User talk:Tomkwill

Recent edit to 2003 World Series

Hello, and thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to the 2003 World Series article. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. Thank you! Materialscientist (talk) 08:50, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Recent edit to List of World Series champions

Hello, and thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to the List of World Series champions article. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. Thank you! Materialscientist (talk) 09:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to 2003 World Series because it did not appear constructive. 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. Materialscientist (talk) 09:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Assume good faith

I thought you were assuming good faith. I am making good faith efforts. I have a BSE from ASU. I can contribute. I only need to learn how to do so. The claim of Help:Contents is that contributing is easy. It may be necessary to adjust that claim.

I have been banned indefinitely for vandalism. The apparent offending action was asking for some patience, posting on Materialscientist talk page. I have a serious learning disability caused by repetitive brain tumors. That is true.

I have a hard time processing all these pages of guidelines. What have I done wrong? I forgot to sign my last post with the tildes? I went back to correct that and found I was unable to do so because I was banned. How can that be considered vandalism of all things?

I had also made some edits to articles related to 2003 World Series baseball. I was under a misconception whereby I had not separated the playoff games from the Series final game. That was a good faith effort at correcting what I saw as glaring errors.

Materialscientist informed me to place my remarks in the talk pages of said articles. I hadn't even known about talk pages. I hadn't even known my messages were visible on my own talk page. I had only just seen that I had messages at all within these few hours.

So I took Materialscientist advice and placed my remarks in the talk pages of the World Series baseball articles. Then I realized my misunderstanding about the World Series. I was perhaps beaten to the punch there too. When I cannot delete an irrelevant posting, I usually use "nvm" (i.e. never-mind). I did so, again in good faith, to reduce chatter about an obvious misconception. There is still an "nvm" there on one page, by the way.

I might have been able to fix my mistakes. However since, I am banned, I am no longer able to contribute.

I have these relevant questions:

1. Am I banned for not signing with the tildes?

2. Am I banned for deleting irrelevant content that isn't notable within some seconds of posting it?

3. Am I banned because you think I am joking about having brain tumors?

4. Am I being banned for announcing my disability?

Hi Tomkwill. I'm Ishdarian, one of the many editors here on Wikipedia. I saw your questions here on the talk page and I figured I'd answer them.

1-3. No, that's not why you're blocked. You were blocked for disruptive editing.

4. Absolutely not, however, you cannot use your condition as an excuse for your edits. Please check out WP:NOTTHERAPY. It's a really good essay that explains this better than I can.

You edits weren't overly offensive, but they were initially incorrect. I can understand the confusion, and I believe that if you file a complete unblock request using the {{unblock}} template, you'll have a good shot at getting unblocked. Just take it slow and read up on some of the policies and guidelines before jumping in. Ishdarian 04:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I hope you're still there.

This user is currently blocked. The latest block log entry is provided below for reference:

03:08, 23 September 2014 Materialscientist (talk | contribs) blocked Tomkwill (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite (Vandalism: see also edit filter log)

"(Vandalism: see also edit filter log)"

I'm not using my condition as excuse. I'm explaining my condition. If I was trying to use as excuse, I wouldn't have been able to post. I would already have been banned.

So I am reading the WP:NOTTHERAPY page now.

"Except in extreme cases, editors are not blocked before problems have been patiently discussed, but, if disruptive behavior is not controlled, ultimately the community will protect the encyclopedia by restricting the user's participation in the project."

So a few edits, obviously in good faith, is considered an "extreme" case? Anything I have thus far received by way of discussion can be found right here.

No, I don't believe it was vandalism nor was this an extreme case. I think it was a misunderstanding on both sides. I just left a message with the blocking admin. I'm hoping he'll drop by to talk to you as well. Ishdarian 05:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I would do it myself the proper way. I am just getting my arguments together as advised by the unblock request guidelines. Your feedback has been most helpful. Unfortunately the guidelines do not address what happens when you don't know why you are banned. So I need feedback before proceeding. The number one rule in filing an unblock request is to convince administrators that you know why you are banned. That's odd. How am I supposed to know, when I'm not being told?

Looks like Materialscientist has already unblocked you. Like I said before, take a look at the guidelines before making any big changes. I really good place for you to start out might be the Wikipedia Adventure. It offers a lot of tips in an easier-to-understand format. Good luck out there, and if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. Ishdarian 05:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the help and good night.

Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not therapy

Just so you know, you're replying to comments made eight years ago; you'll get more traction if you start a conversation afresh. But nobody really cares much about essays like that one. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Ishdarian had thought the article to be relevant to my situation. Whether the discussions were eight years old, is no matter. The right eyes had seen the writing on the wall. Apparently, I very effectively got my point across in an appropriate manner. There is no need to engage the entire community, traction as you say. Also as you say, the community at large doesn't likely care much for a one man's crusade. There are more important matters to tend to I am sure. Still something had to be said. Tomkwill (talk) 06:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)Tomkwill

It's a lot to learn

Brain tumors aren't easy to live with; so please bear with me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomkwill (talk • contribs) 03:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Materialscientist. I saw your block of User:Tomkwill and I checked out his contributions. It looks like he was a bit confused about the article and the changes/blanking listed the filter log are just him trying to correct his mistakes. I don't think a block was warranted in this case, especially an indefinite one, and I'm wondering if you would reconsider your decision? Ishdarian 05:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, cheers. Materialscientist (talk) 05:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, and no hard feelings. It was a welcome challenge, getting unblocked. By the way, can you explain your thought process on why I was blocked? Your two cents might be worth a fortune to me some day. -Cheers Tomkwill (talk) 05:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)Tomkwill

Repeated posting of random ramblings, combined with removals; lack of edit summaries and reasonable attempts to communicate or explain yourself. Plus your edits fell into a rush hour. Materialscientist (talk) 05:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I will respectfully disagree with your assertions of ramblings; and at least I am able to form complete sentences. The only repeated edits to possibly be considered of offense were in regards to a single topic, the 2003 World Series, therefore not random. Those edits were in talk pages. That is a less formal place for editing, correct? To the topic of removals, only two such removals occurred within no more than few minutes of posting, likely only seconds, again in talk pages. To the best of my knowledge, I had only removed the very thing I had posted. As for reasonable attempts to explain myself, I had in all edits, referenced the Steve Bartman incident[1] as found on this site.

You have welcomed questions with your edits on my talk page in section "September 2014." Thanks for the invite. I assume the invitation is still open to edit here, the same invitation which led me to edit here in the first place. I might understand a temporary block until "rush hour" subsides. I spent many hours before "rush hour" had subsided trying to get my arguments together to request unblocking. You may like to glance at the section "Assuming good faith" in my talk page. Have you any explanation as to why I received no reasonable discussion prior to being indefinitely blocked? You might have given me a reminder about edit summaries before now.

Also when I attempted to correct my oversight of not signing my last edit, I had been informed I was indefinitely blocked, citing vandalism. Am I correct in my impression, my first edit in this section was, for some hours, considered vandalism? Tomkwill (talk) 06:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)Tomkwill

The silence is deafening.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Appealing_a_block

"Wikipedia blocks are usually warnings only, and once over and learned from, unless repeated, they are in the past."

I am trying to learn what has happened. I have let some time pass. Still there is no sufficient, informative explanation as to what occurred. If I might know the true reason for my being indefinitely blocked on grounds of vandalism, it might suffice to place the matter in the past. I have not yet learned. However, I am showing a good faith effort to learn.

If my blocking was an unfortunate error, why then a rambling reply in incoherent language? Analogizing to a page from Wikipedia's guidelines for unblocking requests, a simple apology might suffice. As with unblocking requests, users (including administrators) should admit to their mistakes, show that they understand what was done wrong, and ensure it will not happen again. I cannot find the reference at this moment. If anyone could chime in and point out that page, I would appreciate.

The preceding has been partially marked up cut-pasted from User talk:Materialscientist, the section of the same name. as it had appeared at the time of my last edit September 26, 2014. The section is provided in case of difficulty reading User talk:Materialscientist talk page. Italics added to true, what I returned to do, because I cannot stress enough. Tomkwill (talk) 06:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)Tomkwill