User talk:Arthur Fonzarelli MDCCXXXVIII
Welcome
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.
Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...
Finding your way around:
|
Need help?
|
|
How you can help:
|
|
Additional tips...
|
Alumni lists
[edit]Thanks for your contributions on Lutheran West. Unfortunately, I've had to revert them now twice because the names fail to meet Wikipedia's standard of notability. Please make sure you read that, as well as the guidelines for school articles, found at WP:WPSCH/AG#Alumni. The general rule of thumb for school articles is to only include people who have existing articles on Wikipedia. Even if you believe they meet the standard of notability, a school article is not the place to argue that; instead, you should look into creating an article about that person. Further, merely having a source available online does not make the person notable. For instance, the hockey player you added, according to the link provided, he never actually played a game for an NHL team, which is required for notability (see WP:NHOCKEY). The same is true for Ben Miller. While he may have been on the Browns roster, the link provided indicates he never played in a game, and WP:NGRIDIRON requires the person to "Have appeared in at least one regular season or post season game." For Mike Clum, while he's certainly successful, that doesn't necessarily mean he's notable. You would need to find several other third-party sources like news and magazine articles that talk about him specifically, filling the notability requirement of significant coverage. Simply linking to his company website does not satisfy notability. Again, though, the place to establish or argue notability isn't on a high school article. The point of alumni lists in school and community articles is to connect related Wikipedia articles, not to be a place for the school to highlight their accomplished alumni. Any questions, please ask! --JonRidinger (talk) 12:10, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
- Further, after reviewing the sources, none of them mention that the respective person actually attended Lutheran West. —C.Fred (talk) 20:56, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
September 2018
[edit]
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Viper (rapper) has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
- ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
- For help, take a look at the introduction.
- The following is the log entry regarding this message: Viper (rapper) was changed by Arthur Fonzarelli MDCCXXXVIII (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.981131 on 2018-09-09T06:16:33+00:00
Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 06:16, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Viper (rapper), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Velella Velella Talk 21:15, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did on Viper (rapper). This violates Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Velella Velella Talk 21:17, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
added references. thank you for your feedback. I will take your advice into due consideration.
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Lutheran West. John from Idegon (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Continuing to add material that is unsupported by reliable sources, after warnings. A complaint about this article was filed at WP:RFPP. EdJohnston (talk) 20:18, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Arthur Fonzarelli MDCCXXXVIII (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This is a personal attack in violation of WP:NOT. If you actually read the edit page before blocking, you would see that I was both fixing and referencing a false and unreferenced edit made by user John from Idegon. This user is the one who posted the original content, and therefore is the one who should be banned. I understand that you have probably made a mistake, so I ask in good faith that you revert this block.Arthur Fonzarelli MDCCXXXVIII (talk) 21:18, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
In reviewing your edits, I believe there was no mistake and this block is valid. Please consider what others have told you on this page. I am declining this request. 331dot (talk) 23:37, 16 September 2018 (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.
- Higher up on this talk page, we see three editors plus one anti-vandal bot noticing problems with your edits. Mostly, you were citing sources not considered by Wikipedia to be reliable sources, or were citing sources that failed to confirm the text you are adding, or mentioning no source at all. To be unblocked, you should address these problems. You should indicate to us how all three commenters plus the anti-vandal bot are mistaken. The bot noticed you adding a huge list of songs to Viper (rapper) while including no source for your changes. EdJohnston (talk) 21:55, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- After studying your latest edits, I have increased your block to indefinite. See WP:GAB for your appeal options. It seems unlikely that you are actually here to improve the encyclopedia. EdJohnston (talk) 23:06, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Unblock requests and discussion
[edit]Arthur Fonzarelli MDCCXXXVIII (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Please See Below There is a lot to unpack here, but I will attempt to make my case: I'd like to first address User: John from Idegon's remarks on your talk page, because he appears to be lying. Then, I'd like to address and resolve your concerns which seem to be misunderstood. John asks you to look at (This and look for his uncited edit. Well, this edit of his involved virtually deleting the entire LW page for lack of references (which I mostly agree with), but reading through his edit you'll see the claim that "In 2011, Lutheran West began The Senney Honors Academy." This is both false and unreferenced, so I changed the year to 2012, and added a good reference for that claim. I was then promptly banned from making edits for lack of referenced edits? Next, he says that I referred to a "higher power". Contextual evidence clearly indicates that I was referring to getting a Wikipedia administrator to resolve the edit war, and not that I was saying my edits were warranted by God Himself. He then says that all of my edits were "trollish". I'm sorry, but that seems rather rash. Where I come from, respect is the only thing that a man has, and I don't like to be publically disrespected on Wikipedia. I'm a new editor, trying to start with small projects, and I know that my edit history shows that my areas of expertise are on the fringe of this cite, but I think that this cite needs editors with my background in (random?) topics to develop a great encyclopedia. In reference to his "...kids are wonderful" claim, I'm in my mid 60s, and I'm not sure where he's going with that. I'll wrap up my response to that hogwash with an adage/response to his "Impersonation Account" claim. From your end, it would seem unlikely that my name is actually Arthur Fonzarelli. The one most people would think of when hearing that name is also a fictional character anyways. The adage is about about a user named SpongebobSquarepants123: "Hey wait a minute, this guy isn't the real Spongebob Squarepants. Ban him!" Great catch. I had been making edits to the Viper (rapper) page, because I think I'm one of the most qualified people in the world to do so. I find the character fascinating because the 1200ish extensive discography I added to his page is actually 1200 albums that he actually made in a period spanning the early to mid 2010s. You are mistaken when you say that I added a bunch of songs. Those are all individual projects. Now I know what you're thinking: A white Italian-American in his mid 60s with a PhD in Biology is a foremost expert on underground southern hip-hop music? But it is true. This country has done so many horrible things to African Americans that I think it's about time we begin celebrating black culture. That list took me hours to compile, and I was in the midst of providing references when I was banned. I would also like to mention that it is unusual that someone is required to provide references for every album in a discography, as the material at that point is public domain and easily locatable once the name of the project is identified. If I say that F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote "The Great Gatsby", I doubt someone would ask me to provide a reference indicating that the book exists. What is the difference between these two pieces of artwork? That one comes from a white Jazz Age author, and the other comes from a black hip-hop musician/poet? Regardless, to appease the editors, I figured that I would include references to even blatantly obvious public domain albums that one would have no problem whatsoever locating if they were interested. This hurts, and I feel like my voice isn't being heard. I thought this cite was supposed to boast an editing process where multiple people fix imperfect edits rather than immediately banning them and then deleting their edits, silencing the voice of good would-be editors. Why am I submitting edits to a firing squad rather than a team of editors trying to develop the best online encyclopedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthur Fonzarelli MDCCXXXVIII (talk • contribs) 01:56, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Er, no. Did not read past lying. Reread WP:GAB, please. Nowhere does it say, "accuse others or in any way not accept accountability for your actions". Please read the earlier block notices carefully. You seem to have missed the reason for your block. Simply and clearly relate where you went astray and how you will do better. Please do not unpack your laundry. Please see following boilerplate. 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
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:11, 18 September 2018 (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.
Arthur Fonzarelli MDCCXXXVIII (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am a new editor who was been learning many of the guidelines for this site over the last couple weeks. While I am now aware that the edits I made early on in my career as an editor would be labeled "disruptive" by WP:GAB and WP:N standards, I would like to have the opportunity to appeal as to why I believe my indefinite block is unnecessary to protect the integrity of the encyclopedia. Before getting into details, I think that the specific edits I was blocked for making weren't edits that would warrant any sort of need for a block. Those specific edits don't fall in violation of WP:DISRUPTIVE, and I will explain how shortly. By standards of WP:NICETRY as well as my own personal standards, I'll assume that the decision to block me was done in good faith, but I don't think that (at the time of blocking) it was necessary. I was originally banned for making an edit to the Lutheran West page for changing the "In 2011, Lutheran West began The Senney Honors Academy" edit made by User: John from Idegon to the (correct) "In 2012, Lutheran West began The Senney Honors Academy". The original post was both incorrect and unreferenced, and I added a reference to my edit that certainly abides by WP:CITEWEB standards. This prompted a 48 hour block which I ended up disputing. After disputing, my block was switched to indefinite (also assumed to be in good faith) because the administrator saw that my earlier edits were disruptive (for which I accept full responsibility for). Those edits, while in good faith, were imperfect in the sense that they often weren't up to the standards of WP:N or WP:REF standards. Again, these edits were made in good faith - I was just unfamiliar with the guidelines at those times, and had since learned from my mistakes. One concern that User:EdJohnston brought up was my sizable edit to the Viper (rapper) page. This particular artist has an extensive discography which I spent hours compiling and arranging/editing. My compilation of references was taking an even longer time to compile. I think that the administrator thought I was making a vandalous edit by "adding a huge list of songs" to the page, but this is untrue. The discography I compiled was a true discography in the sense that every element of that list was an individual album, not merely a list of songs. Since, this was really the only specific reference I was given by User:EdJohnston for my indefinite block, I would like to state that my edit was very close to abiding by the guidelines of WP:DISCOGSTYLE, but I understand now that it was still imperfect. Perhaps not imperfect in the sense that it should be deleted and its editor indefinitely banned, but imperfect in the sense that it was still in need of editorial improvements. I understand why it was taken down awaiting future improvements, and why it could be seen as a disruptive edit for that reason by the standards of WP:GAB. In summary, I'm not attempting to argue why my past edits were acceptable: I know now that the were not. I am merely attempting to appeal that I knew this fact at the time of being blocked, and therefore the block was not necessary to protect the integrity of this Encyclopedia. This is the type of problem a simple ""sorry" does not amend. As I have told administrators already, my areas of knowledge are very applicable to enhancing this encyclopedia, and with your permission, I would like to be able to have my editing status reinstated to do just that. Thank you.
Decline reason:
Interesting. You post a long wall of text in which you go to some lengths to explain that although you had done things which were unacceptable you knew better "at the time of being blocked" and wouldn't do the same again, so that the block was unnecessary. In that case I wonder why after the block you posted a long diatribe denying that you had done anything wrong and attacking others. A funny thing to do under the circumstances. I doubt that it would be helpful to the project to unblock someone who denies that he has done anything wrong and attacks someone who has tried to help while fully aware that he has in fact done things wrong. Nor do I think it would be helpful to unblock someone who tells blatant lies that wouldn't take anyone in because he thinks it will get him unblocked. You can take your pick as to which of those applies. Furthermore, much of what you say shows that you really do not understand the reasons for the block. Here are two examples: as far as I know nobody suggested that "adding a huge list of songs" was "vandalous", and you refer to an "edit that certainly abides by WP:CITEWEB standards" when in fact it very clearly doesn't. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:09, 20 September 2018 (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.
Arthur Fonzarelli MDCCXXXVIII (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I think that a fresh set of eyes is necessary in resolving this issue. In the last several days I have appealed to multiple editors as to why I feel this indefinite block is unnecessary by WP:GAB standards to protect the integrity of this encyclopedia. If there is a new administrator reviewing this appeal, I implore them to read through my previous appeal. I hope that, in doing so, they will see that my appeals have shown that the indefinite block is both unnecessary and potentially unwarranted, and should therefore by WP:BLOCK guidelines, be undone. I will also try to respond to individual concerns each administrator has expressed during their decisions to not reinstate my account's editing privileges. While I thought my most recent appeal painted an accurate picture of the events leading to my indefinite ban, I was displeased to find out that my editing status remianed blocked. The administrator behind that decision (User:JamesBWatson), expressed concerns that I had lied in my appeal, while also suggesting a contradiction between my appeal and my previous appeals. After being assigned a binary set of personal account summaries, I am told to "take [my] pick as to which of those applies." I choose neither, because the very appeal this was in response to had already addressed all of these concerns. I ask the reviewing administrator to go through the transcripts of this appeal. I was not lying nor making personal attacks to any user, but this is not the place for either party to point fingers. After my initial block, I had posted an appeal stating that the edit I was blocked for was not an edit that warranted a block, as it fixed a typo/incorrect and unreferenced edit made by User:John from Idegon on the Lutheran West page while providing a reference for the fix. I claimed that the reference was up to the standards of WP:CITEWEB, however User:JamesBWatson states that it wasn't. Well, let's assume it wasn't for the sake of this appeal: If the reference wasn't up to WP:CITEWEB standards, but the information was still factually correct, then we should, as editors, suggest locating a more appropriate reference rather than banning the user who made the correct edit and reverting it to the older page with incorrect information. In reference to the Viper (rapper) page, there is a post by User:EdJohnston alluding to the point that me "adding a huge list of songs" (although I clarify in previous appeals that they were albums, not songs) was indeed vandalous, so it wasn't a "blatant lie" for me to respond to that accusation. One of the first administrators reviewing my appeal was a User:Dlohcierekim, who summarized the unblocking guidelines of WP:GAB quite well. In my previous appeal, I believe that I have demonstrated that the block is not necessary to prevent damage to this project, I understand what I've been blocked for, I do not intend to cause disruption (or damage, obviously), and that my primary concern is to make useful contributions rather than going through this counterproductive appeal process. For more proof, if it is really necessary, I implore the reviewing administrator to ask themselves why I would even go through the effort to appeal in the first place. If I was intending to damage this encyclopedia, I could have made a new account ages ago and went about my business. I've instead tried to appeal my case because I want to contribute my knowledge to this cite under this profile, that showcases my mistakes and my corrections. I am asking one last time for the reviewing administrator to truly consider that maybe there has been a mistake in my indefinite block. If, after reading through this and my most recent appeal, they feel like I should continue to be indefinitely blocked and that there is no hope for my full status to be reinstated, I ask that the reviewing administrator removes my ability to appeal to be unblocked. This process is very stressful, and I want to know if the administrators don't truly have any interest in reviewing this case and if I am wasting my time. I would like to continue contributing to this project. As I have said, I feel like my areas of expertise have a lot to offer the project, and I would like the opportunity to continue making edits. Thank you for the time. -AF
Decline reason:
The recent SPI that was done proved that you have been socking. I am declining this request as a result of that. RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:49, 24 September 2018 (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.
- Clearly time has come to revoke TPA. John from Idegon (talk) 20:56, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
You have now four times posted unblock requests which do not address the reasons for the block. Doing so achieves nothing except for taking up time of administrators who could have spent the time on more useful work (such as reviewing unblock requests from editors who do address the reasons for their blocks.) I have therefore removed your talk page access. The administrator who reviews your latest unblock request will be free to restore talk page access if she or he decides that letting you post a fifth unblock request is likely to be helpful. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:36, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
- Also now proven socking, both for block evasion and for purposes of deception prior to block. See user page for links to SPI. John from Idegon (talk) 16:16, 24 September 2018 (UTC)