User talk:Gymrat16

May 2023

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Note, that randomly editing wikitext adding random spaces to increase your edit count is considered vandalism MenuRax39272 (talk) 22:56, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Andrew Shaw (ice hockey), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Wracking ^💬 00:44, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Andrew Shaw (ice hockey). Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. — SamX [talk · contribs] 03:40, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Nikita Kucherov. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Several editors have undone or altered your changes. Please do not continue to reinstate them without talking about it first. Thanks. Wracking ^💬 03:39, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Nikita Kucherov

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Nikita Kucherov, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 23:11, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A note about your recent edits

Hello Gymrat16, and welcome to Wikipedia.

I would like to alert you that your edits seem very similar to those of an IP editor who was temporarily blocked (twice) from Wikipedia for being uncommunicative, not following Wikipedia's Manual of Style, and adding unsourced content. This user received more than seven warnings. If you exhibit this same behavior, it is likely that you will be blocked from editing.

Some advice for future edits:

Please do not add unsourced content, especially to biographies of living people.
Please do not add the year to a paragraph where the year has already been established. This is unnecessary.
Please do not link the same topic more than once.
Please follow MOS:DASH, and use en dashes (–) when necessary.
It is generally unremarkable that a professional athlete has played their 100th, 200th, 300th, etc. game.

(For reference: Discussion of IP editor at ANI, Block log for IP editor)

If you believe I have made a mistake, please let me know. Thanks. Wracking ^💬 00:22, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a friendly note, dates on Wikipedia usually follow a specific format defined in WP:MOSDATE. You should not mention the year in every sentence within in a paragraph. It should just be mentioned once unless it's absolutely needed in specific circumstances. This may also save you time. Thanks! -- StarScream1007 ►Talk 03:36, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, as you did at Andrew Shaw (ice hockey), you may be blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. -- StarScream1007 ►Talk 17:02, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was just adding additional information that was relevant Gymrat16 (talk) 17:08, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are more than welcome to improve this site. Please note that your edits are expected to comply with our policies, including WP:Verifiability and WP:Cite as well as our Manual of Style, in particular WP:MOSDATE. Please let us know if you have any questions. -- StarScream1007 ►Talk 17:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023

I did the things you told me on the Stamkos article. I added his middle name adn I described how media outlets have described him as a prolific goal scorer and how his leadership has been praised by lots. I cited everything too. Tell me what you think. Gymrat16 (talk) 00:43, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I like the additions. They are informative, sourced, non-biased and add depth to the article. I will try to fix the reference errors later. Keep up the good work. And thank you for your efforts. -- StarScream1007 ►Talk 00:54, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a couple but I went back and fixed them Gymrat16 (talk) 00:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I edited some things on the Daniel Sedin page like make headers next to the respective time spans and took the advice you gave me make them as short and sweet as possible and make sure they are unbiased and also did one or two more sentences with cited resources so hopefully you like them if you check them out Gymrat16 (talk) 19:25, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

for 2000-2006 I said "early years" then from 2006-2010 I said "Rising team success" and for 2010-2013 I did "Stanley Cup Final appearance, back to back presidents trophies and second lockout then for 2013-2018 I said "Later years and team difficulties" hopefully that sounds good Gymrat16 (talk) 19:27, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Thanks again! -- StarScream1007 ►Talk 21:02, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

awesome thanks very much. Im gonna do probably a few more and hopefully you'll like those too. Gymrat16 (talk) 22:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

really trying hard to better myself but at the same share my knowledge and make sure I am doing it right Gymrat16 (talk) 22:23, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to say good work on the Ovi article. The additions are well-sourced, and the headers are fair and concise. Thank you for your contributions -- StarScream1007 ►Talk 19:14, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you means a lot yah I am making an effort to try and better myself while also providing my knowledge Gymrat16 (talk) 19:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Alexander Ovechkin

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Alexander Ovechkin, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 00:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Rick Bowness

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Rick Bowness, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 23:42, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Daniel Sedin

added a link pointing to Brian Burke

Henrik Sedin

added a link pointing to Brian Burke

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Gymrat16, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages that you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Contributing to Wikipedia or the Tutorial
Create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
How to add those all-important references
Simplified style guide

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. Again, If you need help visit the Teahouse or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! We are so glad you are here! Sm8900 (talk) 19:09, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bickell

Regarding this edit:[1] Do you have a reliable source that confirms Bickell met Hossa when he worked for the Sens? The source mentions he met Vermette, but there's no mention of Hossa. It's possible given he says he was 16/17 at the time, which would have been around the time Hossa was on the team. -- StarScream1007 ►Talk 03:07, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will add one soon my bad Gymrat16 (talk) 11:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Thanks for adding the ref and verifying the story. -- StarScream1007 ►Talk 22:09, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ovechkin quotes

Responding to your query on my talk page, I deleted the block quotes for the reasons stated on the Ovechkin article's talk page and because they came across as turning that section into a string of praise for him. (Full disclosure: I’m a Caps season-ticket holder, so I’m certainly happy to see Ovechkin get positive coverage, but I try hard to be neutral on Wikipedia.) A string of block quotes like that interrupts the flow of the text. I also note another user made a comment on that talk page citing the Wikipedia Manual of Style regarding block quotes and noting that the majority of them were too short to merit block quote treatment under that guidance. 1995hoo (talk) 01:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I get it but if it’s ok I am gonna add back just some not all just some cause it’s ok to have some especially if it is documenting something. Like I’ll re add the Johnson quote, stamkos quote, Jon Cooper quote, Orpik and bishop then done. That shouldn’t b too much or too little Gymrat16 (talk) 01:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Alexander Ovechkin. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Other comments further up your talk page have advised you that it is not acceptable for you to insist on getting your way. See, for example, the comments from User:Wracking from this past May. The appropriate course of action is to discuss the matter on the Ovechkin article's talk page. The appropriate course is not to say, in effect, "I’ve decided these edits are OK and therefore they stay." I’m not going to revert you at this particular time because it’s 10:40 at night and I’m getting ready to sign off, and I’m also wary of running up against WP:3RR, but tomorrow if I have time I may closely check out your block quotes again and I may delete them (one at a time, explaining why in each edit summary) if they don’t satisfy MOS:BLOCKQUOTE, which I encourage you to read. Also, kindly note that quotation marks are not used at the beginning and end of a block quote, as stated in that MOS instruction. 1995hoo (talk) 02:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to advise, I have asked for help at WT:WikiProject Ice Hockey to try to establish a consensus on what's appropriate. 1995hoo (talk) 12:05, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And what will that do? I agree that there were too many quotes but I was only gonna restore like 2-3. 2-3 isn’t bad. We want to show proof of how well documented his shot is right? That’s all I’m trying to do Gymrat16 (talk) 18:49, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, what matters is whether there is a consensus as to whether, and to what extent, the material is appropriate. I'm not sure what you mean when you say "And what will that do?," but I guess we'll find out. 1995hoo (talk) 18:54, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Like what would the project ice hockey do? Gymrat16 (talk) 18:56, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Potentially establish a consensus. As you well know, that's how Wikipedia is supposed to operate. 1995hoo (talk) 18:58, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ok well please write back what they say. I understand and agree that we don’t wanna do too much but those quotes by Brent Johnson and Brooks Orpik were pretty reasonable and I think should be displayed. The other previous ones aren’t relevant I agree but yah I hope what I’m saying makes more sense now Gymrat16 (talk) 19:09, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have you heard anything yet? Gymrat16 (talk) 23:56, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the link. Conyo14 (talk) 22:18, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts as a sockpuppet of User:Moka Mo per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Moka Mo. 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 for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 01:00, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand why some might think this is sockpuppetry cause I have been very active but this is my ONLY account. I do not have multiple and if we can work something out that would be great because I want to be a good figure in the community not a bad one and I am sick of being portrayed as a bad one. Maybe I have been a little too active but it is because I like to share my knowledge with the rest of the world and if I get unblocked sooner rather than later, I promise I will try hard to practice better self control and maybe not type as much Gymrat16 (talk) 01:18, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did NOT do anything wrong. Over the last 4 ish months I have had my own wikipedia account and I mostly decided to use it to show my knowledge about certain things and help out and contribute to the community. However, the last couple days, I have been harassed by multiple accounts and been accused by them of "sockpuppeting" even though I don't think I am. I have followed most if not ALL the rules of editing articles on wikipedia such as citing, no spelling errors, trying to keep headers not too long or too short and citing nearly every sentence I write. I have really tried hard to follow and comply with policies and I have been confronted repeatedly of not doing so recently. I am a big NHL fan and like other people, I have made some sentences or headers for certain athletes in the NHL like Alex Ovechkin, Steven Stamkos, Nikita Kucherov, Victor Hedman, Sedin twins, Anze Kopitar, Bryan Bickell, Corey Crawford, Jonathan Toews, Andrew Shaw, David Pastrnak, Jamie Benn, Nathan MacKinnon, etc and when doing so whether it is a header title or a sentence added, I have tried very hard to make sure I am following the rules and policies and I felt like I was doing a decent job. Another thing I have been confronted about for certain guys is like using terms like "stardom" with certain people even though that term has been used by multiple other people on multiple other articles and I ask Why is that such a big deal if I do it? Why do you care if I use but not anyone else? Why am I the only one getting chewed out on something that wasn't even started by me? Most of these things were written by OTHER people not me, I am simply just contributing alongside them and why is it whenever I try and compromise with people, it always ends their way and never with mine in the littlest way? Again, I joined wikipedia to show my knowledge at things and to contribute within the community and wikipedia should be inclusive to all and people should be able to write whatever they want as long as it is true and they are following the rules and guidelines of wikipedia.

I understand why some might think this is sockpuppetry cause I have been very active but this is my ONLY account. I do not have multiple and if we can work something out that would be great because I want to be a good figure in the community not a bad one and I am sick of being portrayed as a bad one. Maybe I have been a little too active but it is because I like to share my knowledge with the rest of the world and if I get unblocked sooner rather than later, I promise I will try hard to practice better self control and maybe not type as much

Please respond ASAP and consider unblocking me if possible and give me a chance to be better at maintaining self control because the only reason why this ever happened is because I think I got too excited ans started doing too much at one time and I promise if I get unblocked I will try harder to take it easier, thanks. Gymrat16 (talk) 01:03, 10 August 2023 (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).

Gymrat16 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am not doing this from multiple accounts. This is my only account I have on wikipedia. I am not a sockpuppett. Some of the things I have seen on wikipedia in recent weeks have had a lot of mistakes and typos in there so I was simply just fixing them and also I add small sentences now and then WITH citiations. This is my only account on wikipedia I do not have multiple accounts and I am not trying to "abuse" nothing. All I have done recently is edit a couple mistakes and correct them and add small details that stand out to me and probably would to others if they were to see them Gymrat16 (talk) 01:15, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This does not address the content of the SPI(Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Moka Mo). 331dot (talk) 07:57, 6 August 2023 (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.

UTRS

UTRS appeal #77640 has been declined. JBW (talk) 17:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #77902 Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Moka Mo/Archive

is closed Not eligible for unblock consideration until Feb 27, 2024 at the earliest. Needs to request unblocking via original account. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:12, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

The Arbitration Committee has decided to unblock you in accordance with your appeal. Based on the evidence you have supplied by email, we are satisfied that you are not the same person as Moka Mo. As discussed by email, please view this as an opportunity to make a fresh start. The editors involved in you being blocked were acting in good faith and do not have access to the information you provided us. Any editing that suggests that you are pursuing a vendetta against those editors is likely to result in you being blocked again but I will let he blocking admin know that you're not who they thought you were. If you need help with anything, you're welcome to ask me. Otherwise, happy editing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you very much for hearing me out and hopefully yes everyone can be more peaceful now. All I want is for users to talk to me about any edits I might make rather than revert for no reason since I believe everyone deserves a second chance and that healthy communication is important. Talking to them about this and saying that would absolutely help the chances at that being reduced and increase the chances of me getting taken seriously since I am usually a pretty easy person to get along with I think. 164.76.13.235 (talk) 19:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Welcome back. Good luck on your Wikipedia journey ahead. Thanks.

Maliner (talk) 23:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thxs. Glad to be back Gymrat16 (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:No original research

In this edit, you wrote On 22 December 2010, Datsyuk suffered a broken wrist in a game against the Vancouver Canucks, causing him to miss the next 19 games cited to this source, which says nothing about missing the next 19 games, and couldn't possibly have since it was published the day he got injured. The bolded text is unsourced original research which is a violation of WP:No original research policy. When you add material into an article, it's important to ensure that the source you provide supports everything in the passage the citation is attached to. I've seen editors get blocked for this type of unsourced editing and original research if it becomes an intractable habit, and it would be unfortunate for that to happen to you. Left guide (talk) 23:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks for letting me know. If you want, I can research some articles that give this story out and cite them so that way it can stay and policies can be maintained. Obviously citations are very important so people will be incline to believe what they are reading so I will make the neccesary adjustments to that sentence Gymrat16 (talk) 00:34, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be good, but more importantly this should be a lesson to have all the pertinent citations installed in the initial edits, or to simply omit the unsourced material. A reminder every now and then isn't the end of the world since people make mistakes, but in the long term, users are expected to regulate their own edits to ensure policy-compliance. Hopefully over time you will improve in that manner. Another suggestion would be to use your sandbox to draft and save this type of material until it's properly sourced, since sourcing policies generally don't apply there. Left guide (talk) 01:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

absolutely we are all human and when an error is made there are multiple options available to fix them thanks again for alerting me on this error Gymrat16 (talk) 01:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it. I also tweaked some sentences too for clarification as well. Hopefully it looks better Gymrat16 (talk) 01:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Henrik Lundqvist, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page PNC Center.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:16, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. It said the city and I tried to change it to the name of the arena. But it isn't called PNC Center anymore so I tried to use the RBC Center thing that shows the name at the time but when you click it it shows the current name Gymrat16 (talk) 14:32, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see the Bobrovsky save?

Just wondering. Quite an incredible save to preserve the eventual victory for the Panthers against the Lightning. I saw it plastered all over social media, so I figured it was a pretty big deal. Some of the sources have dubbed it the "save of the playoffs" or the "save of the year". It also made its way into mainstream non-sports journalism, which seems unusual for an individual save. Would you be interested in adding sourced material about it to the Sergei Bobrovsky article? I thought you might be, especially since you've recently edited that article. If not, I'll try to get around to it at some point. It's certainly worthy of inclusion either way. Left guide (talk) 20:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yessssirr I did incredible save. I certianly wouldn't rule it out I mean I would have to look deeper into it but could be worth some time 100% Gymrat16 (talk) 21:40, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Gatto

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. However, please do not use unreliable sources such as blogs, wikis, personal websites, and websites and publications with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. These sources may express views that are widely acknowledged as pushing a particular point-of-view, sometimes even extremist, being promotional in nature, or relying heavily on rumors and personal opinions. One of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. If you require further assistance, please look at Help:Menu/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the Teahouse. Thank you. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I will do my best to make sure that doesn't occur again. Is an obituary a reliable source out of curiosity though? Gymrat16 (talk) 02:03, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Erik Johnson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Andy McDonald.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Ice Hockey

Hello @Gymrat16. I was just checking out your user page and noticed that you were making some nice contributions to ice hockey articles. That's why I am inviting you to join WikiProject Ice Hockey. We would love to have you join! Thanks. XR228 (talk) 22:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i sincerely appreciate the kind words. I will take a few more days to reflect on this and come forward with a decision Gymrat16 (talk) 00:17, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gymrat16: Sounds good. Joining the WikiProject can not only let us help you organize your work, but also help you participate in projects with the rest of us (like Hockey Mountain). XR228 (talk) 00:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

it obviously feels great to see my superiors recognize quality work when they see it Gymrat16 (talk) 00:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a superior sadly (many other editors, especially the ones in WikiProject Ice Hockey, have been here far longer than me). But yeah you’ve been making nice edits. XR228 (talk) 04:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i just mean like fellow editors recognizing me and my efforts lol Gymrat16 (talk) 11:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

lol XR228 (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gymrat16: it has been like 8 days. Have you made a decision yet XR228 (talk) 20:28, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sorry about the late response, i have been working a lot and i'm going out of town in a few days so been prepping for that as well. But anyway, I would love to be apart of the project ice hockey. Out of curiosity, it doesn't cost money to do it does it? Gymrat16 (talk) 00:34, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gymrat16: no lol the entire point of Wikipedia is that it's free. We're all volunteers. To join, just put your username on this page. XR228 (talk) 01:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oh ok yes right lol ok just wanted to clarify, i will within the next 24 hours. Im a busy guy so it's unlikely i do all things right away lol Gymrat16 (talk) 02:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. XR228 (talk) 02:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

just put name in there Gymrat16 (talk) 00:33, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. XR228 (talk) 01:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jonathan Toews, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mike Smith (ice hockey).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok sorry yes there are multiple mike smiths out there so i will go and fix it asap Gymrat16 (talk) 15:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2 Edits from Winnipeg Jets and Retirement section in Rick Bowness article

Hey Gymrat16, I got a couple of edits that you could take advantage of from the Rick Bowness article, especially in the Winnipeg Jets and retirement section. They are......

'"He is a finalist for the season's Jack Adams Award for "the NHL coach adjudged to have contributed the most to his team's success."' Instead of "he is," should be, he was a finalist. "He finished his coaching career with 2,726 games, the most in NHL history, and is also one of three head coaches (along with Scotty Bowman and Pat Quinn) to work in NHL in five different decades." There should be a "the" after the Pat Quinn bracketed part which should say, to work in the NHL in five different decades.

Just thought I'd bring this up to you, in case you want to capitalize on an edit, especially a hockey one. 70.54.111.18 (talk) 08:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i don't remember doing such thing on the bowness article but i appreciate you bringing this to my attention so i can be mindful in the future Gymrat16 (talk) 15:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, my pleasure! FreeUpSaba13 (talk) 05:03, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Steven Stamkos, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NHL Network.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

sorry I will fix it Gymrat16 (talk) 15:26, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I am wrong tell me, but per this and previous edits, I get the impression that you think that the author of these warnings is a human, but if you look at the signature it says, "DPL bot", which as the name might suggest it is a robot, that is, not a human. The Blue Rider

03:43, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yes i am aware and i went back and fixed the link so hopefully everything that needed to be fixed is fixed Gymrat16 (talk) 12:20, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Stanley Cup playoffs

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. The edit in particular was this one: [2]. Showing the seeding number is unnecessary. Conyo14 (talk) 23:52, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

um ok. I guess i mean i personally thought the seeding was reasonable thing to say since their are 8 seeds that make the playoffs (counting the 2 wild card ones) but i guess not Gymrat16 (talk) 23:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Corey Crawford

Hey Gymrat, hope all is going well. The only thing I could not verify in the Crawford article is the following: "he recorded his first career playoff assist on April 19, in game four in a Blackhawks 7–2 win on a goal scored by Brian Campbell becoming the first Blackhawks goaltender since Dominik Hasek in 1991 to record an assist in a playoff game." The statement includes a gamebox that Crawford registered a secondary assist, but it does not mention anything about Hasek sadly. Can you find a reference for this? Hence why I added the failed verification tag, which means the text could not be directly verified by the provided source. -- StarScream1007 ►Talk 01:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

oh ok sorry I will go back and do research on that day and add the article that is necessary. Gymrat16 (talk) 16:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:United Airlines Logo2010present.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:United Airlines Logo2010present.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 02:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i thought i did what was required to make sure that it was fairly used. It was useful because it compares and contrasts the past to the present and the style of which it is shown. Gymrat16 (talk) 03:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:52, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ondřej Palát

Hey! I just wanted to know if there was a reason why you removed the season headers from Ondřej Palát. I just thought it helped split up a very very very long section. Similar things have been mentioned to me by reviewers when an article is being reviewed for GA status. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 04:00, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I felt like it wasn't needed since he has played for more than one team at the nhl level and I didn't think the sections were looked at much in those cases since dozens have similar styles Gymrat16 (talk) 04:02, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, that's fair. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 04:08, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely appreciate your efforts to improve the Palat article, but please don't add unsourced material as you did here. The entire section starting with Palat ended the season with 11 goals and 24 assists for 25 points in 56 is unsourced. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 04:13, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you're right. Usually those kind of sentences aren't sourced since they are shown at the bottom but at the same time it is worth the consideration for sure so it is cleared properly and is believable Gymrat16 (talk) 13:33, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, stats usually aren’t sourced in the stats section but elite prospects and nhl.com (for example) don’t say playoff stuff like when a team was eliminated or by how much.

I hope I’m not coming off as mean. I definitely appreciate all the work you’ve been doing to improve hockey articles on Wiki. Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions or anything. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 14:02, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very true yes we gotta make sure those kind of things are reported properly to the fullest extent possible Gymrat16 (talk) 14:05, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Evgeni Malkin

Hi, I believe the Evgeni Malkin article should be nominated for Good Article review. Per the instructions, only significant contributors are able to nominate an article; since you are the top contributor for this article, I would ask you to consider nominating the article for GA review. Joeykai (talk) 02:53, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gymrat16:

File:Leon Draisaitl Oilers.jpg

Dear Gymrat16, In one of your edits in July 2023 of Leon Draisaitl you removed the mentioned picture. What was the reason for that? There is a user on german wikipedia that this file shows Dylan Holloway. WOuld you agree to this? Xgeorg (talk) 06:20, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

July 2025

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Silver Line (Washington Metro), did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Please stop your unhelpful edits. The official name of the station is "Downtown Largo", not "Largo", and there is no reason to remove Wolf Trap from the table. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:19, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is because it doesn't exist and there aren't any plans to build it at this time. This should be about what exists now or what is planned for the future and that is NOT one of them. Maybe give me feedback that is more constructive rather than dismissive. Gymrat16 (talk) 01:23, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 2025

Hello, I'm Danners430. I noticed that you made a comment on the page User talk:VenFlyer98 that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 13:32, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Exaplain how they aren't civil? He is just making himself out to be a victim to dodge real dialogue Gymrat16 (talk) 13:36, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a road you want to go down. As I said on the other page - stop commenting on another editor's perceived personal flaws, and discuss the edits that are being made. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 13:39, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am discussing edits that are being made. I am discussing edits that are being made BY someone and his inability to communicate with his fellow editors. I know a moderator and I reached out to him so he should he ready. Gymrat16 (talk) 14:34, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gymrat16: Well, if you know a moderator, then I’ll expect to talk to them and show them I am not doing anything wrong. By saying things such as “that I am dodging reality” and that I am incompetent (seen here:[3]), that’s not discussing edits being made, that’s discussing me and what you consider my behavior, NOT my edits. I’ve explained why I’m doing what I’m doing and other editors have now been chiming in at the WP:AIRPORTS Talk Page to try to explain it. Not sure what else I can say at this point. (VenFlyer98 (talk) 18:45, 13 August 2025 (UTC))[reply]

I was discussing your edits and you're dismissive attitude when I try to communicate with you. Gymrat16 (talk) 18:49, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. nf utvol (talk) 20:00, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gymrat16,

Please come to ANI when you return to edit Wikipedia, it's important that we hear "from you" and not just "about you". Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:30, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

what do you want exactly from me? Gymrat16 (talk) 00:09, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just respond to the comments in the discussion. Some editors think your personal comments can be abrasive. It's important to see that you've read the criticism and will try to do better. This is a collaborative editing project so it's important that everyone makes an effort to get along with others, even those we disagree with. It's required for every editor. no matter how long they've been here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:30, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the comments. If people think it's “abrasive” to call out evasive editing or inconsistent tagging, then maybe the real issue is their inability to handle criticism — not how it's delivered.

I brought up a valid concern that affects article quality and collaboration. Instead of addressing it, most of the responses have fixated on tone and made it personal. That’s not how actual collaboration works. If editors want respect, they should start by respecting others enough to engage with the actual content of the discussion.

I'm not here to placate fragile egos. I'm here to improve pages and call out behavior that’s counterproductive. If that bothers people more than the behavior itself, then this platform has bigger problems.

I understand that my tone may have come across as too direct, and I’m willing to scale that back if that is what it takes. However, the concern I raised is real, and it affects multiple editors — not just myself. The issue isn't personal nor should it ever be, it's about patterns of editing behavior and lack of meaningful engagement when policies are applied selectively. If the standard here is that only one side gets to be forceful or deflective while the other is silenced for expressing justified criticism, then that’s not a collaborative space — it’s a protected pile on behavior with others along with him. I hope we can address the content issue and not just shut down those who raise it because that is exactly what has gone on here and yes it has gotten me frustrated. It isn't about agreeing or disagreeing it is making sure open communication is being executed. Gymrat16 (talk) 01:34, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent behavior

Hi Gymrat16. I wanted to reach out to you with the hope that we can resolve things peacefully. I read through the open discussion at ANI involving you and following reports of incivility and personal attacks made toward other editors, and I wanted to take a moment to clarify anything that may be causing confusion, as well as ask that any further violations of these policies don't continue.

It looks like the recent string of events started when you began this discussion (diff) on Talk:O'Hare International Airport asking about the use of "[citation needed]" (or ^{[citation needed]}) tags. VenFlyer98 then responded (diff) to your discussion, pointed you to WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT, and let you know that the issue had previously been discussed before on WP:AIRPORTS, and asked you to refrain from removing those tags from airport articles as you were doing (diffs: 1, 2, 3, 4, among others), which was followed by your response here.

It looks like the discussions and responses after this one is when things started to diverge from being strictly about content and when it started to become translated (or perhaps mistranslated) as messages that lacked civility and contained personal attacks. Specifically, when the discussion between you and VenFlyer98 about the "[citation needed]" tags was continued on VenFlyer98's user talk page here. You began the discussion by stating that VenFlyer98 "keep[s] saying "read this" or "read that" rather than give good faith explanations". VenFlyer98's response to you on the article's talk page here was perfectly reasonable; VenFlyer98 pointed you to the relevant pages that discussed or detailed this issue. If you reviewed the first link that was given to you, you would've found this section specifically about Airlines and destinations. It's not up to VenFlyer98 to summarize each and every relevant discussion for you, and in place of providing you a link to the pages that contain the information. It's up to you to navigate to the links provided, review the relevant pages and content, and then respond with any questions or concerns.

You may have meant to describe VenFlyer98's edits as "overzealousness", but in all fairness, I (being a neutral party to the ANI report and the relevant discussions) also translated this as describing VenFlyer98, not their edits. VenFlyer98 also translated your message in this manner, since they responded with this politely asking you not to engage in personal attacks. Instead of responding and politely clarifying what you meant with your original statement and the "overzealousness" comment that you added, you responded here and doubled down. You called VenFlyer98 "too soft" and stated that they "should get thicker skin". You continued with your response stating that VenFlyer98's reply was "dismissing those around you and only going by your own selfish wants and desires and don't want to engage further because you know you're being tested and it isn't working well for you". On top of that, you stated to VenFlyer98 that if they "can't handle discussions like these and you use terms like "personal attacks" when no personal attacks are even being made at you then maybe you shouldn't be on [W]ikipedia". I could understand if you were trying to refer to a user's edits as being "overzealous", but the statements you made that I just quoted unambiguously crossed the line, were absolutely unacceptable, and violated Wikipedia's civility and no personal attacks policies.

Other users have also responded to the open ANI discussion about you and included diffs to discussions and responses where you've also violated these policies - such as on Pi.1415926535's user talk page with your comments made to this discussion saying that Pi.1415926535's edits were made in order to "maintain your dominance and power", telling them to "maybe grow a pair", and pointing fingers at them saying that their collaboration is of "minimal effort" and that the issues solely lie with them. These are all unacceptable comments that are in violation of policy, and they must stop immediately and cannot be allowed to continue. Failure to do so may result in your account being blocked without further warnings provided to you beforehand. I would understand if there were one, two, or even a few instances where you may have said something for it to get misinterpreted as something else, but with everything I've provided to you here so far - the statements you make here and here become significantly less believable.

If you have any questions about Wikipedia's civility and no personal attacks policies, or if you have any concerns or other information or details that you'd like to provide, please do so by responding to the discussion located here. My user talk page is always open if you have any other questions or concerns that are unrelated to what I discussed with you here. Thank you for reviewing this message, and I sincerely hope that we can work everything out. Remember: We're all on the same team here! We all have Wikipedia's goals in mind. Let's discuss disputes and work things out peacefully, shall we? :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:26, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want to make something clear: what started this was NOT tone. This was a pattern of behavior where editors, particularly VenFlyer98, apply citation policies inconsistently, dodge direct questions when I tried to ask him why other airports don't get the same treatment and deflect with vague policies. That’s what led to the frustration at least on my part.

I wasn’t “attacking” anyone. I as NOT describing VenFlyer98 individually, I was describing specific edits they had made NOT Venflyer98 himself. I was calling out editing conduct that has gone unchecked and yes I did so directly mainly because polite wording hasn’t gotten any useful results and sometimes assertiveness can actually send messages.

Instead of addressing why multiple editors have raised similar concerns, I’ve watched this get spun into a civility issue while the actual problem is the selective enforcement and refusal to collaborate gets ignored.

I am NOT saying that saying things like some of the things I said like "grow a pair" are right but I am saying the frustration was somewhat warranted because I feel like I am talking to brick walls here. I want EVERYONE to be happy and satisfied not just one specific group.

If Wikipedia now punishes editors more for calling out these things rather actually engaging, that’s a failure on the platform not on me. If saying “grow a pair” is worth a block, but applying CN tags unevenly across articles isn’t even questioned, that says everything. You say “we’re all on the same team.” Then how about holding everyone to the same standard instead of burying real disputes under "civility warnings"?

This all started with me asking why does ORD, DEN, EWR, PHL, BOS, IAD, etc get this repeated "CN" treatment but not other major airports like DFW, DTW, LAX, MIA, MCO, etc which is where the inconsistency I mentioned above came into play. So really the main disappointment I had is why when I ask about them they go unanswered. Honestly idc about the CN thing in general, I just want to know why is it so inconsistent?

And lastly, I found it kind of insulting that my words got dismissed as "AI" generated in the ANI board when in reality, I strategically wrote with the utmost honesty and transparency in my point of view. Trust me, I am a very easy guy to get along with and NEVER would I mean harm upon anything or anyone but the culture where everything gets labeled as a "personal attack" and that everyone should "go with the flow" is infuriating to me and I will not be pushed around. Gymrat16 (talk) 14:09, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest responding in the ANI thread. I would also suggest apologising for trying to blank the thread, which is in breach of talk page guidelines. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:14, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

blank? Gymrat16 (talk) 14:16, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted the thread from ANI, which you are not allowed to do per the talk page guidelines. Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:17, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i read your link and i didn't see anything about that specifically so can you copy and paste specifically where it says that? Gymrat16 (talk) 14:20, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Read the section titled "Editing others' comments". Danners430 _{tweaks made} 14:22, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

August 2025

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making personal attacks towards other editors.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:02, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocks admins referred to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gymrat16. Cheers. -- asilvering (talk) 21:53, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

Gymrat16 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I recognize that my comments may have come across as too direct or confrontational in the recent citation discussion a few weeks ago. That wasn’t my intent. It went the way it did because I got frustrated by what I saw as inconsistent application of sourcing standards and the inconsistent communication when I tried to bring it to light. I care about improving article quality which is what started this whole thing in the first place and I'm willing to engage in a more constructive tone going forward as much as humanly possible. Of course, I know people don't forgive easily nowadays but I'd appreciate the chance to return to editing with a focus on collaboration if the chance arises.

Decline reason:

You were found, just last month, to be incompatible with a collaborative website. Just last month. Perhaps you might be unblocked in a few years, when you've explained what steps you've taken to change your approach, but not now and not in the near future. Yamla (talk) 10:28, 29 September 2025 (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.

unblock and explanation on the meaning of "incompatible" along with the differences between tone and intentions

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).

Gymrat16 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Saying I am "incompatible" is an opinionated thing to say not a factual thing. It is an opinion of your own not a fact that is based on your own comfort or discomfort rather than me. You don't know what I am compatible or incompatible for nor do you get to decide my worth. Only I know what I am capable or incapable of doing and only you are the one who knows what you are capable or incapable of and I know that what happened last month was not meant to go the way it did. To me, the term "incompatible" means "you didn’t do it the way we like it and instead made us uncomfortable by challenging us and we are making it about your behavior instead by giving out accusations of "tone" which to me is interesting because you can't even see my facial expressions or hear my actual voice since this is a text-only website.

I understand that some of my messages may have been interpreted in a way that caused concerns but I don’t believe that reflects my intentions or capabilities or defines me as a person or an editor. We are all human who make mistakes or say things the wrong way at times and at the end of the day just want to contribute and someones frustration over one thing I don't think is the end of the world or should define who they are whether it is as editors or as people. There is a major difference between "tone" and "intentions". Intentions are about why you say or do something while tone is how it was interpreted by others by opinions rather than reality which isn't always accurate especially in settings that are text-only and they are unable to actually read the person's emotions from looking at them or hearing them speak verbally. I don't think blunt honesty whether it is verbal or text should lead to permanent exile and cancel culture like mentalities I am not asking for chaos or lawlessness since I understand the need for structure, moderation and policies but what I am asking for is fairness and not just assumptions based on how only people interpret it themselves. I also believe that challenging content or process isn’t the same as undermining collaboration.

If you don't want to take my word for it and accept my apology that is fine but just know I don't owe anything or need to learn anything since I am perfectly capable at collaborating efficiently and respectfully and I did my part already by admitting where I could've went different since while I am not perfect nor would I ever want to be, I have shown willingness to reflect and adapt and think I deserve better treatment if I am going to build up on that path and you're choosing not to accept it by saying it is "too soon" which to me is a vague and a way to keep up the gatekeeping to avoid real conversation. Gymrat16 (talk) 19:14, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

One appeal at a time. Izno (talk) 01:52, 30 September 2025 (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.

(talk page stalker) It sounds like you would like to get back to editing. If that's true, I'll try to help by giving some advice: it's extremely important that you understand the effect your words have. The issue is not your intentions, but rather the effect, which is very different from your stated goal. For example, the 1st sentence of the 2nd paragraph above reads as a non-apology. It gives the impression, whether accurate or not, that you believe you did very little wrong, and that your actions were justified. The community has told you, in no uncertain terms, that your actions were not acceptable, and a non-apology casts doubt on whether you would behave differently.

I also want to point out that nobody has passed any judgement about your worth. Your inherent value or characteristics are not just unknown, but impossible to know on the internet. That's why we don't consider them; what we consider are actions. And your tone is a big one.

To get unblocked, this needs to be adequately addressed. You've said a couple times that you were frustrated, which is why you spoke in a tone that you described as "not the most ideal". Did your frustration drive you to act thus, or did you chose this? If frustration drove you, what is your plan to prevent this in the future? If you chose to speak as you did, what has changed that would induce you to chose differently next time?

I hope this is helpful. If it's not, or if it's unwelcome, feel free to remove this comment in its entirety; I won't post here again if it's unwelcome. EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:48, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

follow up.

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).

Gymrat16 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I do indeed realize the effect words have especially if they are said on platforms that don't exactly display emotions. I never said I didn't do anything wrong too and I believe they were justified but at the same time wasn't the most efficient way to deal with them.Of course, we have all had this happen to us at least once where people let frustration or emotions get the better of them and their judgement but that doesn't make it right in the slightest no doubt about that which is why I am speaking honestly that while it was a natural reaction out of care to make sure wikipedia is the best it can be, it wasn't the most fair way to fix an issue whether it is from me or my fellow editors. So basically, what I said was indeed induced by frustration not an actual choice (since I am usually a pretty cam and chill guy 99% of the time whether it is online or face to face) because I felt like I wasn't being heard or was being gaslit or downplayed or dodged and while that doesn't happen often with me whether it is online or in person, it did here which certainly needs to be re-evaluated to make sure it doesn't occur again or at least not anytime soon such as considering short time outs once in a while until I am in the right state of mind or think about what was done right and what was done wrong and how I can right the wrongs and think harder on other people's perspectives before and try reframing thoughts to focus on positives rather than negatives while at the same time not trying to forget negatives too much and work to learn from them. I am doing what I can to make sure I hold myself accountable by acknowledging the way I said things wasn't the best and I should've thought more about it before posting and what could've been said that would've been better and how it could've been said but also at the same time try to speak out for myself in what led to what happened. I honestly don't even remember what I said specifically since it was deleted from the noticeboard but I certainly know that what I said was in the heat of the moment and after reflecting on it the last 6-7 weeks, I can confidently admit where I went wrong and express desire to want to fix them. It was an honest mistake and I am willing to work to fix them. As I said, I understand if being forgiven isn't ideal given how hard it is to read or interpret intentions or emotions when you can't see or hear them and how easy it is to hold grudges nowadays or the impressions of "non apologies" but at the same time it would be great if my word was taken for and things can be mended because I admitted where I could've been better and I honestly don't know what to say since I believe I have said all I have needed to say. I obviously can't read other people's minds which is why this became an issue to begin with so that is something I certainly need to keep in mind more too if things are to be settled in more peaceful manners and things that we aren't proud of get written out then drama ensues. I just want to make sure everything is as civil as possible, policies to be followed as consistently as possible and to make sure everyone is happy with how things run no matter how big or small the matter is. Out of respect, I will refrain from commenting more on this until I receive responses whether they are positive or negative since I have said all I have felt like I needed to say. Your comments are welcome which is why I am going to wait now until I get that.Gymrat16 (talk) 8:25 pm, 29 September 2025, last Monday (4 days ago) (UTC−4)

Decline reason:

I would recommend meditating a bit further on EducatedRedneck's responses, and appeal for a WP:SO after waiting an appropriate amount of time. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:59, 3 October 2025 (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.

The above is a good start. You've reaffirmed that you want to help build the encyclopedia, and that you admit you did something wrong. You've mentioned multiple times that you feel like your concerns have not been heard or that you were being goalposted or gaslit. I know that's a really frustrating feeling. To get unblocked, we're going to have to come back to that later; if you keep discussing it while asking to be unblocked, you'll be referred to WP:NOTTHEM. We can and should come back to this once we've hit the major points, but dwelling on it now could result in you losing talk page access, which would make it extremely difficult to get unblocked.

Above, you state that you admit your mistakes and are willing to work to fix them. That's good, it establishes your intent. The community still has a problem, though: above you wrote that the way you acted was not a choice. Given that, if the same situation occurs, what would make the outcome any differently? Do you have a plan for how you would avoid such a situation, or if it happens, how you would steer it another direction? The goal here is to help reassure an unblocking administrator that those mistakes won't happen again.

I'd also like you to reflect on Wikipedia's priorities. Consistency, while admirable, is not a core pillar of Wikipedia. Civility is. That's not to say consistency isn't important, but if there are two choices, one where you can be consistent and uncivil, the other where you can be civil but inconsistent, you won't get in any trouble for picking the civil one.

Finally, feel free to reply to this message, but it's better not to use the unblock template to do so. Too many unsuccessful unblock requests can also lead to losing talk page access. It can take quite a few of those for it to happen, so perhaps I'm being paranoid, but I don't want you to be penalized because you're talking to me. EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:41, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't letting me respond directly to your messages and I didn't realize I had the option to click on edit source and do it this way so my apologies if I used the unblock template one too many times. Now I know I can do it this way over that way. Obviously I realize not everything is going to be perfect nor should it but my concern is where in similar situations are treated differently than others. I think it's reasonable to ask for clarity or fairness without expecting perfection and when I felt like I wasn't getting fairly portrayed. I got frustrated when I felt like my concerns weren’t being addressed fairly, and I responded in ways that were too confrontational. Next time, I shall focus more on content over contributions from others, ask neutral parties or mediators or step back for a moment until i am in the right state of mind. Gymrat16 (talk) 15:25, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I already read it what else do you want me to do? I read what he said and I acknowledge it. What else is there to do? They are choosing to hold grudges at this point rather than do the healthy thing and forgive. What else do I have to say or no. This is honestly getting ridiculous because I said as sincerely as I could that I admit where I went wrong and where I can improve and what I could do differently but they're choosing to use their power to their advantage by holding a personal vendetta rather than forgive and interact like normal adults. Gymrat16 (talk) 15:25, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the late reply; somehow this got lost in my watchlist!

I think an important thing to remember is that it's okay to ask for clarity, but you shouldn't ever demand it. WP:SATISFY discusses this in more detail. You should never have to 'stand up for' your viewpoint; the facts speak for themselves, and if it's true, someone else will surely chime in. WP:Wikipedia does not need you discusses this more eloquently than I could.

I'm going to assume that you accept that you, like any other human, have the capacity to be wrong about something that you are thoroughly convinced of. I've been there more times than I care to mention. So keeping that in mind, I want to propose two scenarios for you, and hear your thoughts. In both scenarios, you are completely convinced you are correct, and in both scenarios other editors are arguing against you. In Scenario A, you are indeed correct. In Scenario B, you are mistaken. How can you tell the difference between the two scenarios? Is there a strategy you can employ which would be good (maybe not "the best", but at least good enough) regardless of which scenario you are in?

A main issue that I see is that, when people argued against you when you thought you were correct, you became frustrated and lashed out. Above, you give a good start of a strategy for dealing with that. How will you know when you need to take a step back or get 3rd party involvement? I know when I become angry, I typically don't realize I'm feeling that way until I'm well and truly steamed, and usually said or done something I shouldn't have.

Finally, I'd like to point out that what you've written has some issues. For instance, you wrote, They are choosing to hold grudges at this point rather than do the healthy thing and forgive. and they're choosing to use their power to their advantage by holding a personal vendetta rather than forgive and interact like normal adults. Both of these fail to WP:Assume good faith, which is a behavioral guideline. It also contains WP:Personal attacks, which are prohibited. Do you also see these problems? EducatedRedneck (talk) 21:44, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have done everything I can to try and reason with them but they don't want to cooperate. It is clear they do indeed have a personal vendetta against me but don't want to admit so and save their own faces instead. They told me to acknowledge where I went wrong and what I would've done differently which I DID multiple times after spending days on thinking long and hard about it and even after I do so, they still don't want to accept. And about good faith, everything they've said to me fails to assume good faith as well so it seems a bit hypocritical to keep using that term. And I am confused about what you're trying to ask me about in regards to scenario A and B so I can't answer that for you. Regardless, I have done what I can to try and make amends and they are choosing to not cooperate and instead sweep me under the rug for the vaguest reasons. At that point it shows more about them than me because I am usually a pretty chill guy who is very open-minded and collaborative and I acknowledged where I could've been better and said things I could've done to prevent this from being as big as it was and even after that I still feel overlooked. What is the point of telling someone to do those things if they are going to turn the other cheek and brush it off with the most vague excuses in the book without assuming good faith? (Gymrat16)

Well, you have to do what you have to do, and if you feel like there's nothing more you can do, then I'll stop wasting your time by trying to get you to do something. The feel I get from your above response is that you're certain that you're correct in that you understand what you did wrong, that it was justified if poorly executed, and that you remain blocked because of pettiness. It sounds like nobody else in the community agrees with you, and given that being unblocked hinges on getting people to agree with you, I don't see you getting unblocked while you espouse these views.

It sounds like this whole thing has really gotten under your skin, so I'll give one last piece of advice, then darken your door no more. Suppose that everyone on Wikipedia thinks you're in the wrong, even though you know you're in the right. Fine. Let Wikipedia be wrong; you can just leave Wikipedia to be wrong on its own, while you take your efforts somewhere they're appreciated. I think of it like this: if I go into the Flat Earth Society and tell them the world is round, they'll argue with me, and eventually kick me out, then talk shit like, "Oh, that EducatedRedneck, he's such a dope. He thinks the earth is an oblate spheroid, when we all know it's flat!" Yes, they're unanimous in saying I'm wrong, and yeah, they're being petty jerks about it, but I can just go someplace else and let them keep being wrong. I hope this will lead you to a more fulfilling passtime than Wikipedia has been for you. EducatedRedneck (talk) 23:33, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe we can advocate for wikipedia to be better because I don't want other users to suffer the same treatment I have gotten. I am not saying this just for myself, I am saying this for any user whether it is a current user or future user. No one should have to be treated as poorly as I have and I am here to advocate for positive change and eliminating toxic manipulative bad faith behaviors. People always are outspoken about good faith interactions, inclusion and quality but when they get called out for it, they deflect which to me is the most hypocritical thing one can do. It isn't that this has gotten under my skin, it is the fact that I clearly got under their's since they took it so personally and even after making an effort to do what they suggested, they still want to assume bad faith and don't want to grow up and accept I acknowledged my part and make amends. That shows it is more about your character than it is about mine because i am pretty easy guy to get along with the vast majority of the time. I don't care what happens to me good or bad, it is other users both currently and in the future I am trying to speak out for and make sure they don't get this treatment thrown at them.EducatedRedneck (Gymrat16)

That's technically an option you have, to attempt to advocate, but it won't get you unblocked, and you won't get far advocating on Wikipedia as it will likely have you lose talk page access. As I said above, what you've written so far suggests to admins that you do not understand what you did wrong, are likely to repeat it, and have repeated it during this discussion. You insist you're easy to get along with normally, but the behavior I've seen has not been consistent with that. Maybe something about Wikipedia's text medium is interfering, I don't know. All I know is that your assessment of your behavior, admin motives, etc. is at variance with mine and the community consensus. I'll back off, now, as I feel like I'm not helping you. If you have any questions, feel free to ping me with {{ping|EducatedRedneck}} and be sure to sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~) to make sure the ping goes through. I'll take your page off my watchlist so I won't be tempted to waste more of your time unless you specifically invite me with a ping. I'm sorry I couldn't do more to help you, and wish you the best of luck in whatever your next endeavor is. EducatedRedneck (talk) 02:06, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@EducatedRedneck: Gymrat16's tagged you again below here. Harryhenry1 (talk) 03:11, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, HarryHenry. GymRat, the four tildes are important, not only because it generates a proper signature with timestamp, but also because without them, the pings won't go through. EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:09, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I never said you were wasting my time did I? Gymrat16 (talk) 15:53, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't care what they think because they can't define me or tell me what I am or am not doing. Only I can. And if they revoke talk page then that proves my point even more about their cancel culture narratives proving it deep down isn't about me or what I do, it is them. EducatedRedneck (Gymrat16)

Being told that your behaviour is improper is not "cancel culture". This is a site with rules and standards, and you're not a singular person here, you're part of a community with rules you are expected to follow. Harryhenry1 (talk) 03:13, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see a question there. I concur with HarryHenry, but otherwise am not sure what you want from me. EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:12, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I now I am not dumb and what I am saying is that they told me to reflect on what I did and how I could've been better and after doing so I tried to offer sincere explanations and an apology but even after that they are choosing to ignore it, downplay it, deflect, gatekeep and simply keep drama going when I am simply trying to make amends. Rules absolutely should be expected to be followed as efficiently as possible but questioning certain inconsistencies seems to have struck a nerve in them. They are completely relentless when I try to reason with them and even try to take their advice and reflect on what I could've said differently. I did my part already and nothing has worked in that case. Shows a broken culture this site has. People always mention certain rules about good faith or civility but they go and give bas faith narratives all the time which shows a broken hypocritical culture this site has. Harryhenry1 (Gymrat16)

Taking someone in good faith goes both ways, and you can't get an ideal outcome by decrying everyone else as being hypocrites who are inherently in the wrong. Also, can you PLEASE sign your comments? We can't reply to them properly and you tagging us doesn't work if you don't format it correctly. Harryhenry1 (talk) 04:08, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me this isn't the first time I had been unfairly ganged up on and targeted by multiple users. In August 2023, I was constantly accused of sockpuppetry of some account called Moka Mo who had been indefinitely blocked not long before that and I had told multiple users especially this one user sbaio that I am a very different person than this Moka Mo person. I even gave him my full name and showed a picture of myself on my talk page to prove it but no matter what I did, their flawed opinions still took over simply because the topics I have interest in were similar to ones this Moka Mo user was interested in prior to his or her block. I mean come on look at my pic on my talk page do I look like the kind of person that would have "Moka Mo" as my name? Luckily several months later in March 2024 after frustratingly and unsuccessfully trying to reason with them including him that I had no idea who this Moka Mo person was, I got in touch with an administrator and told him about these false accusations and how frustrated I had been that I was being ignored and he looked into it and believed my story and opted to give me a redemption tour after I explained my innocence on that particular matter and he even told sbaio to stop with the accusations and meritless opinions or conspiracy theories after I tried to myself but labeled it as "harassment" (likely an attempt try and selfishly save face since he immediately removed it form his talk page and labeled it as "annoying" even though he put it on himself) or face potential consequences since the said theory was proven wrong. [4] He did stop luckily (although it was likely because he only did because he was told to by an administrator). Also, the user 1995ho used terms like "yell into the wind" and even saying along with sbaio that I lose access to my talk page only proving my points more that they are simply choosing not to cooperate.[5] It shows how messed up this site is. Multiple users ganging up on relatively new ones and twisting their words more than they were portraying and making conspiracy theories without any evidence like the one I told you about about constantly dealing with accusations of being the same person as a blocked account. I know I am not the only one sbaio has gotten called out for his cruel behavior towards people. These individuals I am sure deep down have good hearts and good intentions but the way they quickly dismiss people when they try to reason with them is a perfect example of why this site is broken and why people are either not wanting to get involved in things like wikipedia or are bring driven away from contributions. My mission is to make sure others don't get the same treatment I have gotten.Harryhenry1 EducatedRedneck (Gymrat16)

(talk page stalker) So, perhaps a little advice as I hoped to give out at ANI. The community needs to feel forgiven. The person you wronged may never feel forgiven, but that's not the issue here. Just as the users above will always have their doubts. The issue here is that the community doesn't typically recognize unblocks until at least 6 months, because they do not feel ready. Even then, there might not be relief. I understand you want to do good on Wikipedia, we all do. Some people just let what they do rule their life and at the end of the day, it's Wikipedia, not Time Magazine. Let the community have their time to think this over and at some point further in the future, you may return. Conyo14 (talk) 04:16, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, read WP:NOTTHEM. Nobody is interested in your previous block (including spreading various lies about me in your message). You have been evading your current block by using various IP addresses and administrators confirmed it. Just stop it and come back in six months as Conyo14 wrote in his post. Or you can continue with WP:WALLOFTEXT and suddenly lose your talk page access. Your choice. – sbaio 04:55, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't lies and clearly you care since you commented. Technically 4 months because it has been 2 months already so try and keep up. And if you keep mentioning talk page access, it will only prove my points even more so thank you for indirectly helping me and proving how flawed this site is. sbaio (Gymrat16)

It's six months with zero edits. You keep on editing this page. --Yamla (talk) 14:40, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In what way would revoking your talk page access somehow prove your point? And why can't you sign your posts? Harryhenry1 (talk) 00:43, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, I'll believe it when I see it because I know how inconsistent you all can be in those kind of matters. And out of curiosity, if that is the norm, then what is the point of even having a talk page then? Because people should be able to at least use them.Yamla (User:Gymrat16)

It proves has a cancel culture kind of mentality by silencing those who speak for themselves and words people say on it are very inconsistent so if that is this "6 month" narrative is the case, I will believe it when I see it. Harryhenry1 Gymrat16 (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2025 (EST)

"6 months" is not a "narrative", it's a specific rule for people who are banned. In what way does it "silence people who speak for themselves"? If someone goes into a big crowd and acts loud and rude and is punished as a result, is that going too far in your eyes? A site having rules is not "cancel culture", you are not being dogpiled or harassed for a bad post you made when you were 15 years old. You were banned for a consistent pattern of behaviour that other users found rude and disrespectful, which you have consistently refused to apologize for. Harryhenry1 (talk) 01:50, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can tell that reading comprehension isn't your strongest suit which shows more about you than it does about me because I DID apologize and I acknowledged where I went wrong and what I could've said or done differently but all of you are choosing to dismiss it and refuse to acknowledge it. Do you understand how frustrating that is? This is exactly what I am referring to. I was told to take a good look at myself in the mirror and reflect and I did once I was in the right headspace, I did and I realized I went too far. Look, I get forgiveness isn't going to occur right away but saying I "refused to apologize" is absolutely FALSE because I did so multiple times and what I should've said or done differently and you're choosing to dodge it or downplay it. And you seemed to have taken my comment to seriously because what I meant by that is that you have certain "rules" but they don't seem to show up consistently which is why I am saying I will believe it when I see it. Gymrat16 (talk) 02:04, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "refused to apologize" claim comes from this, for the record. Harryhenry1 (talk) 02:30, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gymrat16, I understand you're frustrated, but saying things like reading comprehension isn't your strongest suit is not going to endear you to anyone. Please take the advice you've been given and stay away for a while. And continued logged-out editing is only going to get you in more trouble. -- asilvering (talk) 05:19, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like just for that statement I would advocate for TPA revoking. It's literally a personal attack. Conyo14 (talk) 05:58, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that is a "personal attack" than it shows more about you than about me because it wasn't that deep. It was simply an observation since Harry Henry didn't seem like he even bothered reading all this time otherwise that likely wouldn't have been said by him since I HAVE apologized repeatedly and have said and done all I have to show what I have learned and could've handled differently but it keeps getting brushed under the rug by him and multiple others and Conyo advocating for TPA revoking will just prove that point even more that it is more people like him than me if that upsets him that easily. I understand it may not be the most popular observation and I could be wrong I ofc can't actually speak for him nor do I want to since only one knows who one another is or isn't but that is how I honestly feel since I have indeed acknowledged myself and owned my faults and how I can fix them but multiple of you are refusing to cooperate and take my word for it and instead keep pretending I haven't said or done anything. I honestly don't care at this point, I am simply trying to get you to understand that I DID apologize and reflected on my wrongs. That is it at this point. Conyo14 asilvering Gymrat16 (talk) 13:04, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's still a personal attack and bad faith insult to use, and it only hurts your case. I have, in fact, read your comments and I've seen much more confrontational arguments instead of actual apologies or owing up to one's mistakes. Harryhenry1 (talk) 14:04, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well the first thing I did was own up to mistakes and called out what I should've and could've done differently but you all chose to not accept them and instead initiate more confrontational takes by doubling down and turn it into more than it should've been. Not sure why that is so difficult to understand because I did my part to make amends and I am not apologizing again since I did multiple times already. If you don't want to take my word for it then just say so there is no harm in just saying so but don't act like I never did when that was literally the first thing I did and did so with more elaboration than any typical reflection and apology would have. Harryhenry1 (talk)Gymrat16 (talk) 14:54, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The community doesn't accept it, come back in at least 6 months. Conyo14 (talk) 15:00, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you say muchacho, I'll believe it when I see it when that time comes. Conyo14 Gymrat16 (talk) 15:15, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have the socking stuff, to settle. It appears, you've been evading your block. I'm not going to support your block being lifted, if you continue evading it. GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]