User talk:Mattdruid

The article Matt Druid has been or soon will be deleted from Wikipedia. This happened because the article seems to be about a subject but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable. If you can indicate why the subject is really notable, you are free to re-create the article, making sure to cite any verifiable sources. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. You might also want to read our criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 7 under Articles. Y0u | Y0ur talk page 22:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago Blackhawks

Please stop your repeated attempts to assert that a controversy exists over Chicago fans applauding during the US Anthem. Numerous editors have reverted your addition, so your next step is to lay out your case on the article talk page. And FWIW, most blogs are not reliable sources, that includes SB Nation, even though it is a fine network. Reso lute 00:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Chicago Blackhawks, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

This has gone on long enough. Seven months of pushing your POV has gotten old. Do it again, and I will block your account indefinitely. Reso lute 16:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. The first thing you need to do is stop adding this to the article. Several editors have reverted you thus far, and continuing to try and force it in consitututes an edit war, which is why I gave you the block warning. Your best bet is to use the article's talk page to try and press your case for inclusion. If consensus supports your position, it will get added.

Now, as to the points you raised on my talk page: Most blogs and Facebook posts do not constitute reliable sources, so won't be accepted as references. The newspaper articles I have seen you attempt to use were letters to the editor, again, that is personal opinion and not a reliable source. For this to go forward, you will need to show that this really is a "fact that many NHL Fans and Americans find the behavior reprehensible" using reliable sources. I will say that personally, I'm not convinced at this point that the arguments you are making are shared by anyone but a small few people. Especially since I can think of three other teams (albeit two Canadian) whose fans interject things into the anthems. Thus, I also have concerns about undue weight being given to this "controversy". I look forward to furthering this discussion on the article talk page. Thanks, Reso lute 19:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quite aside from that there's scarcely a professional sports team in North America that doesn't at least start cheering before the end of the anthem/s, my "suggestions for improvement" would have been that you left this business be. Wikipedia does not exist as a stalking horse for your personal battle against Blackhawks' fandom. Since you are unwilling to let this go, unwilling to discuss this on the article's talk page, and unwilling and/or unable to provide proper citations to newspaper articles certifying your alleged "controversy" despite being told explicitly that you must, I expect you will soon be blocked. Ravenswing 05:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I warned you last time that if you continued to push this POV against consensus, you would be blocked. Waiting several months to do it again does not give you a reset. Accordingly, I have blocked you indefinitely. You clearly are not here to improve the project, merely to push your desired POV. I am open to unblocking if you can convince me, or any admin, that you will cease this ridiculous campaign. Reso lute 19:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request reason:

Why am I blocked? I spoke at length with the Admin about my desire to improve the article and believed I got his Okay for the edit before I made it by removing anything that could be interpreted as POV. I'm sorry, but I don't know what a "Talk Page" is so I didn't use it... figuring it out now, but I'm willing to learn and discuss the matter there. If you can help with with that effort, I would appreciate it. I'm a big Blackhawks Fan and want to improve their page, and other pages on Wikipedia. I made improvements to the edits based on feedback, and I had removed any mention of a "controversy" and the references to News Articles/Videos that debated it as such. Let's move this to the Talk Page (once I figure it out), but I tried to edit other Wikipedia pages today and couldn't.

Accept reason:

I'm unblocking because the original block was probably not valid (blocking admin was WP:INVOLVED in a content dispute with this user, and describing the user as a "long term POV pusher" is somewhat tenuous, given the circumstances). Matt, you were blocked because you repeatedly tried to add material to an article, that material was removed by multiple editors, and you kept trying to add it without discussing it with those editors. That's not how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia is collaborative, meaning that if someone disagrees with what you're doing, you have to talk it out and come to an agreement with them, not just keep doing what you're doing over and over again. Please read WP:BRD for how that process generally works. So, the first thing you need to figure out is how to get to a talk page. Technically, this is a talk page. This is your user talk page. Articles also have talk pages, which are devoted to discussions about that particular article. (You can find more info about talk pages at WP:TALK.) You can get to an article's talk page by going to the article, and then clicking on the "talk" tab at the top left of the article. For the Blackhawks article, the talk page is located at Talk:Chicago Blackhawks. You can go there, hit the "new section" tab at the top of the page, and start a new discussion. If the discussion ends up where no one agrees with you, then you'll have to accept that and move on. If you can come to a compromise that most people accept, then you can go ahead and modify the article according to that compromise. Trying to re-add your preferred content to the article without discussion will almost certainly result in another block, which likely won't be overturned. Cheers. ‑Scottywong | squeal _ 23:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Chicago Blackhawks Easy Guide to the US Flag Code.png

Thanks for uploading File:Chicago Blackhawks Easy Guide to the US Flag Code.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 16:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 2019

Hello, I'm Robvanvee. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, It's No Good, 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. Rob van vee 18:02, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]