User talk:Megacheez: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:11, 14 October 2015

May 2015

Hello, I'm Blackguard SF. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Arizona Diamondbacks without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Blackguard 23:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I made a mistake on that one, sorry. Megacheez 03:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Number sign

I have changed "#" back to "number" in List of National Football League retired numbers. It appears that you have been inserting "#" in place of "number" or "No." in many NFL-related articles. This appears to me to be contrary to MOS:NUMBERSIGN. It may be that there is some sports-specific standard that overrides this general style rule; if so, please let me know. Thank you so much for contributing to Wikipedia in our joint effort to make this online encyclopedia a great place to go for information. Cheers! YBG (talk) 05:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@YBG: Is there anyway to mass revert the edits? He's done it on so many pages that reverting all of them manually isn't the best way to handle it. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 06:16, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how one would go about that, though I'm sure there would be a way. YBG (talk) 18:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have also reverted some pages manually, as there have been intermediate edits on some of these pages since then. Zzyzx11 (talk) 10:49, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Zzyzx11: Thanks. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of baseball parks in Cleveland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page FirstEnergy Stadium (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that. Megacheez 03:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Please use edit summaries

Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! UW Dawgs (talk) 19:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Rogers Centre, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. See MOS:NUM Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 13:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, though I too have the same concern. Your recent edit to Ricoh Coliseum did not conform to the Manual of Style. Two editors have now cautioned you about the exact same issue. I strongly suggest you take a moment to read the Manual of Style. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making changes to number styles in violation of MOS:NUM. You are merely making a mess of dozens of pages that other editors will now have to clean up. Please stop. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 04:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 04:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited West 3rd (RTA Rapid Transit station), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page FirstEnergy Stadium (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Manual of style

Thank you for doing a lot of grunt editing. Much of it has been helpful -- for example, adding spaces where they are required. But a lot of your edits are violating MOS:NUM, which explains how numbers should be formatted in Wikipedia. Please take the time to read this carefully. Personal taste is different, and so organizations like WP with many contributors adopt stylesheets to preserve a common look. Please, please, please, PLEASE take the time to read and understand our Manual of Style. If you will do this, your contributions to wikipedia will be greatly appreciated by many people. But when you go against our established style guidelines, you are not improving this encyclopedia, you are actually making it worse, and wasting your time and the time of others who have to clean up after you. My personal preferences do not always align with what the MOS says, but I try to follow the MOS in what I edit, and I try to change things only when they are clearly violating the MOS. (And if I really didn't like the MOS, then I would start a discussion someplace to change it.) There are some things where the MOS gives two alternatives -- for example, we are required to use one, two, ... nine, but are allowed to use either 11 or eleven and so forth. In those cases where the MOS allows two alternatives, you would better use your capabilities if you would refrain from changing what other editors have already used unless there is a clear case of making a given article internally consistent -- i.e., in one article with eleven, 12 and ninety-nine, you would change 12 to twelve, but in another article with 11, twelve and 99, you would change twelve to 12.

It is my earnest hope that you would use your energy and talent to help make WP closer to conforming to the MOS, not making it worse.

You have so much to offer WP. Please use your energy and talent to make WP better. YBG (talk) 05:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Megacheez. Thank you. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:AN/I discussion was saved in archive 900 at § User:Megacheez. YBG (talk) 04:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for refusal to communicate despite repeated requests; refusal to stop editing despite repeated requests. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Please note to any admin (or anyone else) who comes by here to respond to any potential unblock requests. This block may be lifted at any time by any administrator so long as Megacheez agrees to stop making the rapid MOS-violating edits he's been warned about above, AND agrees to discuss the matter with others. Once he starts communicating, and agrees to stop the problem, this block may be lifted. --Jayron 32 16:12, 24 September 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

I really got carried away, so I will never make anymore disruptive edits, what I intend to do differently is proofread and communicate often. Also, I want to know how the communication thing works. And I apologize for any wrongdoing. Besides, I just launched my account 5 months ago.

Decline reason:

See below. Huon (talk) 22:40, 11 October 2015 (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.

Comment: This as good news; as I have said above, I believe that you have much to offer to help us build a great encyclopedia. Please note that the above comment says "AND agrees to discuss the matter with others". To me that means that you will agree to respond (and do so politely) when others initiate discussions on your talk page or on article talk pages. I'll let @Jayron32: chime in case the intent was something different than my interpretation. YBG (talk) 04:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Megacheez, I find the above comment unsatisfactory, as it is far too curt to be useful in helping us understand that you recognize what the problem was. Can you explain, in some detail 1) why you did what you were doing 2) what you intend to do differently going forward and 3) that you recognize and understand the importance of returning communication with others if you wish to continue to work here? The main issue is a total lack of communication on your part, and right now, in all the time you've spent on Wikipedia, we've only got 7 words of communication from you, the 7 above in the unblock request. I'd like to see some further assurances that you're capable and willing to communicate with others and advocate for yourself, both so we can understand you, and so that we know you're willing to take input from others and change if others note problems. --Jayron 32 13:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Megacheez has amended their unblock statement so it is now 18 words, after I initially made the above comments, which is 18 more words than they have ever attempted to use at Wikipedia when communicating with other editors. However, the additional 11 words does not adequately solve the problem. A lengthy explanation as I outlined above is what is needed in light of the lack of communication that lead to the block. No thought has been given yet to explaining himself. --Jayron 32 06:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Megacheez: With regard to your statement

"What I did was unknowingly, so I will never make anymore disruptive edits, what I intend to do differently is proofread and communicate often. Also, I want to know how the communication thing works"

here are a few comments:

Starting at the end of your comment, you say you want to understand better how communication on WP works. Ideally, the people who post on your talk page will assume good faith and reach out to you politely. If they do, then respond in the same way. But even if they don't, your best response to them is to rise above it all and assume they have the good faith that they failed to assume you had. Assume the other person is doing their best to make WP a better encyclopedia. So whether someone speaks politely or impolitely, you should respond politely. If you don't think you can respond politely, then take a wikibreak from all editing for a while until you feel you can respond politely.
But what do you say when you do respond? If you understand their point and see their point, tell them so and thank them for helping you. If you don't understand or don't agree with their point, then ask them to please help you understand by explaining more. And don't be slow to look up WP policies. If you don't know what the policies are, then ask. If no one responds to you, then put {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will drop by and help.
With regard to your first statement, you say it was unknowing. I get this for your first big batch of edits, but I'm trying to understand how this can be for the subsequent edits, which occurred after others had already tried to reach out to you by posting on your talk page. I am not doubting that it was unknowing; in fact, I can readily guess two or three different ways in which your subsequent edits would have been unknowing. But it would help me if you would actually tell me in your own words how it was unknowing.

So, in this last bullet, I'm giving you a chance to practice communicating with me. Your answer should follow below, on a new line after my signature. Start with an initial colon (:) to indent your comment, and don't forget to sign your answer with four tildes (~~~~). There are more hints on how to use talk pages at WP:TP. I'm looking forward to hearing from you! Cheers!! YBG (talk) 04:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, YBG how are you?

Megacheez 23:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine, and I'm here, though I've been off-wiki for a few days and expect that the next few days will not allow me much wiki time.

(Notice how I've added colons to your signature line to make it correctly formatted. Then each of my lines of response began with two colons to provide additional indenting. Your response to me should consist of one or more lines, each indented with three colons. This is the convention used to carry on discussions on talk pages. If the indents get too unwieldy, one or the other us will include {{outdent}} on a separate line and then begin the stair-step indenting all over again.

I hope this helps to begin to explain how the communication process works on talk pages. YBG (talk) 00:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx!!! Megacheez 02:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, you seem to get the hang of back-and-forth and indenting and so forth (except you really didn't need to {{outdent}} quite so soon; usually it isn't done until the indenting is several levels deep).

I have one comment and one request. The comment is that I would like to discourage you from trying to change your username. My reason is that I'm hoping that your username and edit history can become a wonderful example of how a problematic editor can be engaged and then be transformed into a valuable WP contributor.

The request is with regard to your continued problematic editing after people had tried to communicate with you. I'd still like to understand what was going on in your head and how this was "unknowing" as you have said. For reference, you can refer to the chronology listed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § IncidentArchive900#User:Megacheez. Thanks! YBG (talk) 03:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

YBG, I think I got carried away when I started almost 5 months ago and I apologize for any wrongdoing that I caused. Megacheez 02:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Sacramento Kings Hall of Famers

There should be a seperate section on the Sacramento Kings article for the Kings Hall of Famers. This section should include for example:

Megacheez (talk) 00:00, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT Sacramento Kings

{{unblock-auto|Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Megacheez". The reason given for Megacheez's block is: "Disruptive editing: Block is only because user refuses to communicate wi|Jayron32|6346192}}

Voiding above template as autoblock is working correctly. PhilKnight (talk) 20:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help me!

N°	Player	Position	Tenure	Inducted
Sacramento Kings Hall of Famers
2	Mitch Richmond	G	1991–98	2014

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

How do I change my username?

Megacheez 04:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Changing_username. --JustBerry (talk) 04:11, 7 October 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

I really got carried away, so I will never make anymore disruptive edits, what I intend to do differently is proofread and communicate often. Also, I want to know how the communication thing works. And I apologize for any wrongdoing. Besides, I just launched my account 4 1/2 months ago.

Decline reason:

See below. Huon (talk) 22:40, 11 October 2015 (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.

.

Megacheez 04:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

RETIRED PERMANENTLY

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia as of October 2015 Changed username.

Megacheez 01:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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

Requested username:

Gogiants83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Decline reason:

Firstly, that account is taken already. Secondly, you have immediately fallen back into your old uncommunicative pattern. You haven't even bothered to address the question YBG raised above, which was explicitly a test case for your new willingness to communicate with other editors. I don't see that unblocking you wouldn't lead to a resumption of the previous issues. Huon (talk) 22:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Megacheez 18:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

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

Request reason:

I really got carried away, so I will never make anymore disruptive edits, what I intend to do differently is proofread and communicate often. Besides, I just launched my account 4 1/2 months ago. I am really getting used to communicating with you guys and I apologize for any wrongdoing.

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=I really got carried away, so I will never make anymore disruptive edits, what I intend to do differently is proofread and communicate often. Besides, I just launched my account 4 1/2 months ago. I am really getting used to communicating with you guys and I apologize for any wrongdoing. |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=I really got carried away, so I will never make anymore disruptive edits, what I intend to do differently is proofread and communicate often. Besides, I just launched my account 4 1/2 months ago. I am really getting used to communicating with you guys and I apologize for any wrongdoing. |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=I really got carried away, so I will never make anymore disruptive edits, what I intend to do differently is proofread and communicate often. Besides, I just launched my account 4 1/2 months ago. I am really getting used to communicating with you guys and I apologize for any wrongdoing. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Megacheez 04:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)