User talk:Rt31914

Rt31914, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Rt31914! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Ushau97 (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Amphibious Automobile

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Amphibious Automobile. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Amphibious vehicle. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Amphibious vehicle – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to 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, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. TheLongTone (talk) 09:41, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

recent page moves

Listen up. You were renaming a bunch of articles on stadiums. This was somewhat controversial, to say the least, but I'm not getting involved in that. But worse, you were doing it wrong. Changing "US Cellular Field" to "Comiskey Park", for instance? Some people would argue for that, some people would argue against that. But you renamed it to "Comiskey-Park". You renamed "Progressive Field" "Jacobs-Field". What were you thinking? Why the hyphens? DS (talk) 21:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

In general, it would be a good idea to discuss such changes on the articles' talk pages before moving the articles. Huon (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

done

• Hello, I would further advise that you please refrain from doing any further unilateral moves/renames on these stadium articles, and continue to discuss such changes on each article's respective talk pages. Again, many others find this somewhat controversial. I know of at least one editor we had to block and ban for being disruptive regarding this same issue, among other various reasons. Happy editing. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

i knew being bold would yield mixed results

There is nothing wrong with being bold, but it is another thing to make edits and page moves that are controversial. Such massive page moves like those are viewed by many as counterproductive, and should instead be resolved without fighting and without page move wars. I'm also puzzled why you renamed all these articles with hyphens like "Comiskey-Park", as well as comments like "Per common name, Jerry"[1] (which I assume you mean Jerry Jones).

In any case, I sincerely hope you do not make the same mistakes just like the user I mentioned in my previous comment. That user, among other things, seemed to make various edits as if (s)he was complaining about corporate naming rights deals with the various stadiums, and not really here to build an encyclopedia (there were other things that also got that user blocked. Such behavior such as that, violating several Wikipedia policies when consensus did not go his/her way, can be risky and have dire consequences, but I'm not going to go into such details right now. If you follow all those policies, you will be fine). Remember: there is nothing wrong with protesting a stadium name, but protesting it by changing encyclopedic information is not the way to do so here. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

the course of action I took was to open a discussion. The hyphens were used because the original titles are articles themselves and move only works with new titles. (deletion is restricted, too). --RT 22:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Because only an administrator can move back under the original name. Mitch32^{(Protection is not a principle, but an expedient.)} 22:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Which as a new editor, am not. RT 11:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

If you wanted to open a discussion, why didn't you initiate such a discussion immediately on Talk:U.S. Cellular Field (as the error message says when you attempt to rename a page to an existing title) . Why did you instead experimented and moved it to a non-standard page name that almost always gets reverted? Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:19, 23 August 2014

Again, Wikipedia encourage editors to be bold. I wanted to see how others would react, and how long it would take to be noticed. The move lasted prolly a half hour. Now that it's corrected, the next step is to get a consensus as to which name better reflects the teams and whether it makes sense to keep a defunct name (purchased and merged to another phone company) on a ballpark. Rt31914 (talk) 11:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Did you even read the entire WP:BOLD page, or just the top part? Zzyzx11 (talk) 23:14, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Forever Red

Stop enforcing a 7 year old AFD's results on this page. I can see you've been doing this on and off for years now.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

As a precautionary security measure, you have been blocked as a possible sock puppet of a banned user, who may be using this account to evade his block. This banned user has abusively used multiple accounts, and this may also be one of them.

I find it no coincidence that you both edited Forever Red as mentioned, as well as attempted to rename several stadium articles. Or specifically targeting Globe Life Park in Arlington and AT&T Stadium as among those articles you moved. Or that this looks like a sleeper account: registering this account back in March, made a few edits during those couple of days in March, but did not use it any further until the last few days. Or your other various similar edits and behaviour. Regards. Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

And if you are thinking about requesting for an unblock: Don't. This account is not practically salvageable. It has too many similar edits as this banned user. So even if you are not him, there would always be a cloud of suspicion over your head that will cause others to easily dismiss your comments and contributions. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 18:03, 24 August 2014 (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).

Rt31914 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

its the epitome of a dispute gone wrong. If you have a problem with my actions take it to arbcom

Decline reason:

Per WP:DUCK block evasion. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:38, 25 August 2014 (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.

very well, unless the arbcom declares "ban" I'll be back soon.

See WP:CBAN. The Wikipedia community can also impose a ban on a user, not just ArbCom. This is especially true if he abusively used multiple accounts. Again, your edits and behavior resemble that of this previously banned user who has used various user names in the past, and thus your block has been made as a cautionary measure. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

−

I'm not falling for the sockpuppetry crap. It's clear you acted solely on suspicion so as Tom Petty says, i Won't Back Down

As long as the site touts itself as being open, I come and go as I please whether you like it or not. Now go back to editing NFL stuff and mind your own business, or else.