User talk:Eman52

Welcome to my Talk Page! Please note that I will delete all entries 1 month after the last message. Thanks!

A tag has been placed on Chris Penso requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. reddogsix (talk) 04:35, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Chris Penso requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. reddogsix (talk) 04:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Danny Ward (footballer, born 1993) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Sammanhumagain (talk) 16:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Danny Ward (footballer, born 1993) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny Ward (footballer, born 1993) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Sammanhumagain (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Danny Ward (footballer, born 1993) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Sammanhumagain (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Danny Ward (footballer, born 1993) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny Ward (footballer, born 1993) (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. JMHamo (talk) 23:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for a period of indefinite for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Eman52. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Mike V • Talk 18:35, 18 February 2015 (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).

Eman52 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

First off, I would like to say that I am disappointed that after all this positive work I have done to try to contribute, I am banned from Wikipedia due to circumstantial evidence involving sock puppetry. Second, I live in an building with over 50 apartments in Boston and the IP address is shared, so it is possible that it is unrelated to me. Third, I want to emphatically point out all the positive contributions I have made so far. So, in conclusion, I understand that the evidence is stacked against me and you want to be as cautionary as possible, but I would really appreciate if you would trust my intentions and either give me a second chance opportunity or a reduced ban. Thanks, Eman52 (talk) 19:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Just to clarify some terminology: you are blocked, not banned. At any rate, CheckUser evidence doesn't support the shared IP theory you offer. What it does show, on the other hand, is clear evidence of the abuse of multiple accounts. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:03, 18 February 2015 (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.

Overlapping edits are actually a strong sign one isn't sockpuppeting. And Checkuser results that come back Confirmed are generally not overturned. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:41, 18 February 2015 (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).

Eman52 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I feel that at this point I am ready to rejoin Wikipedia. I am remorseful for my actions and promise that if you just give me a second chance or a reduced ban, I will not let you down. Thanks for reviewing this, and I would like to once again apologize for my sock puppetry. It was immature and not all in line with the goal of creating an encyclopedia that anyone can get constructive facts from. Eman52 (talk) 22:46, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You'll need to do better. In reviewing the edits of your socks, there appears to be racist trolling, legal threats, and a pattern of deceptive denials. I have no idea why I would trust you without some narrative on what you were thinking previously and where you'll go from here. Kuru (talk) 00:44, 9 March 2015 (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).

Eman52 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

First, I'm pretty sure that there was not ANY racism on any of my trolls. Yes, I acted like an idiot, but I am deeply hurt to hear that racism was being gathered from my edits. My edits were intended just as a laugh for me and my friends, usually posting criticisms on pages of either Yankees related articles or Republican related articles. I guess I did it the first time because at the time I thought that it would be funny. Well, it wasn't at all funny and actually denigrated the encyclopedia, and I am deeply sorry. I think the legal threat was just a joke at the time (I hardly remember it). Thinking back, I guess was trying to see how far I could push the envelope because I, in my arrogance, thought that I could outsmart Wikipedia editors one way or another. If you unblock me, I will continue to work on a personal project I call PROJECT REFEREE. The point of this project is to create and maintain pages for MLS referees. Eman52 (talk) 01:10, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Considering the number of socks involved, I have no belief that you won't end up having "fun" again. Please see WP:OFFER, and try again in a while. Bjelleklang - talk 21:49, 9 March 2015 (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).

Eman52 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

It has been 6 months since my block and due to the fact that I have recognized my severe wrong in sock puppetry vandalism and not created any extreme reasons to not receive an unblock I think that per WP:OFFER I'm ready to come back to Wikipedia. NOTE: If you would rather do this by email that is fine too. Thanks, Eman52 (talk) 21:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Checkuser evidence shows that you are still creating and using multiple accounts. Mike V • Talk 21:35, 19 August 2015 (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.

Hello, Eman52. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "The Amazing Race 26".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at WP:REFUND/G13. An administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 22:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PhilKnight: I was wondering if you would be willing to handle a standard offer for me. I've had six months to think about what I've done and I feel that I am ready to put away the past and become a productive wiki editor. I now see how wrong all the sock puppet accounts that I made were and I swear not to use any again. Thanks for your time, Eman52 (talk) 15:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If checkuser evidence shows that you are still using multiple accounts, then your appeal isn't going to succeed. PhilKnight (talk) 21:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Jose Carlos Rivero has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back. Thank you,

While all constructive 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. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Juan Guzman (referee) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back. Thank you,

While all constructive 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. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Chris Penso has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back. Thank you,

While all constructive 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. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Armando Villarreal has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement (see also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Notability#Referee_notability). If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back. Thank you,

While all constructive 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. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jose Carlos Rivero is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jose Carlos Rivero until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Armando Villarreal is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armando Villarreal until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Baldomero Toledo has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Hasn't been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources, failing WP:GNG. Also fails WP:NSPORTS - article subject hasn't played or managed in a fully professional league

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Hack (talk) 17:55, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]