User talk:Spongehog

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Spongehog, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! South Nashua (talk) 17:27, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019[edit]

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to XFL (2020) have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Materialscientist (talk) 09:01, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Excaliburd BattleHawk[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Excaliburd BattleHawk requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about something invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally, and 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.

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 "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 deleted 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. Dorama285 (talk) 04:29, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

COVID-19[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions – such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks – on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--RexxS (talk) 22:09, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021[edit]

Hello, I'm Muboshgu. Your recent edit to the page Steven Matz appears to have added premature information about a reported sports transaction, so it has been removed for now. The transaction is based on anonymous sources and/or awaiting an official announcement. If you believe the transaction has been completed, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Steven Matz. Your edits could be interpreted as vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use your sandbox. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:24, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I Love You, You Hate Me moved to draftspace[edit]

An article you recently created, I Love You, You Hate Me, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I really want a bagel

Concern regarding Draft:I Love You, You Hate Me[edit]

Hello, Spongehog. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:I Love You, You Hate Me, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 23:01, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:I Love You, You Hate Me[edit]

Hello, Spongehog. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "I Love You".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:42, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024[edit]

Hello, I'm Jay eyem. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to St. Louis City SC have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Jay eyem (talk) 20:06, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Jay eyem. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Sporting Kansas City–St. Louis City SC rivalry have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Please stop adding the same source that does not reference the phrase "Soccer Capital Derby". It is not in the title, not in the prose, and not in the archived sources. Please find another source for this claim from a reliable source. Continuing to add it back is disruptive. Jay eyem (talk) 02:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. It is in the link you removed, and in the archive I’ve checked it

2. I have another item from bleacher report calling it that, however it’s only on the page talking about the two teams generally in its title for a highlights video from April 20 game. Which is probably not gonna be easy to cite given it’s not in the video title. But that’s the best I got. Spongehog (talk) 02:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

here is the link to what I’m talking about, labels it’s section as “Highlights: Soccer Capital Derby Ends in 3-3 Draw”

[1]https://bleacherreport.com/sporting-kansas-city Spongehog (talk) 02:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The actual link does not say this but the hyperlink on the main page does. Spongehog (talk) 02:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It literally is not in the link. The title says, in its entirety "Sporting KC, St. Louis City bring I-70 rivalry to MLS". This is the case with every single instance in the internet archive. You can ctrl + F for that exact verbiage, it isn't there. I would keep searching. I am familiar with the controversy, but it is not in the references you keep adding. And I agree, that citation from Bleacher Report isn't going to cut it. Jay eyem (talk) 02:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The other hard part is I know this is a term used by both clubs I run one of the Largest St. Louis City SC fan groups online, and this is also a term used by SKC fans, it’s just not exactly easy to cite. Spongehog (talk) 03:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you’d be willing to help me figure out a way to cite it, then I’d be happy to. Spongehog (talk) 02:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may need to wait until it is cited in reliable sources, because at this point in time, it doesn't seem like it is there. Please stop adding it until you have it in reliable sources. Jay eyem (talk) 03:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best way I can argue this is by using sources where both Teams and Cities claim the title of “Soccer Capital of America” which there is plenty of, especially recently as snubs that SKC has made directed at STL. But that’s my best guess Spongehog (talk) 03:09, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We really should be trying to find citations in secondary sources, but that would be a good place to start. I'm sorry if I am coming across as abrasive, I have seen a lot of vandalism on articles related to St. Louis City and want to make sure things look good according to policy. Jay eyem (talk) 03:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough I understand that, newest team in the league and a lot of stuff is still up in the air about it.

plus it is fairly common for people to make those things. Only other issue we’ve been having is the one Bot that keeps false flagging the St. Louis City logo, it’s the same image used on the main article, and several different forms of rivalry pages use the same format with no problems.

I have two potential solutions for this, 1. Figure out a way to have it stop being flagged

2. switch both the logos for the MLS Color logos for their teams Spongehog (talk) 11:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Man that was poorly worded, I meant to say, it’s common for people to vandalize articles of teams especially saying stuff like “owned by (insert name of other team)” Spongehog (talk) 11:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from History of the St. Louis Cardinals (1990–present) into List of St. Louis Cardinals owners and executives. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Gussie Busch into List of St. Louis Cardinals owners and executives. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating the non-free content policy, as you did at Sporting Kansas City–St. Louis City SC rivalry.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. — JJMC89 (T·C) 15:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have provided no valid reason that it does violate thsi. Prove to me where it does. Especially when I can pull multiple examples of the exact same thing from multiple pages. Spongehog (talk) 16:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have provided no valid reason that it does violate this rule. Prove to me where it does. Especially when I can pull multiple examples of the exact same thing from multiple pages.

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).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here Spongehog (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

"Your reason here" does not convince me you understand WP:COPYRIGHT and WP:FAIRUSE. Yamla (talk) 16:21, 23 April 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

Your reason here Spongehog (talk) 16:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I could copy and paste the decline reason above since you seem to have copied and pasted your request reason and your comment below. I agree with Yamla here, and would strongly advise you to take Yamla's hint about what you need to convince us of before we will consider unblocking you. I'll also warn you that low-effort appeals like this are a quick way to lose access to this page too. stwalkerster (talk) 17:07, 23 April 2024 (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.

You have provided no valid reason that it does violate thsi. Prove to me where it does. Especially when I can pull multiple examples of the exact same thing from multiple pages. Spongehog (talk) 16:46, 23 April 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

I believe that the block is unjustified because of four reasons, first the bot I believe is false flagging, because it is only targeting one image, not both, second there are plenty of other examples of the exact same thing being present on Wikipedia and it still being up. For example:Braves–Mets rivalry & El Tráfico ,additionally the wording of the initial removal is too vague, if it was indeed a valid reason it should point to where in the rule it is violated, because I see nothing. Finally, The biggest issue is that an indefinite block is not justified based on all previous examples, I will take a temporary block if I’m in the wrong for this specific reason but I feel indefinite is not valid.

Decline reason:

Putting an end date on the block does nothing in terms of you convincing us you understand the reasons for the block. This request tells me that you do not understand the serious issues that led to this block, so I am declining it. 331dot (talk) 19:33, 23 April 2024 (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.

Tell me you didn’t read the entire thing without telling me you didn’t read the entire thing. I mentioned I will accept the block for the infraction despite the fact that I provided multiple examples of how the exact same style and edit still exists on other wikis, and how the reasoning given to me was super vague and not helpful.

And this is all for reposting on a page about a rivalry, a logo that already exists on Wikipedia under its main page. So give me a logical reason why it’s problematic. I am saying if I’m blocked for this and the other pages I’ve listed and more are not correct, it’s hypocritical. I will not post the image again on the grounds of copyright issues, if the exact issue can be explained. Or all examples similar to what I’m arguing are removed.

Spongehog (talk) 20:12, 23 April 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

I will accept the reason for the block for violation of the non-free content policy. I will however state that the situation was handled very poorly, on multiple peoples ends including myself. I will end this issue, and accept a block, although I do request more transparency with item’s because the reason why I kept posting the content was because I felt the user which was a bot was false flagging which can happen, and it’s reasons were generic and vague. I will accept being in the wrong, but that’s an issue that needs to be fixed.

Decline reason:

Saying that your block is unfair is not a good reason to unblock you. All you had to do was read the relevant policy. Seeing as how we're not making any progress here, I'm revoking your ability to make further requests. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:05, 25 April 2024 (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.

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

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.