User talk:Sandals1

Welcome!

Hello, Sandals1, and welcome to Wikipedia!

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!--Biografer (talk) 23:13, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for socking[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

I've blocked this user for what is obviously socking behavior. Virtually every one of their edits has been to AfD, and their very first edit goes out of the way to state, This is my first edit. Looks like a duck to me -- RoySmith (talk) 22:59, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I’ve undone the block. Just being an undisclosed alternate account is not in and of itself blockable, there has to be inappropriate behavior assoisciated with it and I’ve seen no evidence of that. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have also now opened a thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard asking for feedback on this incident. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What a bunch of BS. I guess Wikipedia doesn't want new editors. I stated I was a new editor and asked questions so I could be sure I was doing things correctly and understood Wikipedia policy and the only response I got was from someone who wanted to permanently ban me. Thanks to Beeblebrox I can still edit Wikipedia, but I'm not sure I really want to. Or maybe I'll go open 50 deletion discussions.Sandals1 (talk) 10:28, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that it looks bad and you feel unwanted, but that’s not how it is . Roy made a mistake, and has admitted as much. You can see the further discussion that was had here. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help Me[edit]

(OLQuiroz (talk) 21:27, 8 August 2018 (UTC))Hello, I'm looking for help writing my first entry ever. I need help getting this bio approved, Michael A. Lytle. So far I've updated references and tried to gather as much information as possible. He is my previous professor at University of Texas Rio Grande Valley formerly called University of Texas at Brownsville and Texas South-most College(UTB-TSC). I've known him for a few years now, and he hired me to create his biography page on Wikipedia. He initially wanted to add his name under People from Kansas , and Choctawhatchee High School under under notable Alumni, but i was denied that entry since he was not an established notable person. So here I am trying to get his Biography up and trying to prove he is notable worthy. Please help. I've been constantly updating this bio for three weeks.[reply]

I'd say he needs to meet either WP:GNG or WP:NACADEMICS. I don't see anything to show he's a noted academic, so that means he has to have significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of him. Independent means it can't be from him, an employer, anyone connected to him, or from an organization he belongs to. As a paid editor you also have a conflict of interest which means others will assume you are biased (see WP:COI). I wish you luck, but my search didn't show me anything that will help him meet the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 15:37, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maggie Aiono[edit]

Because you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alefosio Laki, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maggie Aiono. Papaursa (talk) 23:58, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice.Sandals1 (talk) 15:37, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JimKrause, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

-- RoySmith (talk) 17:19, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Williams (American football coach)[edit]

Hi, I'm looking to create a page for Greg Williams (American football coach). I think he is notable enough to warrant a page because he has played in the NFL, AFL, and NFL Europe. He is also a member of the professional coaching ranks. Would it be possible to get some help getting this article approved? Thanks! Turtleturtle00 (talk) 20:27, 17 January 2019 (UTC)Turtleturtle00[reply]

If he played in the NFL he clearly meets WP:NGRIDIRON and is notable. If he was a head coach in the NFL or AFL I would say he's notable, but not if he was just one of many assistants. NFL Europe would do nothing for his notability.Sandals1 (talk) 14:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

He did play in the NFL (he was with the Bears and Giants) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turtleturtle00 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's no evidence he played in a NFL regular season game, which is the requirement. However, playing in the Arena Football League does seem to meet WP:NGRIDIRON.Sandals1 (talk) 00:13, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Walks like a Duck[edit]

Looks like a duck to me? Agree with @RoySmith: that I have rarely seen a new editor who looked so much like a Looks like a duck to me. The editing pattern, with it's focus on articles about music/musicians and focus on/animus towards Israel/Israelis reminds me of the recently blocked editor TheGracefulSlick. It also reminds me of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DisuseKid/Archive; especially the pattern of appearing at long intervals to make a lot of very quick edits in what miy be an attempt to reach the 500-edit limit that permits users to edit I/P. Both TheGracefulSlick and DisuseKid had a hasty, cobative style at AfD similar to Sandals1.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:03, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGF please, Could you stop saying that he is a duck. If he isn't, this isn't encouraging him to be an editor. His edits aren't disruptive, so give him a chance. ^{[Username Needed]} 14:48, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The usual advice in either file an WP:SPI or keep your unfounded suspiscions to yourself. This is getting really old. Accusations by themselves do nothing. Bring some actual evidence forward or shut up about it. WP:CLEANSTARTs are perfectly allowed, and harassing someone because of an imaginary problem pretty much isn't. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:53, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Beeblebrox: Still claim that wikipedia welcomes newcomers? What does "reach the 500-edit limit that permits users to edit I/P" mean? Sandals1 (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It often does, but in your case it has failed, badly. I wish I could say it was an isolated incident but sadly I cannot. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:40, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Beeblebrox: Would you please answer my second question about what that phrase means? Thanks.Sandals1 (talk) 22:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a reference to extended confirmed protection, which blocks users with less than 500 edits and six months of experience from editing certain highly contentious articles. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I don't see how it applies to me.Sandals1 (talk) 22:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently this talk page is still on my watchlist. Just FYI in case you hadn't noticed: the user who started this particular thread turned out to be a bad-faith sock themselves, and are now blocked. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:46, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update, but the damage was done.Sandals1 (talk) 19:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability[edit]

Hi Sandals1, greetings. The proposal is as per current wikipedia MMA guidelines on specifically on Bellator organisation. So if you look at the guidelines, they passed the notability guidelines. Your proposal is to change the current mma guidelines, so I moved to another message treat. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:17, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm OK with you disagreeing with me, but you shouldn't remove my section headings and move my words around. I'm using the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/Archive 11#organization notability proposal which was done later. As I said, I don't know why WP:MMANOT was not updated when that discussion was closed, but it should have been.Sandals1 (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CASSIOPEIA: I was kind of expecting a response.Sandals1 (talk) 16:09, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandals1, Greetings. I didnt response because you didnt ping me as such I didnt know you sent me a message. Sorry to change the section heading as it was a different proposal from the existing one. It is very hard to get mma editors to join the discussion as many have sheid away from the discussions due bad experience or the new editors do not know there is a MMA WikiProject notability talk page. Note: We dont allow to canvases any editors on the proposal as it is against the guidelines of Wikipedia. Many editors have proposed other promotions to be in top tier or to be included in the notability guidelines without success for the last 3 years. I waited for more than 2 years to gather evident to propose but found out the current guidelines was not updated. With the oppose vote, I doubt we will have any other promotions join the top tier group for a long time. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Old sections on talk[edit]

Just wanted to be sure you're aware that you can delete or archive sections on your talk page. Happy editing! Schazjmd (talk) 19:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]