User talk:Academicoffee71

Kauffner? In ictu oculi (talk) 21:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What? Academicoffee71 (talk) 22:46, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ahah, was just wondering if it was an old editor returning. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bobby Martnen In ictu oculi (talk) 08:40, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you are Bobby Martnen. Your IP messages to both Piotrus and myself signed Robert D Martnen PhD were extremely offensive. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Krzysztof Wojciechowski

The article Krzysztof Wojciechowski has been proposed for deletion because it appears to have no references. Under Wikipedia policy, this biography of a living person will be deleted after seven days unless it has at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp/dated}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within seven days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^(or here) 03:37, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Krzysztof Wojciechowski for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Krzysztof Wojciechowski 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/Krzysztof Wojciechowski 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. Boleyn (talk) 19:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia discussions

Hi, I'm Tony. We ran into each other on your move review. As an FYI, it is normally considered bad form to reply to every comment that you disagree with during a conversation. It makes discussion more difficult, and many editors consider it uncollaborative. Anyway, I'm glad to see a new user interested in the moves process and taking part in the conversation. Hope you stay around. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:48, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. And it is all the worse because the comments are, as another editor has observed at the move review, re-litigation... rediscussing the merits of the move, rather than the merits of the close. That is contrary to the move review instructions, and such repetitive violation of them could well be seen as disruptive.

I agree with many of the points you have made regarding the over-use of diacritics in English Wikipedia, and hope that you and others will continue to put these points logically and respectfully, and work towards changing consensus where it needs to change. Andrewa (talk) 05:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for letting me know about that. I hope to stay around, although it is frustrated to be outvoted at every turn. Academicoffee71 (talk) 03:19, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 2017

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Kraków, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. AusLondonder (talk) 00:46, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for the clarification. I will refrain from marking edits like that as minor in the future, however, as a name still used in several modern English dictionaries, "Cracow" needs to be mentioned in that section. Academicoffee71 (talk) 02:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Selena Zhao

@academicoffee71 I understand that there is discussion about deleting the page for Selena Zhao. I would truly appreciate your consideration for reconsidering a borderline case with regards to competing in the free skate at Junior Worlds and medaling at a Senior B. At 2015 Junior Worlds, Zhao's short score was 44.22, whereas the long-qualifying score was 45.24. Her personal best in the short is 51.11, which is well above that score, and she was competing with the flu at the event. Her free skate score of 106.26 ranked third in the long at the Salt Lake City Senior B, a particularly competitive field including World silver medalist Satoko Miyahara. This long program score ranked above current US olympic hopefuls Karen Chen and Mariah Bell. Medaling at a senior international also varies greatly on the difficulty of the event; for example, at the Reykjavik Int'l Games this year, the same score (157.03) would have won the senior event. There are also SkateCanada, Icenetwork, and Golden Skate articles featuring Zhao, which are the most prominent news sources in skating. Lastly, Zhao is a notable scholar-athlete currently attending Harvard University and still performing in fundraising shows such as Evening with Champions, which continues to receive news coverage annually. I understand that Wikipedia is attempting to streamline the site for extraneous pages but I truly would appreciate keeping this page, and really appreciate your consideration for a very borderline case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.112.8.193 (talk) 21:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a suspected sock puppet of Bobby Martnen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this is a sock puppet account, and your original account is blocked, please also note that banned or blocked users are not allowed to edit Wikipedia; and all edits made under this account may be reverted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. Vanjagenije (talk) 20:36, 11 January 2018 (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).

Academicoffee71 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Falsely accused and convicted of sock puppetry, despite the lack of actual evidence. CheckUser didn't connect me to the account I was accused of being a sock of, and the only evidence against me was that we had similar viewpoints and intersts and we both write like well-educated native speakers. In addition, the sock puppet investigation that blocked me was the second attempt by User:In ictu oculi to tie me to a previously blocked user, which indicates that it was most likely done out of spite, and not a genuine desire to improve Wikipedia.

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. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:21, 29 January 2018 (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.

@Vanjagenije: would you like to elaborate on hat this user needs to do? -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I was just an "executor" here. I was asked by Sir Sputnik (an WP:SPI Clerk) to block this user (see the whole history here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Bobby_Martnen/Archive) as a sockpuppet, based on the presented evidence. I'd like to hear Sir Sputnik before further discussion. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Standard offer would be my suggestion: Leave the 'pedia for several months, before making an unblock request, preferably from the master account, recognizing the problems that lead the block. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]