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! Giant Snowman 09:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
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)[reply]

2 accounts

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

You can get rid of the georgeff9 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. Giant Snowman 12:09, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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'. Giant Snowman 12:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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. Giant Snowman 12:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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}}. Giant Snowman 12:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Giant Snowman 10:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, place a new {{help me}} request on this page followed by your questions, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

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. Giant Snowman 10:35, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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! Giant Snowman 12:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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? Giant Snowman 13:42, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. Giant Snowman 14:07, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
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)[reply]