User talk:Cray04

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't draftify too fast[edit]

Hi, Please wait an hour or so before draftifying articles. e.g. Draft:B8 oil field Draftification is quite jarring for new users and especially so if it is done within minutes of them creating a page. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 07:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CSD A7[edit]

Hey, what is your criteria for CSD A7 on the last few articles I've made? They all clearly pass GNG and have significant sources already on page and elsewhere on the net? I'm contesting all 3, because they definitely do not pass for Speedy deletion noms.--Ortizesp (talk) 07:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cray04,

Please stop tagging all of these football player articles as CSD A7s. Use WP:PROD or WP:AFD instead. These are not obvious CSD A7s. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:33, 1 December 2023 (UTC)C[reply]

AfD[edit]

Hey Cray04, I noticed you cast two votes in an AfD. Just wanted to give you a heads-up that duplicate votes aren't allowed. – DreamRimmer (talk) 14:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which on? Cray04 (talk) 18:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to change from weak keep to keep sorry. Cray04 (talk) 18:31, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator's noticeboard[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 94.119.32.7 (talk) 08:10, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Bloom moved to draftspace[edit]

Thanks for your contributions to Jay Bloom. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{blaze__wolf} 16:03, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Jay Bloom[edit]

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 Jay Bloom requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:46, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regards over Jay Bloom[edit]

i'm Mastashat. I have seen your recent edits on Wikipedia especially Jay Bloom. To avoid COI, please check article and source very well. Do not remove template tags unless the issue is resolved very well. If you have any question, you can ask me or you ask the Tea House. Once more... Welcome to Wikipedia. Happy editing, Best, Mastashat (talk) 00:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ive been on wikipedia longer than you pal. You should refrain from disruptive editing and if you add a tag back it could be considered Edit warring Cray04 (talk) 06:30, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Jay Bloom for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jay Bloom is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jay Bloom until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Star Mississippi 23:46, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024[edit]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

--Blablubbs (talk) 01:37, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Blablubbs So who toes died step on. btw its not aprial. Please remove this frivolous and unfair block. Cant even fathom site sometimes.... Cam we have a formal SPI atleast? I have made tons of positive contribuyiond. Whst does the block say? Cray04 (talk) 08:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cray04 (talk) 08:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cray04 (talk) 08:40, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Blablubbs Cray04 (talk) 08:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are blocked because technical evidence suggests that you are (1) the same person as PD Slessor and (2) deliberately trying to obfuscate that connection. The details are available for review by other checkusers. --Blablubbs (talk) 08:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BlablubbsPlease please please look at my unblock request. I know this probably means nothing to you, but i've been sick to my stomach all day and unable to focus on anything but this. I have considered everything and don't know what to do outside of my unblock request. It's the best I can think of. I have no idea what the technical logs say, or indicate, so I am at a loss for possible explanations beyond what I described in my request. I thought this was a mistake at first. What can I do to prove my innocence? Cray04 (talk) 23:46, 4 January 2024 (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).

Cray04 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The reason the claim is false is because technical evidence alone, without transparency and detailed explanation, is insufficient to conclusively prove identity fraud. The assertion lacks credibility as it does not provide a clear, evidence-based linkage between the two users' behaviors or editing patterns. The conclusion is premature without considering potential errors or limitations in the checkuser tools used for identification. Assuming malicious intent without concrete evidence of obfuscation or deceit undermines the fairness of the judgment. The ban is unjustified in the absence of a clear opportunity for the accused user to refute the claims and present counter-evidence. This really isn't fair Cray04 (talk) 08:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have a clear opportunity to present counter-evidence now but haven't done so. Yamla (talk) 10:59, 4 January 2024 (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.

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).

Cray04 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Here is my appeal. (1) I Do use a VPN due to the public nature of my internet connection. (2) I use a special browser for it and it also blocks adds, but doesn't alsways display websites right, and is popular. While

While I have no idea if @pd slessor was on one of the networks or VPN services I use, I did some digging and have found something I believe is irrefutable proof that we are different people.

Comparing PDs contributions here:Special:Contributions/PD Slessor Cray04 (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

with my contributions here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Cray04

You can see that we were both active at a similar time BUT it so happens that there were comments/edits made at the same exact time/down to the minute. This would not be possible if we were the same person. Hopefully this shines clarity on the situation. I have done nothing wrong please unblock me. Cray04 (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Gee, it's quite remarkable that the only time this has ever happened was during your unblock request! Anyway, this irrefutable evidence that could be produced by opening an incognito tab is not quite irrefutable enough to refute the technical evldence, which goes well beyond a shared VPN. Spicy (talk) 00:00, 5 January 2024 (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.

Note that first unblock request smells GPTous. jp×g 🗯️ 10:29, 5 January 2024 (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).

Cray04 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Dear Administrators,

I understand the seriousness of the accusations against me and the importance of maintaining Wikipedia's integrity. I deeply regret any actions or circumstances that led to my block and the impression that I might be engaging in prohibited behavior such as sockpuppetry.

1. **Acknowledgment of Concerns**: I recognize that technical evidence has suggested a link between my account and PD Slessor's, leading to concerns about abuse. I want to clarify that any overlap in VPN usage or editing patterns is purely coincidental. I respect Wikipedia's policies and would never intentionally violate them.

'2. **Evidence of Separate Identities**': In my previous appeal, I attempted to demonstrate that simultaneous edits from both accounts indicate we are different individuals. I acknowledge the feedback that this evidence was not considered strong enough to counter the technical findings. I am willing to cooperate further and provide any additional information required to verify my identity and separate activities from PD Slessor.

3. **Commitment to Wikipedia's Standards**: If unblocked, I commit to adhering strictly to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. I understand the value of trust within this community, and I aim to rebuild any that has been lost due to this situation. My contributions to Wikipedia come from a genuine desire to add value and share knowledge.

4. **Request for Guidance**: I kindly ask for guidance on how I can better demonstrate my separate identity from PD Slessor and ensure compliance with all Wikipedia policies moving forward. Your advice will be invaluable in helping me contribute positively without further misunderstandings.

I apologize for any inconvenience my case has caused and appreciate your consideration of my appeal. My goal is to be a constructive member of the Wikipedia community, and I am eager to make amends and move forward in a positive manner.

Thank you for your time and understanding.

Cray04 (talk) [Date/Time] Cray04 (talk) 06:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Chatbot generated requests are not considered.(100% likely according to GPTZero) We want to hear from you, not a bot. 331dot (talk) 07:19, 29 March 2024 (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.

User:Jaymailsays[edit]

You've encountered her/him before. Please check out successive reversions by him of correct objective data right now at [[1]], especially in the context of the many entries on his Talk page. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albin-Counter (talk • contribs) 01:36, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Distasteful Cray04 (talk) 05:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started[edit]

Hello, Cray04. Thank you for your work on Dylan Ross. North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

IMO an edge case regarding wp:notability but I'm marking it as reviewed

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 19:34, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]