User talk:Das osmnezz/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

Actually, in the unblock request above, when I wrote "I created the account Das osmnezz to evade a block" I meant I created the account Das osmnezz to un-edit the disruptive edits by Osmnezz but found out they were already edited to their original format so therefore I then forgot about the Osmnezz account and, against the Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, edited/created pages with a Wikipedia:Sock puppet account. If you, the administrator is not PhilKnight or Boing! said Zebedee then you should look at the reviewed unblock request above to see my other reasons concerning the lifting of my block. I sincerely apologize to doing this.Please unblock me-Wikipedia page creating was one of my favorite things to do. I am unblocked, you will never have to warn me or block me again;I will edit/create articles that enable Wikipedia to gain (sport)information and follow the Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines incredibly carefully & to my best ability. Again, I give my complete gratitude to your consideration. (the above reviewed unblock request is actually not my last unblock request)Das osmnezz (talk) 08:37, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Accept reason:

With the blocking admin's agreement, below, and on the condition that you stick to using only this one account, I have unblocked you - but please remember that any use of multiple accounts will result in a reinstatement of the block. Welcome back. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:08, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


    • You edited using Osmnezz on October 2. Are you really asking us to believe that you forgot you password within three weeks? And did not write it down? --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 16:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
OK, thanks, that sounds good. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:04, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Copyright issues

This has been brought up here before, but if you intend to continue uploading images to Wikipedia you need understand and follow the image use policy. Failure to adhere to these guidelines, particularly copyright provisions, will result not only in the images being deleted, but it will get you blocked sooner or later. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

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).

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

Request reason:

The main reason why i presumed i could use this image was owing to the fact that it was a logo, therefore i labelled it as 'Fair Use' since other logo pictures had that category and were not deleted thus I assumed it was not copyright violation on account of it being fair usage. Also, I accidentally forgot to put in the summary or the link/source in the summary and if uploading future images will put in the fair use image infobox in the summary and apologise for and understand my breaching the rules of conduct.To summarize, i admit my mistakes and i thoroughly understand the legitimate rules of copyright and you can be assured will next time give sources or detail for confirmation of fair usage by inserting detailed infoboxes. Das osmnezz (talk) 13:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

No, actually, you did not label the file as "fair use", that is the problem. You did not provide any WP:fair use rationale, which is necessary for fair use. You were left a message (above, on this page) explaining this issue ([1]) two months ago, but apparently didn't bother to read. Now, take this time to read about copyrights and fair use. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2017 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I distinctively remember putting my last image(File:Young stars fc.jpeg) into the 'fair use' section as i have been already been blocked before for copyright issues and have thoroughly read the Wikipedia:Image use policy, Wikipedia:Logos and Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Consequently, i have an in-depth understanding of the image use policy and copyright infringement. As a result, you can be assured that i will only put logo images and label them as 'fair use'. In addition, i will give information in the summary regarding the image sources and so forth.Again, i apologise for my mistakes and, if uploading future images/logos, will always write information concerning it in the summary and put it(the image) as 'Fair Use' and generally abide the copyright guidelines.This concludes my unblock appeal and why i truthfully believe my block should be lifted . Thank you for your consideration to review it and i sincerely hope i will be unblocked. Das osmnezz (talk) 00:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I took a look. You added the "Non-free logo" template, but that template very specifically states "This tag is not sufficient on its own." As such, you very definitely did not abide by WP:FU. You are welcome to request another unblock request, but you must explain what else you have to do to adhere to our policies on copyright and on fair-use. Yamla (talk) 13:35, 9 January 2017 (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.

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

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

Request reason:

As aforementioned already, I stated that i will definitely insert a fair use rationale to each image and a correct logo copyright tag according to the non-free logo insertion guideline. Hence you can be ensured that I will do this every time when uploading football club/organization logos in Wikipedia; if unblocked, i will edit File:Young stars fc.jpeg to comply with the non-free logo rules as i have already read the Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline to a great extent. In conclusion, I will try my utmost best to not breach the rules of copyright and non-free logos and apologise for this. Ultimately, thank you for your consideration in using your time in reviewing this unblock request.Das osmnezz (talk) 02:12, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Accept reason:

I'm unblocking you because I do not believe that keeping you blocked for one more week will be any more preventative than unblocking now. Having said that, this is a last chance. You've been blocked twice in rapid succession due to copyright issues. If you have questions about copyright, non-free use rationales, or specific images, please feel free to ask me on my talk page. I'm knowledgeable in copyright matters and am always happy to help. If you choose not to ask questions and make an additional mistake, though, you will be indefinitely blocked. ~ Rob13Talk 17:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

January 2017

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at Abo Baker Adam, you may be blocked from editing. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:39, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Amanbek Manybekov. This is the last warning you'll get. If you continue to revert corrections to your English, you'll be blocked from editing, again. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Aapo Halme. If you continue to add unsourced opinions to articles, especially biographies of living people, you will be blocked from editting. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

February 2017

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

February 2017

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Bobir Davlatov. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

  • I have stopped ever since Bobir Davlatov and the only opinions I wrote were what the coach said in the reference for Kota Ranger FC. Das osmnezz (talk) 13:37, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


March 2017

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for promotional and POV editing, as you did at Valeriy Vdovin. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Ad Orientem (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Note: You have been repeatedly blocked for problematic editing in the past. I strongly advise you to pay scrupulous attention to our policies and guidelines for editing. Failing which, I fear you are in the express lane heading for the exit marked "indefinite block." -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:35, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

I admit my persistence violating the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy; however, I object to the 'promotional editing' part since my purpose had nothing to do with promotional editing. I never have intended to edit specifically for promotional reasons and have only added opinion about what sources/people said about the player since Bobir Davlatov. That added opinion was a slight mistake as I assumed that didn't count as violating Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy and now I know to not assume . I have never done any promotional edits in my whole Wikipedia career, including this page. As for me adding my Wikipedia:Point of view, this is the only occasion I did it since Bobir Davlatov. I haven't even vandalized Wikipedia either. My motive and intention for my articles (football managers, venues, payers, clubs, competitions) is to expand WikiProject:Football, not harm it. I have not made any harmful articles in Wikipedia and my sole aim is to truthfully make useful contributions about football as I have done (see my user page creations). Lastly, I apologize for my persistent breaching of Wikipedia policies and respect and understand why you have blocked me. If you automatically are thinking about declining this block, please reconsider reducing the block to one month or unblocking me altogether as Wikipedia is my favorite hobby. My history of being blocked also enhances the probability of you declining the request, but the problems (copyright issues,(2x) sockpuppeting, disruptive edits, inserting personal opinion) have all since stopped. In fact, I agree with Ad Orientem that this should be the final warning before an indefinite block. Thank you for your consideration on reviewing this block and I hope with my heart you will reconsider it.Das osmnezz (talk) 22:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Tread very carefully as this is quite probably your last chance. This unblock request is not to be altered or removed from your talk for 1 year from this date. Ad Orientem (talk) 12:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely For Real Last and Final Warning

After this you are exactly one POV edit from an indefinite block. I honestly don't know if this is a case of deliberate POV/promotional editing or if its a case of WP:CIR. Either way though we have reached the end of the rope. I have very serious doubts about your ability to edit the encyclopedia in a manner consistent with our guidelines and policies. And since based on your block log and history of warnings, you seem unable or unwilling to correct your manner of editing you will be indeffed the next time you make an obviously POV edit. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:54, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

You Have Been Indefinitely Blocked

I have blocked you from editing indefinitely. I have taken this action very reluctantly since I do not believe you have been engaging in malicious editing. Unfortunately your editing history as supported by your contrib log, the numerous discussions on this talk page and your block log, collectively show that you lack the necessary competency to edit the encyclopedia at this time. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

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).

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

Request reason:

User:Ad Orientem, I agree that I have not been engaging in any malicious editing. I never create articles about non-notable footballers and mistakenly decided to make Ricardo Sendra as he is in a fully professional league club. With all my heart, I thanked User:Ad Orientem, for unblocking me previously, and tried my utmost best to make sufficient contributions and have not been involved in malicious editing. I even removed various POV in some articles. Please believe me as this is true and I have made valuable contributions to Wikipedia. I have been blocked 11 times and recognize my total incompetence before but in reality does blocking a user for minor (and not always true) reasons actually benefit Wikipedia significantly? I have been competent recently and have rated articles on their talk pages not to mention redirects and pages. I was planning to make much more pages and am extremely disheartened to be indefinitely blocked. Don't base everything on my past errors. Please unblock me. This is not the same vandalizing user you have seen before. I even proactively fixed the picture information (see Buduburam FC's image) as I carelessly forgot to title the infobox. As said already, I have compiled an immense list of articles I want to make (e.g Jelen Ixoee). Adding to this, I wholeheartedly respect that some think that I am disruptive and has a bad history thus lacks competence to edit Wikipedia. Most of all, I apologize to User:Ad Orientem for his trusting me and how I totally abused his trust. I have made good contributions to Wikipedia. I have learnt from my mistake. I have acknowledged my previous total incompetence. I have made a lot of useful pages including redirects and talks. I have fixed some errors on Wikipedia. I have been polite and non-aggressive forward other users throughout my entire Wikipedia career. Above all, I had fun editing Wikipedia. In conclusion, this may alter your opinion of me or may not but please kindly take the trouble to understand this request. Even if you think I am a persistent editing nuisance and instantly think of denying this request, take the time too thoroughly read it. All administrators, including Ad Orientem and Sir Sputnik I thank you for reading this if you unblock me or not. (which I hope is the former). Trust me, User:Sir Sputnik I know you obviously are skeptical (can't blame you - if I was you in this situation I would), but I made some edits that removed POV and created lots of actually useful talk pages. Don't block me for a coding error as I did in the image of Buduburam FC (check the old id) and creating a non-notable footballers page, Ricardo Sendra. Das osmnezz Das osmnezz (talk) 09:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Sadly, I am going to have to decline this request. If this was a one-time thing, I'd consider it, but this is one of a number of increasingly longer blocks, especially one that was just lifted a little more than a week ago (see here: [2]. You've been blocked over and over and over, and in good faith have bene unblocked, only to repeat the same actions. At this point I would say to take the standard offer, walk away from Wikipedia, do not edit for 6-12 months (this include any socks), and show you are willing to work constructively here when you do. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:19, 6 April 2017 (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.

Note: My personal opinion is that you would benefit from a break from here. Maybe 6-12 months and then come back and ask for a Standard Offer. That said, I'm going to leave this to the discretion of the reviewing admin (as the one who blocked you I normally would not unilaterally decline an unblock request). -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:22, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
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).

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

Request reason:

In my opinion, forgetting to write an inbox title for an image and accidentally creating an article about a non-notable footballer should not be grounds for an indefinite block. You may be right that I should come back in a month or two. However, despite my deliberate incompetence before, I don't see a valid reason why I should be indefinitely blocked for the aforementioned reasons. I most definitely have not been involved in 'malicious/disruptive editing' in any forms whatsoever. I've apologized numerous times for my previous flaws and attempted to make useful contributions to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football. My edits this time around were actually constructive; i even added two leagues to Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues to expand it . See [3] List history. Moreover, I have assisted Wikipedia:WikiProject Football and the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Africa task force by rating lots of various articles about clubs and players. Therefore, I did not harm Wikipedia enough to be blocked and even agree that my non-notable article Ricardo Sendra should be deleted. As my previous unblock request stated , I even fixed the attribution to the image. That said, I am and was willing to make useful contributions and even if you perceive me as a problem, read this carefully. I sincerely hope and wish that I will be unblocked before Monday. Please take this seriously and understand my true intentions. If you are contemplating the idea of unblocking me, I genuinely will thank you and will redeem myself and my reputation by creating notable and relatively good articles on football. (players, managers, venues, clubs, competitions, national teams) and not making careless editing errors again and follow Wikipedia's notability guideline. Already, I have planned to make lots of specific articles despite the fact that I am indefinitely blocked. Examples are Jelen Ixoee, Ramadhan Singano and Peter McGlynn and Bethlehem Vengthlang FC to name a few. I know the reason(s) why I was blocked and know more than ever never to do them again. Also, I know the implications of my actions. As a result, I have the competence to edit Wikipedia and will strive to expand Wikipedia:WikiProject Football as I have done. (I will mostly expand its horizons on Africann and Southeast Asian football;;. Once again, thanks for reviewing this block whether you decline it or hopefully accept it. Supposing you decline the request, can you please shorten the standard offer duration to one or two months? I patiently await your verdict. Please unblock me as I had lots of fun editing Wikipedia as it was my second-favorite hobby and I am deprived of it. Please - I implore you to lift this ban. To reviewing admin: I give you my gratitude for reviewing this appeal. (by the way Ricardo Sendra should not be deleted since he made one appearance for Geylang International FC in April 8 2017 see [4] - thus this lowers the reason for why I should be blocked. note: this might be last resort unblock request before I might take the Standard offer.Das osmnezz (talk) 00:51, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Block evasion, see below. When blocked, *you the person* are prohibited from editing Wikipedia. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:08, 9 April 2017 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I sincerely hope and wish that I will be unblocked before Tuesday as school starts. Please take this seriously and understand my true intentions. If you are contemplating the idea of unblocking me, I genuinely will thank you and will redeem myself and my reputation by creating notable and relatively good articles on football. (players, managers, venues, clubs, competitions, national teams) and not making careless editing errors again and follow Wikipedia's notability guideline. Already, I have planned to make lots of specific articles despite the fact that I am indefinitely blocked. Examples are Jelen Ixoee, Ramadhan Singano and Peter McGlynn , Henry Kisekka and Bethlehem Vengthlang FC among many many more. I yearn to create articles (that meet the notability criteria, of course)and I know the reason(s) why I was blocked and know more than ever never to do them again. Also, I know the implications of my actions. Fortunately, as a result, I have the competence to edit Wikipedia and will strive to expand Wikipedia:WikiProject Football as I have done. (I will mostly expand its horizons on Africann and Southeast Asian football. Once again, thanks for reviewing this block whether you decline it or hopefully accept it. Supposing you decline the request, can you please shorten the standard offer duration to one or two months? I patiently await your verdict. Please unblock me as I had lots of fun editing Wikipedia as it was my second-favorite hobby and I am deprived of it. Please - I implore you to lift this ban. For more reasons, see above declined request and read thoroughly. The block evasion was all my doing and was indisputably a breach of Wikipedia rules; it was a stupid mistake in which I look back on with utter distaste and regret doing. (it was to try to save a page Ricardo Sendra from getting deleted. Now I am prohibited from editing Wikipedia indefinitely and cannot do anything by any means in Wikipedia). Although I idiotically evaded the block, Ricardo Sendra now meets WP:NFOOTY therefore I technically didn't create a non-notable footballer page but I won't speculate again as grounds for inclusion anyway and definitely won't evade the block next time. I don't clear my talk page anymore either. Over the months, I have productively made pages as well. Please - can you kindly unblock me? Please. I beg you. i look to redeem myself and my reputation for incompetence. For all my faults, all my problems, all my disruptive edits, all my persistent mistakes, all my deleted articles, I apologize to you all and beg for forgiveness. You don't know whats its like to be without one of your favorite pastimes indefinitely. Thanks. I leave my fate to you, the administrators hands, and will be looking forward to helping Wikipedia, not hurting it like I always intended to do when I get unblocked. Thanks Sir Sputnik, Joseph2302, Ad Orientem or anybody else involved. Please unblock me - please. Trust me, User:Sir Sputnik I know you obviously are skeptical (can't blame you - if I was you in this situation I would), but I made some edits that removed POV and created lots of actually useful talk pages. Das osmnezz (talk) 12:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Block evasion as late as yesterday? That pretty much guarantees you won't be unblocked. Your best bet is to hope for WP:SO, which means no edits of any sort, and very specifically no block evasion, for at least six months. If this is a WP:CIR, this will give you an opportunity to mature and perhaps try editing other Wikipedia projects in the meanwhile, so show you have gained sufficient competence. Yamla (talk) 13:05, 10 April 2017 (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.


Note: I concur that there is no evidence of malice in their recent activity. This is strictly a CIR issue. That said, I defer to the judgement of the reviewing admin. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
I would support an indefinite block. WP:NFOOTY has been made clear to them many times e.g. [5], [6], [7], and they seem to be not listening. Ditto for POV edits and copyvio images. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:08, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Joseph 2302 I already have an indefinite block and as Ad Orientem said, there is no evidence of malice in my recent activity. Thanks for pointing that out though and I will try not to ignore the warnings which is true whether you believe me or not. (which i assume you don't due to my history but its true) Das osmnezz (talk) 11:18, 7 April 2017 (UTC).
Whether or not to unblock you is not my call to make either, but since you pinged above I'll offer you my two cents worth as well. You've said this same sort of thing about how there would be no further problems going forward as a reason for lifting your first block six months ago. You've repeated it several times since then, and yet here we are. I don't doubt that you meant it every time. You've never given me reason to think you were acting in bad faith, but that's not the problem here. A mess created in a sincere effort to help is still a mess. I've spent the last six month cleaning up after you, and quite frankly, I'm sick and tired of it. Your past behaviour gives me no reason to think anything will actually change if you're unblocked, and under those circumstances I can't in good conscience recommend it. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:12, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
Sir Sputnik, I frankly agree with some of your opinion, how you shouldn't be cleaning up after me and that I wasn't acting in bad faith and doing it deliberately. My primary problem was assuming in those cases . However, all those problems I was blocked for were different and I can't think of any other way i can be blocked again now but thats not the point; the point is that I made some good and non-disruptive edits to other pages /articles, created helpful talk pages (see unblock request above) which was a positive change abut got blocked for the minor violations of forgetting to title an image inbox template and accidentally creating a non-notable footballer page. Consequently, (in my view) do have the competence to edit Wikipedia . (by the way Ricardo Sendra should not be deleted since he made one appearance for Geylang International FC see [8] (see above unblock request)) Das osmnezz (talk) 02:59, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I really don't see the point of blocking this user. The article they created, is clearly a keep in the AFD discussion (and even before his recent professional appearance, the media was talking about the certainty that he would be playing). The POV edit is subtle enough, that I can't see it at first glance. And a missing title on an image? This looks more like a vendetta than a fair process. Nfitz (talk) 00:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Nfitz I surmise they are blocking me due to my history but in all I agree with you that those shouldn't be grounds for blocking me at all. What's more, I literally have a surprisingly big list of articles I want to create (see above request) which will expand Wikipedia:WikiProject Football more. And yes, they all meet the criteria for notability. Das osmnezz (talk) 00:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Nfitz he didn't meet WP:NFOOTY when the article was created, just like about 50 other articles this user has written. It's not a vendetta, as at least four uninvolved admins have blocked him for either creating bad articles, copyvio imaging, or POV editing. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:59, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
  • That's arguable. As I pointed out, there were significant media articles saying that he would be appearing - which isn't a surprise when you bring in a foreign player to that particular league. As I said, it seems trumped up. As blocks are only preventative, and not punitive, I really don't see what is still being accomplished here User talk:Joseph2302. Nfitz (talk) 12:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Joseph2302 50 is an exaggeration; I estimate it must be about 7-8 if not less/more.Das osmnezz (talk) 07:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
  • 47 deleted article space articles according to [9]. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:19, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Joseph2302 To be fair, 27 were deleted for my account previously being a sock puppet. Also a portion (8) were deleted because there already was a category on the subject leaving 14 and the majority of them were early in my account. (FC Birobidzhan was an accidental redirect before i made the article it redirected to, FK Birobidzhan). Quite a few of them still exist (since I created them again after I didn't use multiple accounts) and meet the notability standard. Another thing is that I have never been blocked for 'bad articles'. Das osmnezz (talk) 08:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Block evasion?

Was this you editing under an IP address? It seems odd that an IP that's never edited before suddenly turns up at this AfD. If it is you, then this is block evasion, which won't help you get unblocked. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:45, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Joseph2302 yes it was me, guilty as charged. This reason doesn't justify it at all but it was because Ricardo Sendra made his debut yesterday (april 8) and I was just attempting to prevent my page from being deleted. You might have or wouldn't have done the same in those circumstances. Indeed, it wouldn't enhance the probability of me getting unblocked, but it was a lats resort to stop my page getting deleted.Das osmnezz (talk) 11:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
If you want to preserve the page, take a copy of it and store it offline. Then, if it gets deleted, you can recreate it when you get yourself unblocked, adding the extra evidence needed to satisfy the appropriate guidelines. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
User:Boing! said Zebedee thanks for the information - I will do it if it does get deleted when Im unblocked.Das osmnezz (talk) 13:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Ad Orientem (talk) 13:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Note: I have downgraded your block to three months, so you will be able to return. I have done this after taking into consideration that your most recent block was triggered in part by an issue which turned out to be a false alarm. However there remain other issues including your recent block evasion and CIR is still a huge concern. DO NOT evade this block. DO NOT continue to post unblock requests. I will strongly oppose any further relaxation of this block. You need some time away from here. Aside from the competency concerns, it's unhealthy to be so obsessed with Wikipedia. I second Yamla's suggestion that you try editing some of the other wiki-projects that are linked on the main page. This block applies only to the English Language Wikipedia. Take this as a learning experience, work on your skills elsewhere and we will see you back here in July. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

3 months? That seems rather overboard. We've already established that the one charge was completely trumped up. I couldn't see an issue with the POV claim when I looked earlier - but I can't find the diff for it now. Can you point it to me? And perhaps you can point me to the imagery copyright issue (which I assume has since been deleted). Nfitz (talk) 02:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Nfitz heres the image copyright issue difference between revisions [10]. By the way, am I permitted to make desired pages on Microsoft Word while blocked and copy and paste it when my block expires?Das osmnezz (talk) 09:11, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Really? That looks more like a typo than anything else, with the malformed brackets. There isn't something else? What was the POV edit? Nfitz (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
You can do whatever you want outside of Wikipedia. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:13, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
You can also work on new pages within your own userspace - I assume you can still create new pages in your userspace. Nfitz (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
No, a blocked editor can only edit their talk page. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Dear God, is this still being discussed? I will take a look tomorrow when I have a chance. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:01, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Nfitz (talk) 01:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Block Review OK I have taken another look at the totality of the circumstances. If this were nothing more than what he was initially blocked for, I'd probably have already unblocked him. But that is not the case. This is not a first offense, or a second, or a third... The unhappy fact is that they have been blocked so many times, someone with no knowledge of the background might be forgiven for wondering why they were not indeffed a long time ago. Point in fact, they have been. More than once. And they were let off the hook each time. And yes, there are extenuating circumstances here that I and other admins agree justify, once again, dropping the indeff. But there are aggravating factors as well. His block evasion coupled with the shockingly long list of previous blocks (all pointing to CIR issues) cannot be overlooked. I also need to point out that his long train of unblock requests have been reviewed by three other admins, each of whom declined the requests. My subsequent decision to reduce the block from an indeff to three months was discussed by myself and two other admins both of whom concurred with that course of action. At this point, I don't believe that we can overlook the aggravating factors here. And I am satisfied based on their track record that they need some time away to consider how they are going to contribute to the project and where they have gone wrong in the past. If the past in any indicator of the future, letting them off the hook yet again is not going to help either them or the encyclopedia. And to be clear, I do not consider this punitive. I am acting to protect the project from an editor whose competency has been questioned over and over again by other editors and for which they have been repeatedly blocked. I am also doing this for the benefit of an editor who clearly wants to help, but who has a habit of leaving mistakes that other editors are constantly having to clean up. And lastly block evasion, by an editor who has been so frequently blocked in the past is just unacceptable. Whatever words may be offered to the contrary. it suggests an editor who has been let off the hook a few too many times. Therefor the 3 month block is affirmed. If you wish to pursue this matter any further I suggest opening a thread at WP:ANI. But given how many admins have been involved with this editor in the past, I think that this would be a waste of everyone's time. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
Ping Nfitz
I wasn't asking you to review the block User:Ad Orientem at this time. I was just trying to understand the evidence for the latest block better. The 3 pieces were, if I recall was creating the article that went to AFD, a POV edit, and the lack of image description. Can you point me to this POV edit - what I saw earlier (but couldn't find again) didn't seem to be much - but I'm not sure if I was looking at the right thing, and didn't spend the time to understand the context. And the image description appears to have been a malformed Non-free fair use Template looking at [11] - but I've only got it on hearsay, that is the evidence. The alleged block evasion wasn't part of the reason for the block, as it occurred later. Not that it isn't serious - I'm just looking at what the background was for the latest block, so that I can understand it properly. No point in going to ANI if I've been mislead ... Nfitz (talk) 06:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Hmmm. I think we are talking past each other. If you are concerned that the grounds initially cited for his most recent block are weak, I reached that conclusion a few days ago (mea culpa mea culpa). That is why I reduced the block to 3 months. The principal reason he is still blocked is because he engaged in fairly naked block evasion. Even then, the block would likely have been no more than a month if it were not for his very long history of blocks which makes this evasion, at a time when he had unblock requests still active on this page, particularly unacceptable. The CIR issues are also there as I explained above. If you would like me to unblock him, and refer this to ANI I am willing to do so though I would insist on his agreement. My concern is that at ANI his entire record is likely to become the subject of scrutiny and depending on who shows up for the discussion he could end up getting indeffed or worse. You may also want to take a look at this discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Ah, okay. I hadn't realised you'd come to that conclusion, as I'm late to the game. But wait, that means he's blocked for 3 months for evading a block he shouldn't have been given? Isn't that kind of like the police charging the guy for having a joint in his pocket, when they stopped him because of racial profiling? Looking at his block evasion, it was simply an IP edit to the AFD that lead to much of this, telling the people there something that was very germaine to the discussion, and hadn't come out (despite his previous attempts to flag it on his talk page, which some people chose to ignore, despite being key to the discussion, changing it from a probably delete, but maybe there's a case to keep, to a snow keep. He readily admitted it was him, didn't try and hide it - and didn't do any harm. It's not like he tried to sockpuppet it, and I can understand the frustration of those on the talk page choosing to ignore what you were trying to tell them - which ended up changing the whole direction of the AFD discussion. Just seems unnecessary - though I confess I haven't rooted through the past history. Here is a question. What does User:Das osmnezz want? Nfitz (talk) 22:45, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, but I'm not further reducing the block given their record. By their own reckoning they have been blocked more than ten times. If anyone wants to pursue this further, ANI is this way. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:03, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
User:Nfitz here is my block log which shows when I was blocked and when I was unblocked. Most of them were for different reasons. User:Nfitz, I advise you to not push it any further as it will p[robably waste everyone (including myself} time.Das osmnezz (talk) 23:04, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Das osmnezz, please understand that your block is not punitive. It's a response to a long track record showing alack of competency and/or lack of appropriate respect for the way we do things here. Everyone that I am aware of who has interacted with you wants you to become a productive member of the Wikipedia community. But again your record shows you aren't there and in my judgement (and yes this is a judgement call) you need some time away. And so do we. I don't want to be rude, but you have been a one man time sink for a lot of editors and admins on here. My advice is to take the three months and do a little work on some other wiki-projects and then come back after your block has expired. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:19, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Well before User:Ad Orientem became involved, I count 2 blocks in 2016 and 2 blocks in 2017. Followed by 2 blocks by AO. The most recent block in my opinion is harsh - and I'm quite willing to die on this mountain. But User:Das osmnezz's wishes are paramount. So I'll leave alone. I'd encourage them to not try to evade this, particularly with a sock puppet. That seldom ends well; to pull it off, one has to have an awareness and control, that if existed, would have meant the user would have never landed in this situation in the first place! (no insult - I doubt I could pull it off either). Thanks AO for talking about the situation. Nfitz (talk) 02:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Ashley Flyyn

I am planning on doing an article on non-league striker Ashley Flynn who plays in the tenth tier of the English football league system. He is mostly known for scoring 74 goals in one season, and the BBC and the independent.co,uk and the mirror.co.uk have all produced articles on him - [12], [13], and [14]. Does that satisfy GNG by any chance? Das osmnezz (talk) 10:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I suggest writing a WP:DRAFT on him and then sending it to WP:AFC for review. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:14, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I.P. Addresses that should be blocked

I took a look at this IP address' contributions https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/151.241.5.170 

and saw that all he did was add fake foreign players to the squads of various African clubs. (I searched them up on google and found nothing related to a football player) Das osmnezz (talk) 08:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
You should report that to either WP:AIV or WP:ANI. Make sure that they have been properly warned first though. You may find WP:Twinkle a useful editing tool. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

ANI notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:56, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

List of articles I am going to create

Here is a small list of articles I am going to create soon: Khairallah Abdelkbir, Leonida Nedelcu, Emile Damey, Razif Onn, Paolo Pascual, PS Batam, Ralph Lundy III, Clay Silvas, Moustapha Diaw, Mohamadou Sumareh, Waleed Obaid, Joao Chissano, Ramadhan Singano, Michel Sablon, Shad Forsythe, Adlane Messelem, Merron Gordon and Dinh Hoang La.Das osmnezz (talk) 02:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I strongly suggest you create those articles as drafts and then submit them to WP:AFC for review. If there are any problems they could then be identified and corrected before the articles land in the mainspace, thus avoiding giving any further reason for complaint. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:05, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
@Ad Orientem Thanks. I am currently working on a draft of Clay Silvas.Das osmnezz (talk) 03:16, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
👍 Like -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:36, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Henry Kisekka) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Henry Kisekka, Das osmnezz!

Wikipedia editor Insertcleverphrasehere just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

I moved the page to Henry Kisekka, hopefully that was correct. Let me know on my talk page if it wasn't and I can move it back.

To reply, leave a comment on Insertcleverphrasehere's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

— InsertCleverPhraseHere 05:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Clay Silvas

The article Clay Silvas has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sir Sputnik (talk) 04:05, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Richard Orlowski) has been reviewed!

{{subst:Reviewednote-NPF|1=Richard Orlowski|2=Kudpung|3=Please clean up the naked URLs. See {{WP:CITE]] for more information.}}

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:18, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Colin Harewood

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 Colin Harewood 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, but it 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 removed 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. DGG ( talk ) 03:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited FK Bežanija, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nikola Milošević (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Foreign players lists

Hello, I am pinging creators and active editors of the lists found at Category:Lists of expatriate association football players because of the discussion where your opinion would be welcomed. The discussion is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Lists_of_expatriate_association_football_players. Best regards, FkpCascais (talk) 19:29, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Uroš Poljanec

The article Uroš Poljanec has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:47, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Zak Downes

The article Zak Downes has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:53, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Zak Downes for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Zak Downes 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/Zak Downes until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:26, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Uroš Poljanec for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Uroš Poljanec 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/Uroš Poljanec until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Sir Sputnik (talk) 21:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Esoh Omogba

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 Esoh Omogba, 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. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Esoh Omogba for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Esoh Omogba 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/Esoh Omogba until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Das_osmnezz/Archive_1&oldid=1079556418"