User talk:Mmathu

Welcome!

Hello, Mmathu, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few 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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Nufy8 06:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

July 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Marquette University has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Rror (talk) 09:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Mmathu! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 3 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Rich Ruth - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Rich Ruth

The article Rich Ruth has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The article does not contain any reference .Article is too short and lacks sufficient context.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Suri 100 (talk) 03:19, 14 April 2011 (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).

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

Request reason:

Can someone explain why my account was blocked in June 2014? My list of contributions is here: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mmathu The blocking doesn't seem to make any sense.

Decline reason:

It is a checkuser block and, as such, will not be considered by an admin without checkuser ability. The blocking admin was DoRD; I suggest you e-mail him.

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).

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

Request reason:

That really didn't answer the question -- so no admin with checkuser ability reads this page? The blocking message says this page is where I should post.

Decline reason:

Checkuser (me) verified abuser of multiple accounts. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:39, 29 August 2014 (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).

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

Request reason:

I don't follow this reply... are you referring to muliple *Wikipedia* accounts? or some other accounts? The reply only says "multiple accounts." I've had but one Wikipedia account since I started contributing in 2005: user name Mmathu. I've never had any other Wikipedia account. If you look at my edits https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mmathu, they've been on pretty noncontroversial topics, it's hard to even infer abuse in those edits. What "multiple accounts" are you seeing abuse of, and over what time frame?

Decline reason:

Nice try ... I might have at least acknowledged that you might have been caught up in someone else's misconduct until I read that. Yeah, like we're really going to give that information out so people who sock can get better at evading detection (Not that they do, but since most sockmasters are about as smart or as network-savvy as anybody who thinks that people will believe any new account is totally unrelated to the very similar account that just got blocked indefinitely, we'd like to keep as much of the advantage as possible). Thank you for playing. — Daniel Case (talk) 00:26, 30 August 2014 (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.

Upon further consideration I have revoked your talk page access. It's apparent from the above that you are just admin shopping or otherwise trying to game the system. " ... are you referring to muliple *Wikipedia* accounts? or some other accounts?"—I mean, really, what other accounts would we be referring to? Do you think we're that dumb? "Would you describe the ruckus, sir?" was funny in The Breakfast Club, but not in real life.

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If you have already appealed to the Unblock Ticket Request System and been declined you may appeal to the Arbitration Committee's Ban Appeals Subcommittee. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

Daniel Case (talk) 00:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]