User talk:Megacheez

May 2015

Hello, I'm Blackguard SF. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Arizona Diamondbacks without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Blackguard 23:21, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think I made a mistake on that one, sorry. Megacheez 03:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Number sign

I have changed "#" back to "number" in List of National Football League retired numbers. It appears that you have been inserting "#" in place of "number" or "No." in many NFL-related articles. This appears to me to be contrary to MOS:NUMBERSIGN. It may be that there is some sports-specific standard that overrides this general style rule; if so, please let me know. Thank you so much for contributing to Wikipedia in our joint effort to make this online encyclopedia a great place to go for information. Cheers! YBG (talk) 05:32, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@YBG: Is there anyway to mass revert the edits? He's done it on so many pages that reverting all of them manually isn't the best way to handle it. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 06:16, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how one would go about that, though I'm sure there would be a way. YBG (talk) 18:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have also reverted some pages manually, as there have been intermediate edits on some of these pages since then. Zzyzx11 (talk) 10:49, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Zzyzx11: Thanks. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of baseball parks in Cleveland, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page FirstEnergy Stadium. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that. Megacheez 03:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

September 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Rogers Centre, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. See MOS:NUM Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 13:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, though I too have the same concern. Your recent edit to Ricoh Coliseum did not conform to the Manual of Style. Two editors have now cautioned you about the exact same issue. I strongly suggest you take a moment to read the Manual of Style. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 13:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making changes to number styles in violation of MOS:NUM. You are merely making a mess of dozens of pages that other editors will now have to clean up. Please stop. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 04:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 04:43, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited West 3rd (RTA Rapid Transit station), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page FirstEnergy Stadium. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Manual of style

Thank you for doing a lot of grunt editing. Much of it has been helpful -- for example, adding spaces where they are required. But a lot of your edits are violating MOS:NUM, which explains how numbers should be formatted in Wikipedia. Please take the time to read this carefully. Personal taste is different, and so organizations like WP with many contributors adopt stylesheets to preserve a common look. Please, please, please, PLEASE take the time to read and understand our Manual of Style. If you will do this, your contributions to wikipedia will be greatly appreciated by many people. But when you go against our established style guidelines, you are not improving this encyclopedia, you are actually making it worse, and wasting your time and the time of others who have to clean up after you. My personal preferences do not always align with what the MOS says, but I try to follow the MOS in what I edit, and I try to change things only when they are clearly violating the MOS. (And if I really didn't like the MOS, then I would start a discussion someplace to change it.) There are some things where the MOS gives two alternatives -- for example, we are required to use one, two, ... nine, but are allowed to use either 11 or eleven and so forth. In those cases where the MOS allows two alternatives, you would better use your capabilities if you would refrain from changing what other editors have already used unless there is a clear case of making a given article internally consistent -- i.e., in one article with eleven, 12 and ninety-nine, you would change 12 to twelve, but in another article with 11, twelve and 99, you would change twelve to 12.

It is my earnest hope that you would use your energy and talent to help make WP closer to conforming to the MOS, not making it worse.

You have so much to offer WP. Please use your energy and talent to make WP better. YBG (talk) 05:45, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Megacheez. Thank you. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:AN/I discussion was saved in archive 900 at § User:Megacheez. YBG (talk) 04:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for refusal to communicate despite repeated requests; refusal to stop editing despite repeated requests. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Please note to any admin (or anyone else) who comes by here to respond to any potential unblock requests. This block may be lifted at any time by any administrator so long as Megacheez agrees to stop making the rapid MOS-violating edits he's been warned about above, AND agrees to discuss the matter with others. Once he starts communicating, and agrees to stop the problem, this block may be lifted. --Jayron 32 16:12, 24 September 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).

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

Request reason:

I really got carried away, so I will never make anymore disruptive edits, what I intend to do differently is proofread and communicate often. Also, I want to know how the communication thing works. And I apologize for any wrongdoing. Besides, I just launched my account 5 months ago.

Decline reason:

See below. Huon (talk) 22:40, 11 October 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.

Comment: This as good news; as I have said above, I believe that you have much to offer to help us build a great encyclopedia. Please note that the above comment says "AND agrees to discuss the matter with others". To me that means that you will agree to respond (and do so politely) when others initiate discussions on your talk page or on article talk pages. I'll let @Jayron32: chime in case the intent was something different than my interpretation. YBG (talk) 04:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Megacheez, I find the above comment unsatisfactory, as it is far too curt to be useful in helping us understand that you recognize what the problem was. Can you explain, in some detail 1) why you did what you were doing 2) what you intend to do differently going forward and 3) that you recognize and understand the importance of returning communication with others if you wish to continue to work here? The main issue is a total lack of communication on your part, and right now, in all the time you've spent on Wikipedia, we've only got 7 words of communication from you, the 7 above in the unblock request. I'd like to see some further assurances that you're capable and willing to communicate with others and advocate for yourself, both so we can understand you, and so that we know you're willing to take input from others and change if others note problems. --Jayron 32 13:45, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Megacheez has amended their unblock statement so it is now 18 words, after I initially made the above comments, which is 18 more words than they have ever attempted to use at Wikipedia when communicating with other editors. However, the additional 11 words does not adequately solve the problem. A lengthy explanation as I outlined above is what is needed in light of the lack of communication that lead to the block. No thought has been given yet to explaining himself. --Jayron 32 06:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Megacheez: With regard to your statement

"What I did was unknowingly, so I will never make anymore disruptive edits, what I intend to do differently is proofread and communicate often. Also, I want to know how the communication thing works"

here are a few comments:

Starting at the end of your comment, you say you want to understand better how communication on WP works. Ideally, the people who post on your talk page will assume good faith and reach out to you politely. If they do, then respond in the same way. But even if they don't, your best response to them is to rise above it all and assume they have the good faith that they failed to assume you had. Assume the other person is doing their best to make WP a better encyclopedia. So whether someone speaks politely or impolitely, you should respond politely. If you don't think you can respond politely, then take a wikibreak from all editing for a while until you feel you can respond politely.
But what do you say when you do respond? If you understand their point and see their point, tell them so and thank them for helping you. If you don't understand or don't agree with their point, then ask them to please help you understand by explaining more. And don't be slow to look up WP policies. If you don't know what the policies are, then ask. If no one responds to you, then put {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will drop by and help.
With regard to your first statement, you say it was unknowing. I get this for your first big batch of edits, but I'm trying to understand how this can be for the subsequent edits, which occurred after others had already tried to reach out to you by posting on your talk page. I am not doubting that it was unknowing; in fact, I can readily guess two or three different ways in which your subsequent edits would have been unknowing. But it would help me if you would actually tell me in your own words how it was unknowing.

So, in this last bullet, I'm giving you a chance to practice communicating with me. Your answer should follow below, on a new line after my signature. Start with an initial colon (:) to indent your comment, and don't forget to sign your answer with four tildes (~~~~). There are more hints on how to use talk pages at WP:TP. I'm looking forward to hearing from you! Cheers!! YBG (talk) 04:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, YBG how are you?

Megacheez 23:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm fine, and I'm here, though I've been off-wiki for a few days and expect that the next few days will not allow me much wiki time.

(Notice how I've added colons to your signature line to make it correctly formatted. Then each of my lines of response began with two colons to provide additional indenting. Your response to me should consist of one or more lines, each indented with three colons. This is the convention used to carry on discussions on talk pages. If the indents get too unwieldy, one or the other us will include {{outdent}} on a separate line and then begin the stair-step indenting all over again.

I hope this helps to begin to explain how the communication process works on talk pages. YBG (talk) 00:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx!!! Megacheez 02:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, you seem to get the hang of back-and-forth and indenting and so forth (except you really didn't need to {{outdent}} quite so soon; usually it isn't done until the indenting is several levels deep).

I have one comment and one request. The comment is that I would like to discourage you from trying to change your username. My reason is that I'm hoping that your username and edit history can become a wonderful example of how a problematic editor can be engaged and then be transformed into a valuable WP contributor.

The request is with regard to your continued problematic editing after people had tried to communicate with you. I'd still like to understand what was going on in your head and how this was "unknowing" as you have said. For reference, you can refer to the chronology listed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § IncidentArchive900#User:Megacheez. Thanks! YBG (talk) 03:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

YBG, I think I got carried away when I started almost 5 months ago and I apologize for any wrongdoing that I caused. Megacheez 02:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Help me!

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

How do I change my username?

Megacheez 04:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Changing_username. --JustBerry (talk) 04:11, 7 October 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).

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

Request reason:

I really got carried away, so I will never make anymore disruptive edits, what I intend to do differently is proofread and communicate often. Also, I want to know how the communication thing works. And I apologize for any wrongdoing. Besides, I just launched my account 4 1/2 months ago.

Decline reason:

See below. Huon (talk) 22:40, 11 October 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.

.

Megacheez 04:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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

Requested username:

Gogiants83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Decline reason:

Firstly, that account is taken already. Secondly, you have immediately fallen back into your old uncommunicative pattern. You haven't even bothered to address the question YBG raised above, which was explicitly a test case for your new willingness to communicate with other editors. I don't see that unblocking you wouldn't lead to a resumption of the previous issues. Huon (talk) 22:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Megacheez 18:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

I really got carried away, so I will never make anymore disruptive edits, what I intend to do differently is proofread and communicate often. Besides, I just launched my account 4 1/2 months ago. I am really getting used to communicating with you guys and I apologize for any wrongdoing.

Accept reason:

I'm good with that. Please try to respond to people's concerns more promptly in the future. We appreciate your desire to help out around here, and I wish you well from now on. Jayron 32 15:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits

Thank you so much for your patience with WP while you were blocked, and your willingness to jump right in and start editing constructively. It is much appreciated.

I have two relatively minor comments:

I added {{cn}} to your addition to the Oakland Athletics article.
I think it is great to add information based on your personal knowledge even without a reference -- especially if it is well-known by people familiar with the subject. With or without the {{cn}}, unreferenced material is subject to being deleted. But if you are careful to always add the {{cn}}, you are acknowledging the fact that a reference is needed. This notifies other editors, making it more likely that someone will add a reference.
I notice that in several places (e.g., American Airlines Center, Toyota Center, Seattle Mariners Hall of Fame, Anaheim GardenWalk, AT&T Stadium), you have changed an article from saying something like "event-E is scheduled for date-D" to something like "event-E happened on date-D" when the date has passed.
Please only do this when you have personal knowledge that the event occurred or you have verified it in a reliable source. (In this latter case, why not add the reference?) Otherwise it might be better to simply change it from "is scheduled for" to "was scheduled for" without actually saying tat it occurred. I say this because of a personal experience I had several decades ago -- I wrote an article about an event scheduled to occur after the paper was put to bed but before it was scheduled to appear. Well, what do you know, the event got cancelled -- and I was very, very embarrassed.

Just some friendly suggestions for you to take into consideration as you continue editing. Thank you for showing that Jayron32 made a good decision! Happy editing! YBG (talk) 03:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that. Megacheez 03:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

One more thing: It might be good to go up and delete your {{retired}} above. I'd do it myself, but it is generally considered bad form to edit someone else's comments on talk pages. But the template page says that if you resume editing (1) you should promptly remove it but (2) any other editor can also remove it. YBG (talk) 03:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx, YBG

Megacheez 03:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I just discovered another option for {{dated info}}. You can even put this in articles ahead of time with the appropriate date on which it should become effective. YBG (talk) 05:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That would be interesting. Megacheez 23:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Uploading Pics

How do I upload pics? Megacheez 04:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I've never done this, but it looks like there are instructions over at Help:Files. YBG (talk) 06:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TCF Bank Stadium

I reverted your edits after I saw your note on Materialscientist's talk page. Go ahead and restore your information one piece at a time. Mind you, it's a GA, so edits need to be well verified and of good quality. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 05:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank u so much, Drmies!!! Megacheez 05:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Minnesota Golden Gophers football, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fullback. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Megacheez 01:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Sortable tables

I notice that you are frequently updating tables in sports articles. Is there a reason you often remove the "sortable" attribute from tables?[1] It seems like a useful feature to leave enabled, so I am curious what is your rationale. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 06:28, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep that in mind. Megacheez 06:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 1966 NFL expansion draft, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Flanker. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wnat is Dab Solver? Megacheez 00:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

'Dab' means disambiguation. Dab Solver is a tool that allows editors to easily fix inappropriate links to disambiguation pages. Follow the link and you'll discover what it is. Look around the tool and you'll find the directions. But as with all automated tools, one should be very careful with the dab solver. YBG (talk) 01:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited National Football League 75th Anniversary All-Time Team, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Safety (American football). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:40, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Carolina Panthers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tackle. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Megacheez 00:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Reversion of changes to Washington Redskins name controversy

Since this is a non-technical article, I have restored the use of the word "percent" in accordance with the Wikipedia Manual of Style guideline for numbers. WriterArtistDC (talk) 05:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Megacheez 03:20, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Date format

Can your revert your recent changes to year ranges in NBA articles e.g. your Los Angeles Lakers changes? You might not have been aware, but MOS:DATERANGE states: "A date range may appear in 2005–2010 format if it is a range of sports seasons." This is the format used by WP:NBA. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 02:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're Welcome Megacheez (talk) 02:56, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uploading Photos

How do I upload a photo? Megacheez (talk) 21:58, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AT&T Stadium

I see you thanked me for this edit. However, I want to clarify that I reverted it back to your version as that commentary was intended for a different article. No worries about this "thank you", but just wanted to clarify it. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx alot!

Megacheez (talk) 04:10, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Talking Stick Resort Arena, 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. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:17, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Wrigley Field. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:25, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do you cite reliable sources? Megacheez (talk) 21:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017

Hello, I'm MB. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Market Square Arena, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. MB 01:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

concerts section at Tampa Stadium

I started a conversation about the concert section at talk:Tampa Stadium, but I forgot to ping you so I guess you didn't see it. I don't think the table of concerts is a good addition. With rare exceptions (like the famous and infamous pair of Led Zeppelin shows, for example), concerts are not particularly notable events at a stadium, but the table you've created is already taking up a disproportionally huge part of the article. And it's going to be very difficult to make the list complete, with good sources. I grew up within a mile of Tampa Stadium and I can tell you that you're still missing some concerts, but I don't know the exact dates and attendance, etc. You haven't cited sources for most of the info you've included, so I have no idea if the facts are accurate or not.

Anyway, I know you've put a lot of work into that table, but to be honest, I think the original text that listed some of the most prominent shows and performers in paragraph form is better. Zeng8r (talk) 14:14, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ADDENDUM: Looking over your talk page, I see that you've been making the same sorts of additions to many venue articles. Please look over WP:RELIABLE for details on how to identify and cite sources. Zeng8r (talk) 14:16, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are very many concert tour pages that do not exist. Megacheez (talk) 01:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't have anything to do with adding huge concert tables to many sports venue articles across Wikipedia. Again, I appreciate that you're trying to help, but I don't think your additions are a good idea. As I've said and others have said, there are two big problems with these tables: 1) They have little or no citations. (See WP:CITE for guidelines) and 2) At least on Tampa Stadium, the table takes up an enormous amount of space in proportion to its importance. (See WP:UNDUE for guidelines.)

If these problems are not fixed, the table at Tampa Stadium is going to have to be removed, and possibly on other articles as well. Zeng8r (talk) 14:00, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Houston Astros retired numbers

A discussion point was raised at Talk:Houston Astros#Retired numbers regarding the images of retired numbers, which seem to impart no information over and above a simple text table and appear to be purely decorative. Though I intended to replace the images with a table, I waited two months to see if there were any objections, but as no objections were forthcoming, I went ahead and made the edit. Then today you reverted that edit, saying "Leave the retired numbers alone". Did you not see the talk page discussion and do you have a better rationale for keeping those images other than "leave them alone"? Thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 19:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why do that? Megacheez (talk) 01:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why do what? --Jameboy (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why replace the images with a table? Megacheez (talk) 02:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The images are purely decorative and don't convey any information that cannot be represented in a table. The text in the table is searchable and the columns can be made sortable. Images have their place in articles for sure, e.g. to show what a person or thing looks like, or to help visualise information better (icons etc.) but I just don't see that here. --Jameboy (talk) 15:44, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Concert sections

Please make sure you read WP:UNDUE and WP:FANCRUFT. Many of the concert sections you have been adding violate both of these. An article on an arena or stadium is about the facility, not the details of every event that has ever occurred in the facility. The concerts section should largely be prose and mention some of the most prominent concerts that have been held there and when. Attendance and revenue for the facility can be mentioned if they are significant or otherwise unusual. The concerts section you added as Chesapeake Energy Arena, for instance, accounted for almost half the entire article. I would highly recommend holding off on adding these kinds of tables to arena and stadium articles because they're more than likely to be removed eventually, if not right away. Again, making mention of several concerts is certainly appropriate and welcome; details about them, however, are not. --JonRidinger (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They all need seperate pages. Megacheez (talk) 21:13, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even so, that doesn't mean the section in the article for the arena should have all the details. We certainly don't include the game stats for every NBA or NHL game at an arena (even though those are often a major American arena's primary tenant or tenants), so why should we include all the statistics for every concert? --JonRidinger (talk) 00:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of entertainment events at the BMO Harris Bradley Center for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of entertainment events at the BMO Harris Bradley Center 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/List of entertainment events at the BMO Harris Bradley Center 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. Chetsford (talk) 04:53, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of entertainment events at FedExForum for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of entertainment events at FedExForum 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/List of entertainment events at FedExForum 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. Chetsford (talk) 04:53, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of entertainment events at Bankers Life Fieldhouse for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of entertainment events at Bankers Life Fieldhouse 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/List of entertainment events at Bankers Life Fieldhouse 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. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:19, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NHL team articles

Will you PLEASE address the concerns raised at WP:HOCKEY, concerning your bold changes to sections of NHL team articles. GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just reorganizing in order to make way for future Hockey Hall of Fame inductees. Megacheez (talk) 22:17, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Go to the discussion at WP:HOCKEY. GoodDay (talk) 22:19, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rod Thorn / HOF

If you're keen to update NBA team articles with 2018 inductees such as Rod Thorn, you might wish to also update the personal articles as well. The content you're adding to team articles seems uncited in both contexts. UW Dawgs (talk) 15:50, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rod Thorn was just announced as one of this year's inductees as a contributor. Megacheez (talk) 16:34, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Color in table headers

I see you adding a lot of color to table headers, e.g. List of Milwaukee Brewers managers. I'm curious as to what value you think this adds. In this case the dark blue obscures the black sort icons, so for clarity I think it would be better just to use the default light gray table header. Would be interested to know your thoughts. --Jameboy (talk) 09:43, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, this is a genuine enquiry and not a criticism of your editing! You obviously do a lot of good work on here. I don't do much with color or tables so I'm not overly familiar with the standards but am trying to learn (or re-learn). My one and only Featured List was promoted 10 years ago so I'm probably a bit rusty and I appreciate things may have moved on since then. Cheers. --Jameboy (talk) 10:11, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that. Megacheez (talk) 02:29, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, as you did at Ron Fowler, you may be blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Specifically, MOS:PERCENT discourages use of "%" in non-technical articles. —Bagumba (talk) 06:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wont happen again Megacheez (talk) 01:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NBA Basketball Hall of Famers

Please stop adding people to wrong columns in the Basketball Hall of Famers' tables. For example:

If a person was inducted as a player and played for the team then add him to the "Players" column.
If a person was inducted as a coach and coached the team then add him to the "Coaches" column.
If a person was inducted as a contributor then add him to the "Contributors" column.

Adding people to wrong columns just confuses the reader and just makes a mess when there are people in columns where they do not belong. I reverted your additions at Brooklyn Nets and New York Knicks and I hope you will do the rest. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:53, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update: no help is needed as I have reworked all the tables myself. – Sabbatino (talk) 16:15, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sabbatino: I only added the Inductees on the day that they have been announced. Megacheez (talk) 22:36, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2019

Please do not use styles that are unusual, inappropriate or difficult to understand in articles, as you did in University of Nebraska Omaha. There is a Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Please read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations. Scrolling through your most recent 500 edits shows that a large number of your edits appear to be minor edits which abbreviate terms and phrases that should not be abbreviated. This doesn't seem to be the first time you've been warned for Manual of Style related issues. Thank you. Vanilla Wizard 💙 04:10, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020 (mass-replacing spelled-out numbers with numerals)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. This is just a heads up that numbers expressed as one or two words don’t need correcting to numerals, per WP:MOSNUM. It looks like you’ve been getting periodic messages about MOS-related problems for almost as long as you’ve been a registered editor, so I’m wondering if you have unresolved questions about this. Thanks. Larry Hockett (Talk) 21:21, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you're still going through MANY articles replacing spell-out numbers with numerals against MOS:NUMERAL. You also have not replied to the same concern expressed above over two months ago. (See what I did there?) I don't want to start mass-reversions over minor issues because I'm pretty sure you're trying to be helpful, but you really need to pay attention to this sort of stuff when editing! Other people keep having to fix your mistakes, and you keep making them even after multiple polite editors have pointed them out... Zeng8r (talk) 20:47, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Youre Welcome Megacheez (talk) 20:53, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020

Ok, now I'm not 100 percent sure that you're sincere about this. I hadn't looked at your contributions before posting my comment a few minutes ago, but now I see that you've done this same thing on well over 1000 ARTICLES since @Larry Hockett: informed you that it was against MOS. This is... not good, and I'm thinking that perhaps some admin involvement is required.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make disruptive edits to Wikipedia contrary to the Manual of Style. I'm going to leave this here for documentation purposes. Please see above for context. Zeng8r (talk) 21:01, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Cleveland Browns. Only a small portion of your edit was supported by the sources cited. Please stop your disruptive editing. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Chrysler Building, you may be blocked from editing. David J Johnson (talk) 10:40, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Style edits

Just to be clear, I very much appreciate the effort you put into you style edits - time and time again you come up on my watchlist adding conversions. The reverts I've done on the BART stations are solely because of the whitespace issue and not a reflection of the overall high quality of your edits. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:10, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Megacheez (talk) 02:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Klohinx^talk 06:39, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020

You have been blocked from editing. The reason for this is that you are still persisting in making edits (changing text to numbers) in violation of WP:MOSNUM despite many, many, warnings about it which can be seen on this talkpage. You may be unblocked if you promise to stop doing this, although any admin may note that you have already previously said you would follow the rules, and you haven't. You will need to explain that you understand why you have been blocked and what you will do differently in the future.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Black Kite (talk) 10:30, 6 July 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

I really got carried away again, so I will never make anymore disruptive edits, I will no longer change texts to numbers and I will keep them as is. I would also apologize for any wrongdoing.

Decline reason:

This is a repeat of what you said in October 2015. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:13, 7 July 2020 (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.

Megacheez (talk) 21:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been asked many times to stop. At one point, you were asked to stop and you said "You're welcome" to the person who pointed out what you were doing wrong. How come you didn't stop when you were asked to stop in January or March? only (talk) 22:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IDK, I promise it will never happen again. Megacheez (talk) 22:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of changes will you make going forward, aside from not changing the numbers? How will you be a better editor if you are unblocked? Please give specifics. only (talk) 23:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will continue to add sources (e.g. videos, news articles from various sites) if necessary, contribute in talk pages, and proofread. Megacheez (talk) 00:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite: if my block is indefinite does this mean I'm blocked until further notice?

Megacheez (talk) 22:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can refer to WP:INDEF.—Bagumba (talk) 04:49, 9 July 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

I've read and understood the policies of editing, and I learned how to convert units and I want to learn more about editing, recently I posted a fact about the 1986 World Series.

Decline reason:

Yes. You learnt this back in 2015. Yamla (talk) 12:34, 30 August 2020 (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.

@Yamla: Is an indefinite block considered permanent or temporary? Megacheez (talk) 16:07, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neither. It's indefinite. It will be lifted manually, once you've convinced us the block is no longer necessary. --Yamla (talk) 16:52, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yamla: Could it be lifted if I took no action? Megacheez (talk) 17:00, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Practically, no. The block will not automatically expire. It's unclear to me why this is confusing to you. --Yamla (talk) 17:10, 30 August 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am willing and able to contribute positively to this community like I did 5 years ago. I rearranged the retired numbers and Roy Halladay's #34 was to be retired on May 29, 2020 but was postponed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Megacheez (talk) 02:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. 331dot (talk) 08:57, 4 September 2020 (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).

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

Request reason:

I am willing and able to contribute positively to this community like I did 5 years ago. I understood what I was blocked for and I want to put it all behind me. Since I was blocked, I've suggested a few new articles on my talkpage and I plan to do so in the future. Also, I will only make sporadic contributions. Above this is my proposed edit that will improve Wikipedia. Megacheez (talk) 23:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:51, 16 October 2020 (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.

@Rosguill: Procedural Decline? What does that mean? Megacheez (talk) 17:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Megacheez, I explained it above already. The request was opened for two weeks, no admin accepted it in that time, so it gets closed as stale and you can re-open a new request. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:53, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2020

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

I am willing and able to contribute positively to this community like I did 5+ years ago. The first time I was blocked, I had a bit of a misunderstanding and got carried away. The second time, not so much. I understood what I was blocked for and I want to put it all behind me. Since I was blocked, I've suggested a few new articles on my talkpage and I plan to do so in the future. Also, I will only make sporadic contributions. If this unblock is approved, i'll do anything to make this community great again. If rejected, i'll just move on. Thank you for giving me the opportunity in being a part of this WikiCommunity.

Accept reason:

accepting this request, but Megacheez, please realize that another indef is likely to be considered by many admins as intended to be permanent. —valereee (talk) 17:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. I have asked at the admin noticeboard if anyone would like to evaluate your unblock request. --Meters (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to Head Coaches sections

Hi, I noticed that you were re-ordering head coaches sections for a variety of soccer teams such as Flint City Bucks such that the entire history for a coach was under a single entry. These are usually listed out multiple times to indicate when a coach has had multiple stints at a club e.g. Jupp Heynckes at FC Bayern Munich#Coaches since 1963. While many of the pages you edited aren't as detailed as Bayern Munich, the prinicple remains the same. Unless you have a reason for making these changes, I would ask that you stop or bring this up at WT:FOOTY. Jay eyem (talk) 15:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hall of Fame

I've seen your edits about not needing to wait for the actual ceremony. The problem is a technicality. A lot of those tables say "Inducted", which is past tense and means its been formalized. If it said "Elected", there would not be a problem with adding the class of 2021 right now. I'd suggest just changing to "Elected" to eliminate the technicality. Then we also dont need to worry about the 2020 class actually being inducted in 2021.—Bagumba (talk) 02:25, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Another option: I'm not even sure the specific year they were elected is all that relevant to team pages. Maybe just remove it altogether.—Bagumba (talk) 02:33, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bagumba: Like Pro Football and Baseball Hall of Fames respectively? Megacheez (talk) 02:55, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see that New York Yankees#Hall of Famers just list names. In any event, I was just giving you background as to why people waited when it says "Inducted", and giving you options if you wanted to not wait but avoid posting conflicting information. I'm ok either way as long as there are no contradictions.—Bagumba (talk) 03:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Major League Baseball players to hit for the cycle

Hi — with the formatting change recently made here to List of Major League Baseball players to hit for the cycle, the "Active dates" column now wraps (at least on my browser), which makes it difficult to read. I'd really like to keep the "Active dates" column from wrapping; I may be able to do that with just a well-placed use of Template:Nowrap. Or let me know if that doesn't seem right? Thanks. Dmoore5556 (talk) 04:52, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem Megacheez (talk) 04:54, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

August 2021

This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Worlds of Fun, 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. In this case, removing "width" parameters in tables and describing the changes as "updated" in the edit summaries is misleading and disruptive, especially when done across dozens of articles at once. Please do not do that. Thank you. GoneIn60 (talk) 01:46, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Got it Megacheez (talk) 01:51, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

After further review, some of the changes were in fact helpful, and I appreciate it. I didn't revert all the ones I came across. Perhaps moving forward, simply use a different editing summary, such as "Modified chart parameters" or "Chart sizing" or something along those lines. Thanks! --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:08, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Place of birth

Hello. I'm wondering why you're removing birthplaces from all those MLB player articles? ♟♙ (talk) 22:18, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They are all contained in the infobox. Megacheez (talk) 00:16, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, please add a more specific comment summary when you delete info like that, otherwise it will look more like vandalism. ♟♙ (talk) 17:41, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removing these is the right thing to do, but it doesn't matter whether the place of birth is mentioned in the infobox (in some cases, there may not even be an infobox). MOS:BIRTHPLACE would be a more helpful edit summary, as it links to the actual rationale for removing birthplace from the brackets in the opening sentence. Larry Hockett (Talk) 18:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retired numbers vs. retired jerseys for college basketball

If an infobox notes “No. X retired by …” it means the number is retired and can’t be worn by another player. If it says “No. X jersey retired by _” it means the number is hung in the arena but still useable by players for that program. Please stop removing the word “jersey.” I am going to revert these edits now. Rikster2 (talk) 14:56, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Got it Megacheez (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Medal tables on ice hockey biographies

Hello, I have noticed you making a large number of changes to move the medal tables on ice hockey biographies from the "International play" subhead to the infobox, including on Shayne Gostisbehere. This is actually contrary to what is said both at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Player pages format, which includes the medal table within an "international play" section, and at Template:Infobox ice hockey biography, which explicitly states that the medal templates should only be included in the infobox if there is no international play or awards section. Please be aware of this policy going forward. Additionally, I would recommend that you begin undoing many of these edits yourself, as making large numbers of changes against our manual of style and other policies makes it difficult for others to clean up the encyclopedia. — Ghost River 20:58, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is more convenient that way. Megacheez (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is your personal belief. The Manual of Style of the encyclopedia disagrees with your personal belief. I have my own qualms with certain aspects of our MOS, but it is followed to ensure consistency. I see you have been warned about not following our style before. I am trying to help you. Additionally, please indent your replies to talk page comments to make them easier to follow. — Ghost River 21:05, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to ask you to stop adjusting the teams in the infoboxes for relocated teams: keep them listed separately, and not with a dash between them. This has been the standard set out, and if you want to discuss changing it you're welcome to, but don't unilaterally go around changing things beforehand. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:24, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaiser matias: Thanks Megacheez (talk) 05:25, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond which ... look. You have a long history of not troubling to communicate with other editors. You've had TWO indefs, following ANI complaints, for the same thing. You need to stop, right the hell now, this practice of your edits being reverted, and then going right back and reinstituting your own edit without seeking consensus on the talk page first. If what you're after is to convince some editors that your contributions aren't worth the trouble of going around the post over and over again with you on this front, you're well on your way to that goal. Enough is enough, and the next ANI complaint will be the last. Ravenswing 08:58, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I shall resist. I'll just proofread and come up with suggestion. Megacheez (talk) 16:17, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravenswing: How do I communicate with other editors? Megacheez (talk) 16:19, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 2022

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. MarnetteD|Talk 05:59, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You know what the policy is regarding the HoF. Until you change the policy through through a WP:RFC you should not add it to any pages. MarnetteD|Talk 05:59, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MarnetteD: I do want to apologize about that. Megacheez (talk) 06:28, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is okay. I understand your enthusiasm. The thing to remember is that if you went to the HoF in Springfield today none of them will have a bust or plaque in the building. Also be aware there is a slight chance that one of them might do something that would cause their induction to be halted - hopefully not! Just keep your info on the inductees somewhere and then you can add it on September 10th :-) Enjoy your Sunday. MarnetteD|Talk 06:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Kauffman Stadium, you may be blocked from editing. Stop adding random unsourced numbers to the concert sections of stadium articles. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:37, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677: The numbers came from another article. Megacheez (talk) 17:27, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmard Hall

With this edit at Ahmard Hall, you changed the link in the infobox--pointing to "Angleton High School"--from Angleton High School to Angleton. Your edit summary said, "Updated the infobox on this page". How did this "update" improve the article? Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:45, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnolia677: I forgot to add the location to this high school. Megacheez (talk) 17:24, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Megacheez reported by Magnolia677. Thank you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:09, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please join the discussion and wait for it to come to a conclusion before making further mass additions of statements without citations. Your contributions seem to be incompatible with the verifiability policy; the burden is on you to provide citations to show that this is not the case. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:17, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely Megacheez (talk) 14:28, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: I forgot to add the location of the High school to the Ahmard Hall infobox. Also, I forgot to add the sources to any concerts sections of any stadium. Megacheez (talk) 19:14, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(fixed the indentation) This does not answer the request for citations. I had asked for the sources you have used for one specific contribution. The discussion in which I did so can be found here: [2]. This is a permanent link to the noticeboard discussion. You can't reply there as you have been blocked from editing, but you can still provide an answer to the question in response to my message here. From my point of view, this would be a requirement for even starting to consider an unblock at all. If you are currently not interested in contributing to Wikipedia, that's perfectly fine. There is no time limit for requesting an unblock, so please don't request an unblock if you are currently not interested in being a part of the community. Take your time. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:22, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: What citations specifically? Megacheez (talk) 22:51, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Follow the link to ANI that ToBeFree provided. Read the thread at ANI, and answer the question ToBeFree asked there. Meters (talk) 22:58, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

^ this. I have to admit I'm not really expecting a satisfactory answer at this point anymore. Wikipedia may not be an ideal wiki project for you due to its encyclopedic focus on verifiability, its rather strict policies and all the complex discussions behind the scenes. You may have a more pleasant experience with editing fandom.com wikis instead. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:18, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fandom.com is not my cup of tea. Fandom only focuses on pop culture stuff. Megacheez (talk) 23:59, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Me either. Megacheez, it appears that you either cannot follow the instructions, or will not. In the first case it's WP:CIR, and in the other it's WP:TROLLING. Either way you should stop wasting our time. Meters (talk) 02:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 2022

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:

I have totally given up on this community. I have decided to leave this community effecitve immediately. My advice to myself "Always learn from my mistakes." Thank you for giving me the opportunity for being part of this community.Your reason here ~~~~}}

. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:40, 30 July 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have totally given up on this community. I have decided to leave this community effecitve immediately. My advice to myself "Always learn from my mistakes." Thank you for giving me the opportunity for being part of this community. Megacheez (talk) 15:15, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is not an unblock request. Yamla (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

The first time I was blocked several years ago, I had a bit of a misunderstanding and got carried away. The second time, not so much. The third time, I have completely given up. I have failed this community in so many ways such as forgetting to add reliable sources, forgetting to add specific details in an infobox, etc. I don’t know what more I can do. Thank u for giving me the opportunity in being part of this community.

Decline reason:

Please describe concisely and clearly how your edits merited a block, what you would do differently, and what constructive edits you would make. Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:02, 31 July 2022 (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.

PS-- I have found that the reply buttons do not work with block templates.Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:02, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reply button

I tried to reply to one of the topics but I keep getting an error message. Is there anyway you guys can do to fix this? Megacheez (talk) 15:23, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with hand-crafting your reply indentation by sticking a colon (:) in front of it. As for the exact error, it points to some wikitext formatting on the page breaking the rather delicate reply script; I'll look to see what's misbehaving, though I am not a MediaWiki developer. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 17:18, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem stems from a lint error, according to URL params, but the exact one causing the fault isn't clear. Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 17:23, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's impossible! Megacheez (talk) 17:26, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TheDragonFire300, this is surely a helpful find for improving the templates that cause the problem, such as (probably) {{unblock}}. I'm not sure of which use the technical background information could be to Megacheez, though, so the discussion is probably best held at template talk pages instead. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022

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).

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

Request reason:

The first time I was blocked several years ago, I had a bit of a misunderstanding and got carried away. The second time, not so much. The third time, I have failed this community in so many ways that I had slipped back into my old editing habits. Going forward, I am going to leave most of the editing such as uploading images and creating new pages to the WikiExperts. But I will continue to make suggestions to other talk pages like I should be doing so this doesn't happen again. Thank you for the opportunity.

Decline reason:

You have already had a second chance - refer to User_talk:Megacheez#November_2020. Even if that was ignored - and I am not sure it will - I doubt you will be unblocked to post solely on article talk pages. I am declining your request. PhilKnight (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2022 (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.

Megacheez (talk) 17:38, 20 August 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

I have failed this community in so many ways that I had slipped back into my old editing habits. Going forward, I am going to leave most of the editing such as uploading images and creating new pages to the WikiExperts. Btw, I would never commit any vandalism to this community. I am not a bad editor, I just lost my way. Based on a post on the Administrators' Incident Noticeboard, I should provide citations for my contributions to prove that I am a good editor. Thank you. Megacheez (talk) 01:01, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The standard offer suggests that you go six months without any sock puppetry or block evasion to be given a second chance. However, you already got a second chance in Special:Diff/998278700. For a third chance, you need to prove that you can be a constructive and competent editor on another Wikimedia project. Take those six months and build up a superstar reputation on Simple English Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons, Wikidata, Wikiversity, Wikibooks, or something other WMF wiki. You're only blocked on English Wikipedia. Each of these projects is run independently, and your blocks on one project don't affect the others. If you have questions about how Wikimedia wikis work, try asking on Meta:. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:57, 21 August 2022 (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.

@NinjaRobotPirate: I appreciate your standard offer suggestion. Megacheez (talk) 16:00, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the update. I am trying to get an official wiki page. Maybe you can help. Charles Stackhouse (talk) 14:28, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Stackhouse What wikipage?

Megacheez (talk) 22:03, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]