User talk:Mmann1988

April 2011

Hello, Mmann1988. You have new messages at Talk:Atlanta.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atlanta mixed-income communities

Just a note that I fixed your nomination. You were missing step 2, the subst:afd2 template. Please have a look at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How to list pages for deletion for how to list an article for deletion. Or drop me a note with questions and I'll help you out. Ravendrop 23:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Atlanta-contemporary-arts-center.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Atlanta-contemporary-arts-center.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 05:16, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spalding Drive

This message is regarding the article Spalding Drive. You say one section of it was once called Jett Ferry Road. This is wrong. Jett Ferry Road is a different road from Spalding Drive, and its name is still the same. Georgia guy (talk) 21:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You say:

Read the source, it explains it. Spalding Drive was originally called Jett Ferry Road, but it was a seperate road form what is now called Jett Ferry Road.--Mmann1988 (talk) 22:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...which was then called... Georgia guy (talk) 22:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI about East Cobb

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/User_talk:Nyttend#East_Cobb_and_Buford_Highway_Corridor

Buford Highway

What you think about moving Buford Highway to a new name like Buford Highway community? The Buford Highway page could then become a disambiguation page for SR 13 and the community. –Fredddie ™ 04:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, the references in the now disappeared article all refer to the community as Buford Highway Corridor. People need to read the references and also follow CRITERIA for defining what does or does not make an unincorporated community.Keizers (talk) 13:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Admin noticeboard & Nyttend's insult

FYI I chimed in on http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Nyttend_and_abuse_of_administrator_priviledges. BTW the name of the community is Buford Highway Corridor, it is referred to as such by most of the references I used. I wish people would stop making stuff up (or ignoring the referenced stuff). Keizers (talk) 13:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spalding Drive again

Hi - I've just been formatting the references to this article and discovered that refs 2 and 3 are the same article. Did I miss something? thecrier.net is a blogspot - the article/s titled "Perimeter Mall area was Once an Airfield" are in fact a request for information from a man named Jim at perk8843@bellsouth.net. How does this count as a reference? Mark^Dask 15:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Religion in Atlanta

Understand you put back the religions in order of # of adherents but aren't the two paragraphs about Protestant denominations in the middle then divorced from the 1st paragraph which covers Protestant denominations? Keizers (talk) 16:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Protestant" is too general. It's easier to break it down by denomation - Presbyterian, Methodist, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, etc.

Lindridge-Martin Manor

Mmann1988, why move Lindridge/Martin Manor back and change it from slash to dash. The official name of the neighborhood in City of Atlanta website is with a slash. Same on the neighborhood association site Keizers (talk) 13:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didnt realize you had moved it earlier. However, maps refer to it with a slash. So does the neighborhood sign. Morningside-Lenox Park uses a slash. If you feel strongly, you can move it back. I tire of having everything I do (and I do A LOT in the Atlanta portal) second-guessed.--Mmann1988 (talk) 19:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little confused by your comment. I had changed it from dash(-) to slash(/) and you undid my change - you changed it back to dash(-). As you point out the neighborhood association and signs use a slash(/). I will try to move it back if I can, I am not sure if that is easy. All this is not to harass you - remember I am also the victim of a lot of this business, but I didn't think it very nice of me to undo a change you had done without leaving you feedback on your talk page. Keizers (talk) 03:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neighborhoods article

I reorganized the neighborhood section in order to try to give it some structure: talk about the major business districts first, then address east, NW/SW, and SE. I had consolidated the information about gentrification into the eastside section because that's where it belonged. I see you split it out into a separate section which I think is a better solution. In fact I think it now can be moved under Demographics, not really under Geography. Gentrification is really more an economic issue than a geographic one though there are elements of both.

As for race, obviously we have different perspectives on this and as I have mentioned, I think not to state the fact that Atlanta is divided into overwhelmingly white and overwhelmingly black neighborhoods, with few exceptions such as Old Fourth Ward, is really avoiding stating a very basic characteristic of the subject at hand. I only have so much energy to argue points, and I suppose that the racial landscape of the city can be addressed under the Demographics section. The one thing that does need to be said is that pasrts of SW ATL (Cascade) is one of the most exceptional places in the country in terms of concentration of African American affluence. This is often referred to in the media so I will look for some sources on that subject in order to justify a mention like that.

I am very curious what the remark means "this is not Europe", I have no idea what that means. In my experience European countries actually track their racial makeup a lot less than the US where, for example on the census website, it is the first thing you see in statistical results. The factor in most European countries is immigration and what countries the immigrants are from, rather than the color of their skin which is what we track here in the United States.

Sorry if it is disturbing to edit an entire section but it appeared to be not structured well, with the extraction of the gentrification section I think it's clear why and I think the section has moved forward a lot.Keizers (talk) 14:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect discussion occurring for the Occupy Atlanta article

There's a discussion occurring regarding a proposal to redirect the article you created, Occupy Atlanta to the Occupy Wall Street article, occurring here: at the administrator's noticeboard. Please feel free to comment regarding this matter there. Northamerica1000^(talk) 10:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization of black and white

I thought that black was capitalized and white was not (when referring to the ethnic group). Apparently there is no hard and fast rule (see http://chronicle.com/forums/index.php?topic=74485.0) but I am happy to live with the Chicago Manual of Style and capitalize neither. I resent the accusation of "fishiness". We seem to have issues with material that deals with race in Atlanta. But if you believe that my behavior on Wikipedia is inappropriate, please describe in a factual manner. Not throwing out an accusation like "fishy". For the record, I try to be balanced in what I cover and write. Keizers (talk) 21:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages and Occupy Atlanta

Hello, using talk pages are important for gauging and developing consensus. I noticed you didn't discuss before making this edit. Here are some links that may be helpful: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and WP:BRD. Discussion helps us avoid edit warring. Best. Jesanj (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keizers bias/racist

Mmann1988, in reference to your comment on my talk page which I am going to delete because it is so offensive:

It would appear that you view Atlanta as city that is comprised only of one or two groups, which is NOT reality. As an Hispanic American, I am very wary of discrimination. I think it is very important to be inclusive of ALL groups.
Atlanta is a place for ALL people, is increasingly one of the most international and multi-cultural cities in the nation. Please remember this is not the 1990s when you edit. Atlanta has changed a lot and may soon have no racial majority. This is an important milestone for the city, and wikipedia editors should remember that when making edits to Atlanta articles. Editing an Atlanta-based article so it is biased/favors/only acknowledges one group is unfair.
I think right now the Atlanta portal has an awesome balance but I have noticed that your contributions are not very diverse, at all. That is fine, as you are entitled to edit as you please, but please make sure your own preferences do not encroach on general Atlanta articles. --Mmann1988 (talk) 16:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I am very offended at the accusation of racism, although a highly unusual version of it, that I am biased in favor of *both* black and white. And I would remind you that only you have shown racism in our dealings with each other by referring to my nationality (you referred to me as Dutch/European although just FYI I was born in the USA and am a citizen of it) in situations where it was of no consequence.

Nonetheless I will try to explain to you where I am coming from with my contributions and edits. I am extremely interested in local history. My interest in neighborhoods is highly driven to some extent by gentrification and progress, but to a large extent by history. Black versus white relations is one of the top, if not the most important, driver of *historical* events in the City of Atlanta. That is just a fact. Until recently there were negligible other ethnic groups in the city. Taking strictly the city the Hispanic population in 2010 was still only 5%, Asian 3%. And I hardly cover anything outside the city limits, with the notable exception of Buford Highway, an article that I drove and defended against Nyttend who wanted it destroyed. Buford Highway is probably the single most important geographic area for the Hispanic population of the metro area, and if I had better sources I would gladly document it in more detail. So if I am not writing much about Hispanics or Asians in the City (City!) of Atlanta, it is because I have not found topics of note. Pure and simple. Also I shouldn't have to say this but I speak and write very good Spanish and lived and worked in Mexico City. I even have made some contributions to Spanish Wikipedia!

Next to that, independent of the fact that there is growing diversity in the metro area, I find as I do historical research that there are still a lot - A LOT - of important topics about blacks that are not covered in Wikipedia. It has nothing to do with a bias towards blacks. It is simply that I find vital pieces of the city's "black history" which are absent from Wikipedia and I feel it's my duty to document them.

It is clear that our collisions in the past have centered around a couple things: 1) African American history and culture and 2) Presenting information about Atlanta which is not pretty or favorable. To be honest I would have thought that you were an old-school Cobb County white Southerner (e.g. you got upset about me deleting info aboutthe GWTW premiere, about white flight, and you deleted articles about public housing projects), with a bias toward that point of view but that would have been a guess and I didn't think it appropriate to do so. I don't know if we can resolve that. I would like to ask you that we express our opinions in a neutral way, as we should in Wikipedia, without making unsubstantiated allegations.

I get really upset about fighting on Wikipedia and it is an emotional drain. Sometimes it makes me not want to contribute. I think we both contribute a lot to Wikipedia about Atlanta and I would rather cooperate than upset each other emotionally. Un saludo, Keizers (talk) 18:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

25 Park Place

Greetings Mmann1988, I just wanted to let you know that I took a look at your recently created article 25 Park Place-- However, I think the article seems to contain a few errors: the references in the article do not follow Wikipedia guidelines. There is a tutorial on formatting citations at Wikipedia:Referencing. Kind regards and happy editing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amyxz (talk • contribs) 20:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

Hi there. When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field. If you are adding a section, please do not just keep the previous section's header in the Edit summary field – please fill in your new section's name instead. Thank you.

I have reverted your uncommented change at Atlanta City Hall, as it was unclear why you were destructuring it so. Dicklyon (talk) 03:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Atlanta demographic info

Mmann, the statistic that you reinstated is for the Metro, *not* for the city. The city's foreign born population (2005-2009, http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/13/1304000.html) is 7.8%. I take your point about the city becoming more international, but if it is truly *headline* information that absolutely *must* be in the intro section, then it is important enough to find the correct statistic for, i.e.: How much has the *City* grown in foreign born population over the last 10 or 20 years? However, I wonder if it will be impressive. I work with plenty of foreign born people in Buckhead/Brookhaven and not a single one lives in the City of Atlanta. Buford Highway is in unincorporated DeKalb County. Hispanic and Asian diversity? DeKalb and Gwinnett.

You could create a documented fact about this from a source like http://www.fairus.org/site/PageNavigator/facts/city_data_ga_atlanta, but I really don't think this is so significant as to include in the intro. It looks a little desperate ("look how international we are") and then you find out all the diversity is out in the inner-ring suburbs anyway.Keizers (talk) 22:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Demographics of Atlanta

You may be interested to weigh in on this discussion: Articles for deletion: Demographics of Atlanta Keizers (talk) 13:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning on Atlanta

Your recent editing history at Atlanta shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. - Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning on Atlanta

Your continuing repeated removals of "black mecca" from the lead, and attempting to obscure that in your edit summaries, is going to get you blocked again soon if you don't stop NOW. Dicklyon (talk) 04:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mmann1988, you've been reported at WP:AN3#User:Mmann1988 reported by Dicklyon (talk) (Result: ). You can reply there if you wish. Since you've already been blocked once regarding this article for 72 hours, unless you promise to stop the war it is likely you will be blocked again. You should try some negotiation to avoid a block if you are hoping to be at Wikipedia in the long term. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 23:22, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppet on Atlanta Discussion page

Someone has created a sock puppet on the Atlanta Discussion page. Whoever that is is heading down a very bad path.Keizers (talk) 15:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has been confirmed. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mmann1988

Talkback

Hello, Mmann1988. You have new messages at WikiDan61's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Renewed warring at Atlanta

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for Edit warring and abuse of multiple accounts. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

The report of the edit warring case is at WP:AN3#User:Mmann1988 reported by User:Dicklyon (Result: Blocked). See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mmann1988. After your December 22 block, it would have been reasonable for you wait for consensus on the talk page before making controversial changes. People usually wind up at AN3 when they feel their vision of the article is the only correct one and that getting support from others is unnecessary. EdJohnston (talk) 17:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mmann1988. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is ridiculous! That was not my sock-puppet! So is every challenge to Keizers edits going to be considered a sock puppet?! Have you seen how the guy edits? They are very controversial and his writing style is horrific. He writes at the level of a fifth grader. No wonder they get challenged on a weekly basis. Besides, if the check user did not suggest anything, than what basis are you blocking me indefinitely on? This is not fair. Also, I strongly encourage you to look at my editing history before blocking me indefinitely. I have improved numerous articles on Wikipedia and I am a valuable asset to the website. Please don't take such drastic action for sock puppetry based on hunches and hearsay.

I suspect you're right that it was not your sock. It might even have been someone trying to make it look like your sock. But to get unblocked, you'll have to follow the unblock request instructions above, and in your request you'll need to take responsibility for the one or more socks that were indeed yours, and be a bit more contrite about that and promise not to do it again. Dicklyon (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2012 (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).

Mmann1988 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This was not my sock, and I should not be blocked indefinitely. I will take responsibility for User:RodewayInn as my sock, and I apologize. I was motivated by the passionate exchanges and edit wars. I apologize for that. However, it's not fair that every dispute with User:Keizers and another editor is blamed on me and labeled my sock. In addition, the IP checkuser yielded no results, yet I was still blocked?! Please look at my contributions. I am a valuable asset to Wikipedia, and I will not make the same mistake again. But allowing an editor to get me banned indefinitely just because he made some radical edits that were challenged is wrong.--Mmann1988 (talk) 22:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

That leaves at least one sock puppet account (Ganway (talk · contribs)) unexplained, and you've provided no clear commitment to avoiding what seems to be problematic behaviour. Nick-D (talk) 00:24, 8 January 2012 (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.

It's pretty clear that trying to deflect blame in an unblock request, like "allowing an editor to get me banned indefinitely just because he made some radical edits that were challenged is wrong," is not a winning strategy. He didn't get you blocked; you did that yourself. You need to think about how you might deal with him better, which means not by edit warring and not by sockpuppetry. You might start by considering not taking such an absolute position on a simple content dispute. There are dispute resolution techniques available to you; if you can talk other editors into agreeing that he is the problem and that your position has merit, you'll be able to influence things without all the disruption. Dicklyon (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2012 (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).

Mmann1988 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I forgot about Ganway (talk · contribs). That was me too. But the most recent one was NOT me. And you can rest assured, my sock puppet days are over. I didn't even know what sock puppeting was or that it was illegal until all this, and I value my Wikipedia editing abilities more than proving a point. It will NOT happen again. I will also not edit war, and I will try to make a more concerted effort to not take absolute positions on simple content disputes, and hopefully Dicklyon can give me some links to dispute resolution techniques I can utilize instead of edit warring (I wasn't aware there were any besides arguing). Please give me one more chance!--Mmann1988 (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If you can't even remember all the socks that you have used, how can we trust you? I think your best bet at this junction is the standard offer to blocked users. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:14, 8 January 2012 (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).

Mmann1988 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I forgot about User:Ganway because I made a couple hours after User:RodewayInn, during the heat of the edit war. This is unfair and unjust. I created two sock puppets, User:Ganway and User:RodewayInn, which I admit was wrong and I apologize for. But labeling User talk:ATLcolts99 as me is totally unfair. a different IP address, the account was created days after the edit war, and his edits weren't even on the page of the original edit war! This is not a strong enough basis to block me indefinitely. I accepted the two week ban, which was imposed for User:Ganway and User:RodewayInn, as a fair punishment. But blocking me indefinitely for a user with a different IP address than mine is ridiculous, and harsh treatment for an editor who has contributed so much to improving Wikipedia. Please re-consider blocking me indefinitely and restoring my two week ban. I have admitted my wrongs and pledged to remedy their causes. What more do admins need to give me one more chance?!--Mmann1988 (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Very convenient that you "forgot" about a sock account that you had just created. The fact that you felt that creating such accounts to continue an edit dispute shows very poor judgement, AND has reduced the trust of the community to zero. The "heat of the moment" is not an excuse for anything, anywhere, anytime. This is not "punishment", but is protecting the project from a user who feels that breaking the rules is fine for them in order to advance their agenda. Whether or not the fourth account is you means little to me: you created socks twice to continue a battle, and that's more than enough for an indef block. At this point, I will direct you to WP:OFFER - for the next 3 months, you should NOT edit en.Wikipedia, even anonymously. Go work on another Wikipedia project. Do some good work there. Come back in 3 months and prove it to us. Note: if you edit en.Wikipedia even once during that time, the clock will be reset. There's your "second chance". (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:29, 9 January 2012 (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.

Could you quote the page that says "a different IP address" - I can't see one. Certainly not at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mmann1988/Archive, unless you know it's a different IP because you edited next door/down the library/etc.... Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no direct quote, but I am simply assuming that was the case since this exchange occurred:

Clerk, CheckUser, and/or patrolling admin comments

Symbol support2 vote.svg Clerk endorsed - Likely, but I'll endorse to confirm that Mmann is evading their block. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 02:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC) Unfortunately, the technical evidence does not add much to this, but it is not impossible and the behaviour is extremely suggestive. WilliamH (talk) 03:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC) Pictogram voting info.svg Administrator note: Alright, I've had enough. Blocked and tagged the sock per WP:DUCK; blocked and tagged the master as a, well, master. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 04:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC) Meaning that they probably were not using IP address similarity to label User:ATLcolts99 a sock puppet of mine, but rather WP:DUCK, which is completely unfair to justify an indefinite block.--Mmann1988 (talk) 01:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DUCK is used all the time to justify blocking sockpuppets, and all that says is that the technical evidence didn't add anything useful. Meaning it didn't prove anything either way, not that it proved you are innocent. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:46, 9 January 2012 (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).

Mmann1988 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I forgot about Ganway when this discussion took place, which was a full week after the incident. And after I realized I forgot about it, I moved quickly to rectify that by admitting it. Is that not worth anything? Besides, I only made two or three edits with Ganway until I realized sock puppetry was illegal. I really don't see the point in continuing to rail about my "poor judgment" and so on; I realize what I did was wrong and I apologized for it. And I made two sock puppets, not four, and when I made them, I didn't even know the term sock puppet existed, nor did I know it was a serious offense. Is it not worth anything that I was still only banned for two weeks when my second sock puppet was discovered, but after a third one that appears to be posing as me was discovered but did not have the same proof as Ganway and RodewayInn, I was banned indefinitely? Have I not learned my lesson after posting 4 unblock requests expressing my sincere apologies and pledging not to do it again? An admin. above said that it's not about punishment, but "protecting the project from a user who feels that breaking the rules is fine for them in order to advance their agenda." I have no agenda; my only agenda is to edit Wikipedia articles so they are well-written, and I think if you look at my editing history, you will see I am an invaluable asset to Wikipedia. Surely my editing history is enough to outweigh one mistake that I made. I have spent hours upon hours of my life improving this site, and that means nothing to the admins.? Please re-consider. Wikipedia editing is a hobby of mine and I surely cannot go three months as I watch a page that I have spent so many hours improving (Atlanta), and was about to nominate to FA status, destroyed. Surely admins. can sympathize with me and show the compassion to give me one more chance?!--Mmann1988 (talk) 23:51, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I agree with HelloAnnyong, that third sockpuppet seems to fit WP:DUCK perfectly. Mmann1988, you tried to get away with it and didn't. I also don't accept your claims that your disruption has been in ignorance, you've been disruptive for weeks with 3RR and yet continued that behavior. I have no reason to believe you are being sincere about wanting to improve. I won't revoke talk page access at this time so that you can give the "offer" another look. -- Atama頭 23:37, 12 January 2012 (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 were provided WP:OFFER with only a 3 month waiting period instead of 6 months ... did you read it? It may not be offered to you again. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. I will accept the modified standard offer of a 3-month waiting period. I will apply to be un-blocked on April 3, 2012. In the meantime, I will be contributing to Wikipedia Commons. It will certainly be painful to watch as the Atlanta page and all the work I have put into it is systematically undone (the state of it even at the present is absolutely horrific). My only solace is that nothing on Wikipedia is permanent, and the all the hard work I have contributed to make that page what it is today can be restored.--Mmann1988 (talk) 00:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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

Mmann1988 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Thank you for considering this unblock request, which is made after completion of the terms of a modified offer that I accepted approximately three months ago. I wanted to take this space to address a few relevant points before the administrators make their final decision. When one looks at my user contributions, they will see that I am a valuable asset to Wikipedia. I am currently pursuing a law degree, which, as some may know, requires higher than average writing skills. Thus, you can rest assured that my contributions will only serve to improve Wikipedia. Furthermore, during the period I was panned, I thought a lot about the behavior I engaged in, and I realized how immature and combative I really was. Not only will I never again create a sock puppet, I will also make a concerted effort to work with other editors in a civil and conductive manner to prevent disputes from arising in the first place. Lastly, in compliance with the offer, I have made significant contributions to Wikimedia Commons during my time off, a list of which can be found here: User contributions of Mmann1988 on Wikimedia Commons. Please allow me to resume my contributions to Wikipedia, and I promise that I will not disappoint. Thank you very much for your consideration.----Mmann1988 (talk) 19:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Unblocked per the stipulation below that Mmann1988 will not edit Atlanta based articles for one month. Any violation (even if trivial or for structural changes, shall result in restoration of the indefinite block --Trödel 13:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be a lot more comfortable if you voluntarily only discussed possible changes (in order to obtain consensus for them) on ANY article related to Atlanta, for at least a month. This means that editing the article itself would not be permitted during that period of time (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 01:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the problem is that I only edit articles related to Atlanta, so wouldn't that just be extending the ban for another month?--Mmann1988 (talk) 05:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not willing to accept a voluntary topic ban, in order to save YOU and the project a lot of grief, then I see no reason to either unblock you, or believe that things will go well after the unblock. You are being offerred the opportunity to do what you have failed to do in the past: discuss the edits to obtain WP:CONSENSUS. It was lack of that discussion that led to your first blocks, when led to your socking and future blocks. If you're not willing to spend a month discussing then I see absolutely no reason to unblock you (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:18, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I was entirely clear, and if so, I apologize, but there is no need to be snarky about it. I am fine with accepting a month-long "voluntary topic ban," but in the way you phrased it, I can't even edit the page after the consensus is reached. Also, some of the edits I make are just making structural changes to articles, rather than content changes--would consensus have to be reached on those as well?--Mmann1988 (talk) 12:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I make this comment without intending to indicate in any way an opnion as to the validity of your unblock request; if you wish only to make edits directly relating to Atlanta, Georgia, which is a very closely focused topic, is this all really worth your while? --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 20:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, obviously I think it is worth it, or else I wouldn't be requesting an unblock. I am avidly interested in urban issues, and I choose to focus that interest on Atlanta. Is it wrong for editors to be focused on a specific place? In any case, the fact that I am going through this trouble to demonstrate my sincerity should be more support for an un-block. Also, do you know how long this usually takes? I have not heard anything and it has been over a week.--Mmann1988 (talk) 22:10, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with BWilkins above, i.e., if you agree to make no changes to the article page(s) related to Atlanta for one month and instead propose and discuss changes on the talk page while allowing others to make the changes that have reached consensus, then I agree that an unblock would be warranted that would allow you time to show the community you have changed previous behavior. --Trödel 16:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, even though such stipulations were not part of the original offer, I will accept it. I agree to make no changes to the article page(s) related to Atlanta for one month and instead propose and discuss changes on the talk page while allowing others to make the changes that have reached consensus.--Mmann1988 (talk) 21:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Atlanta revisions

I've added some comments about various topics. How is the FA effort coming? Keizers (talk) 21:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gentrification of Atlanta, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Atlanta Way (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:10, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sandy Springs, Georgia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page St. Joseph's Hospital (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Brookhaven, Georgia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Encroachment (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Buckhead

Hi. I reverted the edit to the caption again, not because I disagree with you, but simply because I thought it might be a good idea to get other's thoughts. I listed it on the talk page. Onel5969 (talk) 17:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to Atlanta does not have an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history.

The edit summary appears in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! →Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 04:16, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ATL city as international/multi-cultural vs. actual census data

I see material is back that states Atlanta is one of the most multi-cultural cities in the US. While I think Atlanta is an interesting place, and understand the point that "Atlanta is not particularly Southern" except in its historical roots, the numbers do not show that Atlanta has a lot of foreign born residents. The city has 7.3% foreign born as of 2009,^[1] which is actually 89 out of 102 in the ranking. (see [[List of U.S. cities by foreign-born population).

As Demographics of Atlanta states:

Metro Atlanta is increasingly international, with its 716,434 foreign-born residents in 2010, a 69% increase versus 2000. This was the fourth largest rate of growth among the nation's top 100 metros, after Baltimore, Orlando and Las Vegas. The foreign-born proportion of the population went up from 10.3% to 13.6%, and Atlanta moved up from 14th to 12th in ranking of US metro areas with the largest immigrant population by sheer numbers. Still, its 13.6% proportion of immigrants is only the 29th highest of the nation's top 100 metros.

How can you change the text so that the point is made, without using a statement which factually is not supported by the census numbers? I made a minor edit but it doesn't support the larger point of Atlanta being cosmopolitan. Is there a good way you could think of to make the point a different way? Keizers (talk) 14:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a List of U.S. cities by foreign-born population showing where Atlanta lies among cities >200,000 total population -- Atlanta ranks 86 out of 102. Keizers (talk) 14:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Mmann1988. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Mmann1988. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Museum of Design Atlanta logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Museum of Design Atlanta logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

^ "Quick Facts: Atlanta", U.S. Census Bureau

[1] "Quick Facts: Atlanta", U.S. Census Bureau

[1]