User talk:Rocckker13

Welcome!

Hello, Rocckker13, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! South Nashua (talk) 18:37, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017

Hello, I'm Excirial. I noticed that in this edit to Christos Rafalides, you removed all the content without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, I restored the page's content. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 19:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Christos Rafalides has been accepted

Christos Rafalides, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

SwisterTwister talk 22:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Fascism". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 12 September 2017.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 14:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Fascism, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:41, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Speedy deletion nomination of Monotronic

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Monotronic requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Dark-World25 (talk) 22:59, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about Monotronic

Hello, Rocckker13,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether Monotronic should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monotronic .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

TheLongTone (talk) 11:57, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just caught it and left a response on the main AFD page. I'm not new, this will be my 3rd or 4th article on the site. I appreciate the heads up though!

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Rocckker13/sandbox

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on User:Rocckker13/sandbox, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discusion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. DanielRigal (talk) 19:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DanielRigal: Not that it matters currently, but section G4 does not pertain to sandboxes. The ruling only applies to these pages unless an exception is listed. G2 is the only one in that list that mentions a sandbox. I moved the code to the sandbox space so that I could try to find some more sources, clean it, and run it through an AFC as per RoySmith's suggestion. I didn't want to lose over a months worth of work and effort. Rocckker13 (talk) 04:34, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Monotronic

A tag has been placed on Monotronic requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Deletion was endorsed here: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2017_December_19#Monotronic_(closed)

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. DanielRigal (talk) 19:10, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kingoftheshow?

@GeneralizationsAreBad: Who is he and what happened to my page? I was just off for Christmas and my user page is gone without a warning. Rocckker13 (talk) 02:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC) Also @Favonian:[reply]

Christos Rafalides

@Ansh666: That living person's biography was approved through AFC and was not created through a block evasion. I am not Kingshowman, I do not know who kingshowman is, and the administration here doesn't think I am or was ever kingshowman. Rocckker13 (talk) 08:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll address both of your questions. You were initially confirmed to Kingshowman. After some discussion with others and my revisiting the technical data, I determined that you were unlikely to be a sock of Kingshowman, but instead were a sockmaster with at least three other accounts that you were operating in violation of WP:SOCK. Because of the confusion, Ansh666 deleted the Rafalides article per WP:CSD#G5. I have restored the article, although I express no opinion as to the notability of Rafalides.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: I appreciate that that article is back up, I work hard on these articles and was upset when I saw one taken down on the grounds that I was someone else. For all of the records I am not Kingshowman, and did not know who he was until his name popped up on my user page yesterday, and I am also not those other people. I have no idea what happened or why you think that I became lots of people suddenly but i'm just me. I've been at this for about a year now a little less, and have hundreds of edits on this account. The initial investigative post was made at 15:66 yesterday and I was blocked on the grounds that I was Kingshowman by 16:44 without me having said a word. How can I be initially confirmed to be a user I am not, and still be blocked for it? Doesn't that mean your assumption or methods are wrong? Rocckker13 (talk) 18:08, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: I'm still confused here and haven't received a response to my issues above. I understand that it was New Years and Christmas, but the holiday season has officially ended so i'm assuming most people are back for all intents and purposes. I don't understand how I could have been confirmed to be someone I wasn't; then acquitted of those charges; then charged with something different, all over the span of 2 hours during which nobody came to me and asked me about it; and finally blocked on those grounds. Rocckker13 (talk) 00:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

^ @GeneralizationsAreBad: @Favonian: It's been a little less than a month, i'm still looking for a response. Rocckker13 (talk) 23:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry about that. ansh 666 04:31, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This account was blocked as the sockmaster of three other socks, as per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rocckker13. "Acquittal" of being one LTA's sockpuppet does not mean acquittal of sockpuppetry overall. There are plenty of SPI cases where an account is accused of being one master's sockpuppet, but they turn out to be the sock of some other master. GAB^gab 03:04, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GeneralizationsAreBad: I was not simply accused and acquitted of being some other master's sock puppet; I was accused, tried, convicted within a span of 2 hours without any input from me, then charged and punished as some other master's sock puppet. I even had a page taken down on those grounds. On December 26th, the day the investigation began, the word confirmed was specifically used by Bbb23 at 16:44 in relation to KingShowMan and the ban was enforced at that time. At 17:24 you confirmed me to be Profane Username as well. It wasn't until 3 and a half hours later that anyone actually looked into the case and realized that something was wrong. I wasn't just accused, I was confirmed to be 4 users and punished before you realized that the confirmations were wrong. How do you confirm something that never happened, act to punish based on that confirmation, rescind part of that confirmation, and then hold that the punishment was appropriate? Whatever methods were used to make those confirmations are now confirmed faulty on 2 out of 4 counts, how can they be trusted on the other 2? Rocckker13 (talk) 09:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further, the sock puppet investigation you reference features no investigation. The page is largely empty except for an inquiry and a conviction, and it links directly to the Kingshowman investigation that was botched. Rocckker13 (talk) 09:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Rocckker13 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It's been several months, i'm requesting that my block be lifted for a couple reasons. I've made a number of independent and good articles for this site that have stood well enough on their own. My work was never one dimensional and I think that I have a lot to contribute to Wikipedia. I made a page months back about an author turned artist that I was proud of. The page was put up for speedy deletion 4 days after its creation under section A1 by a user who stepped in, criticized its then lack of sources, and left without contributing to the discussion ever again. I added more sources and tried to start a discussion on its AFD page but was never met with much, two total other users came in and commented on its merits over a several week period. One argued a neutral point, one a negative, and I argued positive. The AFD case was relisted 4 times, an anomaly as far as I had researched and coupled with the votes, grounds for a No consensus ruling. The page exhausted its 30 day queue to become live and two days into it being up it was deleted by an admin who I thought voted in favor of the one delete vote rather than on the merits of the case. I spoke to the admin on his page and he disparaged me and my control of the English language, so I filed a deletion review. The deletion review was again met with few voices initially, so I went to wiki-discord and to Wikipedia IRC to ask people to look at the case because I didn't want another month long 3 voice discussion. I specifically typed, "Any editors want to weigh in on a deletion review? I believe an admin closed an AFD as delete when the discussion warrants a no consensus close." which was only thing I said and is exactly what it says, I believed the AFD close was wrong because I thought it warranted a no consensus close. Both discord users and IRC users chided me, saying I was being biased and asking them to vote a specific way, I told them I just wanted them to put their thoughts on the page and didn't care which way they voted. A number of users said they were going to vote against it then and there because of this and they came to the review page and did so. Finally, I contacted the stewards because I was upset and confused about how everything had gone down, and a user from IRC followed me there and back to the case to leave a review ruling and make a note that I had gone to the stewards over the incident. In my mind without any options left, and with discussion impossible, I made 3 new accounts, and wrote in a couple no-consensus overturn decisions. I was blocked. A user who followed me from the discussion promptly deleted all of my good articles, which I appealed and were restored quickly and my sandbox which held the article that started this incident was also deleted and never restored. I was wrong, I was frustrated about how Wikipedia and the people on it had operated, I was frustrated that something I had worked on for over a month could just be wiped out in what I thought was against procedure. I was a new user with a couple good pages up trying to make another met with the full force of the community. I never intend to just create a page again. AFC, though a slower process, seems more stable in the end and gets the "merit of the page" discussion out of the way early, which would have removed a lot of the frustration from this incident. I certainly wont be creating accounts again, it was a dumb, desperate, last resort move from a frustrated user. I wish there was a way to foster more in depth discussion on this site, but if there isn't I'm just going to have to deal with that and how that plays itself out. Going forward I'd like my account unblocked so that I can continue to create and contribute as a member of this community. Thank you for your time. Rocckker13 (talk) 20:08, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Everyone seems to be agreeable to this TonyBallioni (talk) 00:54, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GeneralizationsAreBad and Bbb23: letting both of you know about this. Also, I'm slightly confused by the block log history here as to whether or not this is supposed to be a CU block (slash, Bbb, is there any evidence of socking on this account?). TonyBallioni (talk) 22:39, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyBallioni: Yes, it's a CU block. GAB shouldn't have changed it. Perhaps he did it for procedural reasons so it had the right case in the block log and block notice; if so, it was unnecessary. I see no evidence of socking in the last three months.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:02, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @TonyBallioni and Bbb23: My apologies for that - an oversight on my part. I didn't mean to cause any confusion (or override a CU block...) GAB^gab 15:07, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Bbb23 and GeneralizationsAreBad: If neither of you have objections, I would be fine unblocking at this time with the understanding that any behavior similar to what they got blocked for last time will lead to a quick reblock. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - @TonyBallioni: Fully understood, and I appreciate the opportunity. Rocckker13 (talk) 23:11, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Repinging TonyBallioni. GAB^gab 23:27, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - ...And Bbb23. GAB^gab 23:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        GAB, you didn't say whether you had any objections to unblocking the user. I'll make this relatively simple; if you don't, then I don't. I can be very agreeable once or twice a year.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:54, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        @Bbb23: Ha! To be clear, I have no objection. GAB^gab 00:32, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        And unblocked. Teamwork makes the dream work, fellas. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:54, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Greek jazz Vibraphonists

A tag has been placed on Category:Greek jazz Vibraphonists indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:16, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]