, as in on my PC. And once again, I said I openly made that georgeff9 as it was my clear intention to write an article about him, and less than 30 min into my wiki life, I asked to change names because I realized this would be a conflict of interest in headlights. Now... I could quite easily, have logged out, started a completely new name, not admitted anything and continued on my merry way after that first 30min and no one would have known. But I am an honest person. As I have said before, please allow me to send my verification of who I am and where I live to you. As it so happens, I 'know of' one of the accounts who has backed up my article, the Htownsports user. He is a famous Houston fan, and Houston journalist. Now, isn't it strange in some minor, minor way, that a distinguished journalist who covers the Houston Dynamo and other Major League sports in Houston refers to this subject agreeing that this player is and was fully pro, with MLS website verification - yet some wiki admins (who likely don't cover the sport of soccer for a living) have clearly other opinions...? Anna, from the most neutral position I can look from, I have seen players who never stepped foot on the field for houston, or go onto play professionally in Europe have bio's, which I have referenced. Yet, I only see a really strange close amount of attention here... Fact is Anna, if someone was such an expert in 'knowing' I am sockpuppeting or meatpupetting or whatever it is that I am accused of... my big question is... why was my account not placed in suspicion earlier, instead of attacking the article that is fully sourced and passes wiki notoriety guidelines?? Anna, you are correct, there is no hard feelings, I will certainly follow this up though. There is a tremendous amount of falsely promoted soccer content on this page and the people who are promoting this, if being an experienced wikipedian/admin, should be checked out - this is fun and games online, but to add players who have not even come close, not close, to playing professional on here while the same people are making issues about this first bio I wrote has big alarm signals to me. From my perspective, a user should not be held to the same 'duty of care' as a more knowledgeable, official wiki operator. Anna, I am only trying to correct some falsely promoted items which are being over guarded for some unknown reason. Though with such a high level, highly paid sport, I think it is always right for management or those capable of following through with some auditing should do so... as where things usually smell fishy, it is fishy.

I do not see the benefit in signing up a new name, I am rather happy for my history to be known and I would like to follow this through to find the truth of why so much attention is being spent against this case, at the same time, asking a higher level admin to personally stifle through the total written content between all parties to see the truth of everything. I may not know wiki language, but I know that if someone can access all written content from my short wiki lifespan, they will see where I have made minor changes, and given clear sources, yet been without real counter sourcing, simply had my info shut out.

I almost see elements of duty of care here, that an admin should make it a duty to make sure before acting, that they have the relevant understanding of the 'codes' within wiki, and shouldn't act where knowledge of the 'codes' or subject matter is not fitting. As these decisions at the end of the day, hold very real consequences for the athletes themselves, which in turn are a valuable commodity. Which is why, again, this issue should be pursued for the sake of neutral information on wiki, and not a select few well versed or well contacted admins being able to swipe anything not 'fitting' to another agenda. Would you like me to copy paste some players who are on wiki without having had an issue raised who are in a position of no notoriety according to wiki 'codes'? How many would you like?

Anna - why did you go and delete the photos I gave for you to upload to commons? Was this part of the no hard feelings? Also no hard feelings if I ask to have our original conversations audited. (Samej1902 (talk) 15:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC))

Evidence to the contrary

I'm sorry, but that's WP:TLDR. I did read the last bit: I didn't delete the photos. Commons administration did. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I read the first little bit. You just said you wouldn't know how to upload images if you tried, and sent them to me? You did upload them. I gave you the upload link. See this. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

And just to be clear, one of the images you uploaded (with George Bush), I made a derivative of, a cropped headshot. That, I did upload. Here are my commons contribs:[2]. And, I asked for it to be deleted yesterday because it was a derivative of a deleted image you uploaded. Oh, and I have the log of our IRC discussion where you actually say you uploaded it. I can provide that to oversight for them to check and confirm if you like. Another user also has the same log and will confirm this. So, please tell me: if you sent me images, how did you get them to me? Email? Please explain. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I hope you have a good explanation for denying uploading them and accusing me of uploading images that you say you sent to me. That sounds an awful lot like a huge lie. I don't think it will help you get unblocked. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if you end up indefinitely blocked. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

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).

Samej1902 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I would like for the appropriate admin to go through my conversations as from my current and old registered username. I believe it will become clear form this that there is a conflict of interest, and an ulterior interest operating in regards to this situation. The evidence that these accounts, are in some way linked or conspiring together, I think could be attained from the facts of their combined inputs. However, what cannot be explained is, when a famous Houston Major League sports journalist gives his contact details and offers sourcing confirming the article credibility, yet, non-knowledgeable admins keep touting the 'delete' horn, it all adds up strange. I cannot talk on behalf of the other accounts, delete them for all I care, they can speak for themselves. All I know is, every addition I have made from this account has been 100% sourced and accurate. If the added content from any of these other accounts can be shown in any way to be inaccurate then please block me forever, and I will certainly lose my sense of credibility for this medium of information exchange. Please take a real look into this, deeper than just when an account was activated and what changed it made. It would take an assumption of good faith - or perhaps asking each account for a verification of identification? I dont know, but I am sure there are ways. Samej1902 (talk) 15:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I've read this request several times now, and quite frankly it makes little to no sense, and does not make any real attempt to address the actual reason for the block. I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

---

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.

Reviewing admin: Please see User talk:Samej1902#Evidence to the contrary. Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Please also see User:Samej1902 Flat Out let's discuss it 00:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Can I ask why GiantSnowman went personal, and removed the subject in every single link he was in, with references? Is this in wiki policies? The subject was on the all time Houston Dynamo roster - now gone, was on the footballing families wiki page with references, now gone... so is this the power admins yield... make the truth as you like it? Dont like a subject... delete it? Who reviews this guys work? How do I bring this to the attention of the right people...? I would also like to ask for a review of the original conversations I had with Anna Frodesiak, in her acceptance of this article. Can I please be advised on how to make these actions possible? (Samej1902 (talk) 00:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC))

Do you want to provide examples about this accusation against Giantsnowman?

Do you want to respond to your statement where you said you wouldn't know how to upload images if you tried, and that you sent them to me?

Are you saying that you want me to make public the log of the IRC conversation?

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Anna, yes, the examples exist for everyone to see with timestamps... just go to account history of GiantSnowman and you can see as, as I have. He has removed information of the subject which was also already on other pages and cited. Its for all to see... if you have trouble - even I with limited knowledge saw this... the pages themselves also show the history of the edits. Interesting he went in and actively searched for the subject and went to work deleting the content. But, I am not an experienced user, maybe he had the wiki backed reasoning?? No idea. Yes, I sent you images, and you uploaded them for me... I don't understand your question though? I still am unsure how to upload pictures. And yes, the conversation which took place in the little forum where many people were typing at once... I would like to have access to this, no need to make it public, I would just like to have access to that log to prove points as I pursue the things I find not correct in this medium. Here I am being punished by being blocked, for an article that was rushed through, yet, the stance of the admins aiming to block the article not sticking to the rules set out in notoriety for this particular article subject. It is not right to me that 10 people making noise, have more of an input power than a couple who are specialists in their field like famous sports journalists who give personal testimonies not backing what the admins thoughts are, all the while it would not be difficult to figure who had more sports knowledge between the given users. At the end of the day, I was told by the user who ultimately got me blocked and got the article taken down from the very beginning that he was going to do what he did, in a threatening way... stating I would feel a 'boomerang' effect from him. If this is the way it works on wiki, so be it, but I will raise this to the appropriate peoples attention. I also went out of my way to send an email to the subject with the happenings of the past couple of weeks with full read outs - as he stated to me, he was going to contact wiki personally and with lawyers because of the constant references to the article being written by the athlete constantly in the public domain... So I imagine this theme will continue some. (Samej1902 (talk) 23:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC))