User talk:Okeeffemarc/Archive 1

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Okeeffemarc. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. Editing for the purpose of advertising or promotion is not permitted. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ 01:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Good afternoon. Thanks for the information, when i first joined i chucked a massive edit onto my Great grand fathers page without realising the COI rules. I understand them now. I am compiling stuff about him in my sandbox, but will submit it for a review when i think it's up to scratch... ie: everything is matter of fact, and backed up with reliable sources, which will take some time. I won't edit the page directly. Thanks. Okeeffemarc (talk) 17:45, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Boxing SNG

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the DRN regarding Resolution on edits for the WP:NBOX criterion #3. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Wikipedia:Notability (sports)".The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Notability (sports). Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --RonSigPi (talk) 23:16, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Pat O'Keeffe

Hello:

The copy edit that you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Pat O'Keeffe has been completed.

I want to draw your attention to two points in the International Career section which you might want to clarify if you can.

Why did the Boston police stop the fight? and Who "answered" his message in Sporting Life? Since it says O’Keeffe "drew" against Steve Smith, I assume Smith did not organise the fight.

Also, if you can find an independent citation, would you not want to add spouse, children, schooling? Just a thought.

I took the liberty of adding a citation in the body of the article for your grandfather's boxing records. It's not elegant but was the only way I could do it. Everything else I tried messed up the table's formatting.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 14:18, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello Twofingered Typist, thanks very much for going over the article so thoroughly, it's much appreciated. I will address the points you have made and find a citation to add family information.

Regards

Okeeffemarc (talk) 16:49, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Copy edit of Arthur Frederick Bettinson

I've finished copy edit on Arthur Frederick Bettinson. Just a couple notes:

• There was a bit of overcapitalization, perhaps owing to the style of the Victorian sources.
• by a majority of twelve to fourteen Could you check if this should be "twelve out of fourteen"? A 26-member jury sounds rather large. Or perhaps it should say "grand jury"?
• They will also receive an NSC pension of £50 a year is this for any title-holder or only for those who successfully defend the title 3 times?
• I'm not a huge fan of flag icons in the referee table. Generally, we only use flags when something has a strong connection to the country (and particularly to the country's government). I can see keeping the flags for national titles (eg: British featherweight title) but not to simply identify the country in which a sub-national-level fight occurred. See MOS:FLAG for more information.
• Following that table, could you include a little note explaining what the parenthetic (W)s and (D)s mean?

Let me know if you have any questions or comments, or if you'd like me to explain some of the MOS: minutia. Thanks! – Reidgreg (talk) 21:03, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello Reidgreg, thanks very much for going over this article so methodically, it reads so much better. I will rectify the points you have raised. Thanks also for the tips. It’s all much appreciated.

regards,

Okeeffemarc (talk) 21:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lonsdale Belt

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Lonsdale Belt you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kosack -- Kosack (talk) 20:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lonsdale Belt

The article Lonsdale Belt you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Lonsdale Belt for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kosack -- Kosack (talk) 08:20, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lonsdale Belt

The article Lonsdale Belt you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Lonsdale Belt for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kosack -- Kosack (talk) 16:01, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/lonsdal belt 2 at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 08:35, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh, dear

I just promoted your hook for Lonsdale Belt to Prep 6. But despite what the BBC says, it appears that the first championship belt in boxing was awarded to Tom Cribb in 1810. Rather than pull the hook, do you want to fine-tune the description? Perhaps the first championship belt in modern boxing or the like? Yoninah (talk) 20:31, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh dear indeed yoninah! ok, can i change it to Modern boxing please? il change it on the article too Okeeffemarc (talk) 20:37, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

OK. But please be sure of this! We have some eagle-eyed editors over at DYK. Yoninah (talk) 20:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Maybe you'd be safer with "British boxing"? Yoninah (talk) 20:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

OK, I made that change in the lead and in the hook. Whew! Yoninah (talk) 20:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Im very sure it's boxing around the world, Queensberry rules marked the start of modern boxing, before that it was just bare knuckle fighting, so the BBC is technically correct. But being the first British Championship belt is an irrefutable, solid fact...im happy for either to be used. Okeeffemarc (talk) 20:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Lonsdale Belt

On 13 July 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lonsdale Belt, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Lonsdale Belt is the oldest championship belt in British boxing? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lonsdale Belt. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Lonsdale Belt), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:52, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Arthur Frederick Bettinson

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Arthur Frederick Bettinson you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Courcelles -- Courcelles (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Arthur Frederick Bettinson

The article Arthur Frederick Bettinson you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Arthur Frederick Bettinson for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Courcelles -- Courcelles (talk) 19:41, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Arthur Frederick Bettinson

The article Arthur Frederick Bettinson you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Arthur Frederick Bettinson for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Courcelles -- Courcelles (talk) 05:21, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Okeeffemarc. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Next Conservative Party (UK) leadership election, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages David Davis and Leader of the Conservative Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 10:13, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Ralbegen (talk) 11:15, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about 2019 Conservative Party (UK) leadership election

Hello, Okeeffemarc,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Slatersteven and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, 2019 Conservative Party (UK) leadership election should be deleted. Your comments are welcome over Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 Conservative Party (UK) leadership election .

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not ballot-polls. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Slatersteven}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Slatersteven (talk) 11:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

May 2019

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I foolishly allowed someone i barely knew online, access to my wikipedia account. I thought that they were sensible and that they would make useful contributions to articles relating to the Conservative Party. I could not have been more wrong. When i realised how recklessly and rudely they were operating, i blocked them immediately and apologised to the person they were edit warring with via email. I've been away at sea for the last few weeks, so have only now realised that i have been blocked. I urge you to look at my contributions across the last 12 months. I am constructive, polite and reasonable. I have learnt my lesson and will not be so naive ever again. Please allow me to carry on. Kind regards --Okeeffemarc (talk) 13:27, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

As per WP:COMPROMISED, this account is no longer eligible for unblock consideration. Yamla (talk) 13:30, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

---

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I was an established contributor to Wikipedia who was blocked last year for the reasons stated in the above request from May 2019, and I accept that I cannot unlock this account due to the explanation laid out in WP:COMPROMISED. I have tried to create a new account but the page comes up with "Account creation error: You are currently unable to edit Wikipedia". Can I be unblocked in order to make a new account? I will ensure that this template(removed template) is on my new home page and I will never be stupid enough to allow anyone access to my account ever again. Okeeffemarc (talk) 22:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

There are definitely still some questions here, and I think that it's likely your only pathway back is the standard offer. 331dot (talk) 08:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

---

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.

Do not attempt to create new accounts. Any accounts that you create will be blocked as sock puppets of Torygreen84. Your account was blocked for sock puppetry, not for being a compromised account, so you are not allowed to create new accounts. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• Hi NinjaRobotPirate, so does this mean there is no way for me to edit on Wikipedia ever again? If you look at my contributions, you'll see that I turned Pat O'Keeffe from a couple of inaccurate sentences to a good, well sourced account of an interesting career, admittedly this was personal as he was my great grandfather. After getting a taste for this, I created the Arthur Frederick Bettinson article, because he was a very significant figure in professional boxing and so is the Lonsdale Belt that he created, I even managed to get the belt article to GA status and on DYK. I was pretty much exclusively editing boxing related articles. I have no interest whatsoever in editing political party articles. My account wasn't a creation of Torygreen84, I just foolishly gave them my details in good faith. I promise this will never happen again, and if I'm allowed, I will show that I'm a polite, stable and reasonable person who can continue to contribute much. Id very much like to update Lonsdale Belt as the current champions section is now way out of date. Okeeffemarc (talk) 20:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • You were blocked for sock puppetry, so you have to convince us that you're not Torygreen84. This whole "WP:COMPROMISED" thing is not really relevant to your block. It's the grown-up version of "my little brother did it". It's something that people randomly say to talk their way out of a block. The advice in WP:COMPROMISED is not relevant to your situation because your account was not blocked as a compromised account. There relevant part is Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks#Sockpuppetry blocks. Just because you randomly made some claim about how your little brother used your account – or that you lent your account to a banned editor – does not mean that you are allowed to evade your block and create a new account. It doesn't work that way. Otherwise, everyone who was ever blocked could say, "Oops, my account was compromised. I'm going to create a new one." NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
    • ok NinjaRobotPirate, I would much prefer unblocking this account if possible as I wouldn't have to completely start again. I fully understand that you must have to deal with people trying to mug you off or trick you constantly.
      • 1. First of all, I was regularly editing for a year, prior to the bad edits on the different Conservative party leadership election pages.
      • 2. you can easily see from the 12th May 2019 onwards that the linguistic peculiarities and the general interests just didn't match my normal behaviour.
      • 3. My username is my last and first name, I'm easily searchable. I imagine sockpuppets are usually vague and anonymous?
    • Is there any way I can prove I'm not Torygreen84? I've got nothing to hide, so can email I.D. or something? Okeeffemarc (talk) 00:25, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Do NOT email identity cards or documents; aside from being an identity theft risk, it would only prove that you are in possession of the documents, not that you are the person depicted in them. 331dot (talk) 15:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Ok 331dot. What do you think I should do? Okeeffemarc (talk) 18:41, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

So you have no interest in continuing to edit about the Tories? 331dot (talk) 22:56, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Afternoon 331dot, i have absolutely zero interest in editing any political pages. I just want to continue editing lonsdale Belt and other boxing pages like i did before all this happened. Okeeffemarc (talk) 11:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate I would like to hear any comments that you have. 331dot (talk) 20:47, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't remember exactly what made me block this account, but it was probably this comparison of Torygreen84 socks on 2019 Conservative Party leadership election. For example: Special:Diff/896567060, Special:Diff/896965431, Special:Diff/894413316, Special:Diff/897582170. I think Okeefemarc should file an appeal from his original account, Torygreen84. Either that, explain why he's restoring edits from Torygreen84 socks. "I let Torygreen84 use my account" sounds about as believable to me as "my little brother did it". See also User talk:Johnny Moore12. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Good morning 331dot and NinjaRobotPirate. Like I have previously stated, if you look at my contribution history, up until May last year my edits were constructive and useful. my interaction with other editors was polite and considerate, and im using my real name on this, my only account. I am not some deep state super sock puppet who was suddenly activated after over 12 months of useful contribution.

1. IAW the standard offer, I have waited over 6 months. 2. I promise you that my account will never do this again. Surely that's is easily tested and monitored? 3. Im happy to screenshot the twitter DM's if necessary to prove what I have said.

Okeeffemarc (talk) 09:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, maybe you should look at a comparison of my edits before May 19 and after, or before May 19 and this talk page? Okeeffemarc (talk) 09:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Fixed your talk page archiving

Hi! I took the liberty of fixing the auto-archiving settings at the top of this page. --rchard2scout (talk) 12:26, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Unblock discussion

@NinjaRobotPirate: I'm slogging through CAT:UNBLOCK. Does this come anywhere close? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:38, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Any reason this account hasn't requested unblock from their original account? I also note there are declined unblock requests on this page that were archived. See [1]]. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 21:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

They should request unblock from their original account and stop saying that they allowed Torygreen84 to edit from this account, which is downright silly. Even if that crazy story is true, how are we supposed to know whether that this is really Okeeffemarc speaking? It could be Torygreen84. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC)