User talk:Mimzy1990

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).

Mimzy1990 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

please give me a chance, i am learning. i am sorry about the sockpuppet incident. please forgive me. i want to be a helpful member of the community - just let me be. :)

Decline reason:

You let us be. After reviewing the other talk pages, I see that you have abused the language of contrition and penance all for another chance to sock. You are fresh out of chances. Begone! Daniel Case (talk) 12:30, 22 May 2009 (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.

Note to reviewing admin: This is the user's fourth request for unblocking under a variety of accounts. See User talk:HockeyLovingHoser and User talk:Tiramisoo. The user has not ceased editing for any substantial period of time, as was suggested by the first reviewing admin at User talk:HockeyLovingHoser; rather, the user has continually made attempts to evade the block through the use of different accounts and anonymous editing. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:28, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has expressed a concern that this account may be a sockpuppet of Tiramisoo (talk · contribs · logs). Please refer to the sockpuppet investigation of the sockpuppeteer, and editing habits or contributions of the sockpuppet for evidence. This policy subsection may be helpful. Account information: block log – contribs – logs – abuse log – CentralAuth

Thanks for your edits on Generation Y. This article and also Generation Z have a tendency to get progressively longer and worse as people make edits saying things that are vaguely true. I'll try and keep watching, hopefully you will too. Kevin143 (talk) 01:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully ask you to please research generations before making the changes you keep making to those pages. I realize that you edit a huge number of articles so it is difficult to have much knowledge about each, but many of your edits to the generations pages are blatantly incorrect and would leave Wikipedia readers with an innacurate impression. I addressed the questions you asked on these two pages: Talk:Generation Jones and User:TreadingWater GenJones. I encourage you to do additional research if you still have questions. Virtually no experts anywhere would agree with most of your GenJones edits, like referring to GenJones as a "subgeneration". There are numerous Wikipedia editors who are vigilant about making sure GenJones is described accurately. Let's avoid edit wars and base our edits on actual facts and research. Thanks.TreadingWater (talk) 18:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I have acknowledged existence of this "Gen Jones". Mimzy1990 (talk) 19:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Emo, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Doctor muthu's muthu ^{wanna talk ?} 18:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Emo. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

I'm not sure why you felt it necessary to completely cut out a majority of the history section and reduce the lead to just a few sentences. We are trying to build a better article, not cut out a majority of its content. Actions like this should be discussed on the talk page first, before you remove half the article's content. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Emo, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. --IllaZilla (talk) 00:14, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Emo, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Internet search statistic for "emo" do not prove anything about the style's level of mainstream popularity. Presenting them as such is synthesis and is unacceptable. To make the claim that emo is no longer popular, you need a reliable secondary source saying that "emo is no longer popular" and explaining why. --IllaZilla (talk) 20:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Emo. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did to Emo, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You really dived into a hornet's nest! Welcome and don't be discouraged. The Baby Boomer - Generation Jones - Generation X debate has been kicking around for a while. Any level heads and open minds are welcome, but patience is a must. Thank you so much for your contributions! See you on the talk pages! --Knulclunk (talk) 03:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Generation Y. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. e0steven(☎Talk|✍Contrib) 18:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately it seemed that quite a few of your edits were not simply 'fixing' but wholesale inserting new details and totally unreferenced material. Also there was no mention on any of the edit summaries as to what exactly was being changed. e0steven(☎Talk|✍Contrib) 20:02, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, as you did with this edit to 2000–2009. Jojhutton (talk) 19:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ugggh. Fine. Mimzy1990 (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: You are being reported for vandalizing the Generation X and Y pages. Generation X ends in 1981 with the Class of 1999 and Generation Y (Millennials) begins with the Class of 2000/AKA Millennium (1982 births). This is a general consensus and reported by sociologists and in demographics in marketing research. --CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 00:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have removed Category:1990 births and Category:American musicians from your user page because these categories are for articles. These categories will be appropriate when someone has written an article about you. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:57, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please do not remove large parts of articles without discussing these changes on the Talk page for the article. I have restored the text to the Upper Midwest article. I have also restored the map that was there. The reason for this is that it is then consistent across all of this series of articles. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue removing Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Generation "We...", you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have started a discussion at Talk:Upper Midwest#An alternate map to discuss the two maps. While the discussion progresses and seeks consensus please do not put your map back prematurely. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:53, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mimzy1990. You have new messages at Talk:Upper Midwest.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Generation Y. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. I am leaving this message on User:CreativeSoul7981's talk page also. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 10:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a moving discussion & survey going on, on the page "Bitch". Your opinion has been requested, click here to vote, it is urged that you vote in a timely manner. Thank You.

I Seek To Help & Repair! (talk) 21:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You For Your Opinion

Thank you for voting, I Seek To Help & Repair! (talk) 22:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I do not agree with the inclusion of the generations template in Generation Y, or the other generations articles. I believe it is an oversimplification that gives legitimacy to ideas that are not commonly accepted. What is your rationale for including it?Peregrine981 (talk) 08:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i put it in Y because it was in all the others. you have a point though. maybe you should start a debate?

Mimzy1990 (talk) 08:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

well, I have tried at Gen X, but so far no debate, despite the fact that it has been reinserted a couple of times now. But these things can be slow.Peregrine981 (talk) 22:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cut/paste moves are strongly discouraged, as they make it very difficult to get the copyright credits to work. Please don't do that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mimzy, what the devil were you thinking with this edit? If you thought we had consensus to move this (which we do not, methinks—more time is needed), then this was not the right way to do it. What you did by creating a redirect would not bring about a change in the article's title. Really, Mimzy, I can see that you are well-meaning, but you might want to slow down a bit. Right now you tend to shoot first and ask no questions. You've been an editor now for less than a month, and you've still got a lot to learn. I was still making your kind of mistakes after a year, and I wish someone had given me the advice I'm giving you. Don't lose heart, kid, but don't lose your head, either. Unschool 05:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur is right, Mimzy. Now we ordinary editors cannot move the title, we will need to have an administrator do it. (And while Arthur is an admin, he's also a highly professional and ethical editor, who will probably conclude that with his own extensive edits to this page, that it would constitute a conflict of interest to make the move, even if he agreed with it, which is unknown.) Please read WP:MOVE, which will not only explain how we change article titles the way we do, but why. I believe you're sincere, and I have seen you make some good points. But Wikipedia will be around for a long time. So take your time. Unschool 06:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When making edits to controversial topics such as September 11th, please take the time to discuss your proposed edits on the talk page before making them. The edits you have made only added unnecessary fluff, and have been removed. --Tarage (talk) 07:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yello. Regarding this edit, please read the guidelines on weasel wording to better learn about how to re-phrase such a claim while using reliable sources. Thanks. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 08:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just have nominated this category for deletion as I don't think that it is a useful classification. The discussion of my nomination is at: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 21. Nick-D (talk) 08:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skepticism of a particualr subject does not qualify it for speedy deletion. Speedy is considered a 'last resort' and only for the very worst articles. In future, when using speedy tags, I would reccomend the use of something specific- eg one of the critria tags- such as G3 (vandalism). You could try and take the article to AfD but, frankly, I doubt you'd get very far. If I may suggest you read WP:CSD before using any more {{delete}} or {{db}} templates? Any questions (on the policy or anything else) just drop me a line and I'll do my best! Kind regards, HJMitchell You rang? 10:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I found your recent edits ([1],[2],[3]) to Capital punishment to be well written and quite interesting. When you have a chance, would you please add some appropriate citations to your additions? I'd like to learn more about these topics, and I'm sure other readers would as well.

• Perhaps something that links [[cultural universal] with the Death Penalty? It is an interesting concept.

• Similarly, a link demonstrating "In China, Japan and Singapore, the death penalty is supported because of a belief that it restores natural order."

• Another point that would benefit from a citation: "In Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Latin America, and Western Europe, the death penalty has become widely unpopular, with the majority of the population opposing it"

• Similarly, "...certain cases of mass murder, terrorism, and child murder occasionally cause waves of support for reinstitution" (BTW, by restitution, I assume you mean restoring the death penalty. I was briefly confused and thought of the other meaning of restitution in criminal justice - perhaps a phrase would be better that the word restitution, such as simply "the restoration of the death penalty")

Thanks again, and of course, my request for citation(s) is just one editor's opinion. Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mimzy, you recently labelled a number of community related pages "fads". I have undone these edits. I agree with the "buzzword" labels but I do not think that it is appropriate to label areas that have been around for 10 or so years, and where work is still being published, as fads along with 'Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles' and 'My little Pony'. Compo (talk) 20:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that wasn't me, i removed those labels. hmmm Mimzy1990 (talk) 23:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for being a sockpuppet of User:Tiramisoo. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Generation Jones, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Generation Jones (3rd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. A. Yager (talk) 14:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Generation Jones. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Generation Jones (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article List of companies bankrupted during the Great Recession has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable and potentially inaccurate - the article itself is a list of companies bankrupted during the recession but states the bankruptcies may not have been caused by the recession. Confusing list.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Dane2007 ^talk 01:38, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Reclaimed words, which you created, has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:53, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]