User talk:CalebHughes

Huon I need help. It blocking an IP address, but I have no idea what this is for. Can you help?


 * You'll need to tell us what that IP address is; you can use a website like http://www.WhatIsMyIP.org to find your IP address if necessary. If you don't want to publish it here, you can let us know privately via WP:UTRS. Huon (talk) 21:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Huon Try 2600:1015:b10e:9908:c1d3:e31b:eb:40af and 2600:1015:b10e:9908:e9a9:defe:1564:b09c. Thanks.


 * Neither of those IPs are blocked, and they have in fact edited earlier today. What exactly does the block message you encounter say? Huon (talk) 22:05, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: UTEP–UTSA football rivalry (June 1)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Legacypac was:

The comment the reviewer left was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:UTEP–UTSA football rivalry and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:UTEP–UTSA football rivalry, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "db-self" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:UTEP%E2%80%93UTSA_football_rivalry Articles for creation help desk] or on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Legacypac&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:UTEP%E2%80%93UTSA_football_rivalry reviewer's talk page].
 * You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Legacypac (talk) 08:05, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Rivalry pages
Hi - a discussion here brought to my attention the amount of questionable rivalry articles you've created recently. Most notable to me was the Arkansas-Miss.St. article, which, as an Arkansas fan, I don't believe should be an article. I say this because Arkansas' annual game against Mississippi State is nothing more than an SEC West divisional game, no more of a rivalry than our annual games against Alabama. I will concede that the Arkansas-Mississippi State series has yielded some very close and highly entertaining games, as well as some high-stakes games in the past few years, but that alone does not make it a rivalry game. I would repeat some of the same things about your articles pertaining to the supposed rivalries between Alabama and Clemson, Georgia and Ole Miss, and Louisville and West Virginia, although I will concede that I am not as knowledgeable about the last one. If you'd like to chime in to the discussion at WikiProject College Football, I'll leave the link here, feel free to leave your two cents on the topic.

Discussion can be found at this link: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football

Thanks, PCN [[Special:Contributions/PCN02WPS|02 ]] WPS 23:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Auburn–Ole Miss football rivalry) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Auburn–Ole Miss football rivalry, CalebHughes!

Wikipedia editor Etzedek24 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Looks good, just filled your links out for you."

To reply, leave a comment on Etzedek24's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Etzedek24 (Would it kill ya to leave an edit summary?) 23:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Arkansas–Mississippi State football rivalry for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Arkansas–Mississippi State football rivalry 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 Articles for deletion/Arkansas–Mississippi State football rivalry until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.

Nomination of Georgia–Ole Miss football rivalry for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Georgia–Ole Miss football rivalry 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 Articles for deletion/Georgia–Ole Miss football rivalry until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.

GNG link
You have created eight articles with 81 edits. I suggest you review WP:GNG which describes notability policy for articles. UW Dawgs (talk) 03:01, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Signing Talk page comments
To sign your comments on Talk pages, you can add ~ to the end of your comments. UW Dawgs (talk) 03:04, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

WP:AFD
Please review WP:AFD if you believe an article needs to be deleted. None of the pages you've recently created seem to follow this formal process:
 * Articles for deletion/Penn State–Temple football rivalry
 * Articles for deletion/Georgia–Vanderbilt football rivalry
 * Articles for deletion/Auburn–Tulane football rivalry (2nd nomination)
 * Articles for deletion/Alabama–Penn State football rivalry (2nd nomination)

And again, please read WP:GNG as your comments on these pages implies you need to become more familiar with GNG which is the relevant policy for inclusion or deletion of an article. As you have fewer than 100 edits, I'd suggest you slow down and understand these core policies which likely will make you more satisfied with your contributions in the long run. UW Dawgs (talk) 18:58, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * CalebHughes, please read the guidelines several people have mentioned to you on how to mark articles for deletion. If you can't follow the requests of others and Wikipedia's policy on how to mark them for deletion, then please stop marking them for deletion until you have learned the correct way. Corky  23:45, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * And please remember that this is an encyclopedia, and it exists to document history. Nominating rivalry articles for deletion because there isn't one right now is contrary to the encyclopedia's purpose, and plenty of now-unlikely teams had historical rivalries that eventually died out. That doesn't negate their existence.  Acroterion   (talk)   00:01, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Recent AfDs
Hi Caleb,

Just wanted to leave you a quick message as a fellow editor regarding your numerous recent college football AfDs. While I, and other editors within the project, admire your initiative, I think you may have the wrong motive in all this. I suggest you read WP:POINT, specifically the first two bullet points:

If someone nominates one of your favorite articles for deletion... If you have nominated an article for deletion, and others favour keeping it...
 * do explain why the subject meets inclusion criteria, providing reliable sources to support your assertion.
 * do not nominate another similar article for deletion, giving the same rationale.
 * do participate in the discussion, basing your argument on policies and guidelines.
 * do not create an article on what you consider to be a similarly unsuitable topic, with hopes that others will make the same arguments for deletion.

Several editors at the project talk page, myself included, are growing increasingly concerned that you are trying to retaliate against editors that nominated your articles for deletion. This is because the majority of your AfDs have been about very notable former rivalries in the south; we ask that if this is your motive, you stop creating these AfDs. If you have another reason for all of these nominations, I'd greatly appreciate a response. Thanks, PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 01:08, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

PCN02WPS I have nominated these articles in good faith because there is reasonable suspicion to believe they either aren't rivalries or they aren't notable enough to be rivalries, as I stated on the Project College football Wikipedia page. There is no retaliation or ulterior motive. I am simply trying to better college football coverage on Wikipedia. CalebHughes (talk) 20:03, 3 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your response both here and on the project talk page. I have read both and would like to thank you for clarifying your motive. As I mentioned in my previous message to you, I admire your initiative, but I feel that your enthusiasm towards the project could be put to a more constructive use. I don't mean to sound rude, all I'm trying to say is that a good faith, determined editor like you could be a big asset to the project, whether it be creating team season articles, improving existing articles, historical and current, etc. I apologize if my above message was of inappropriate tone, and I thank you again for your response. PCN02WPS  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 03:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Sock
You may wish to read Sock puppetry. It covers the topics of two using multiple accounts to edit, and also of editing while logged out of your account. Otherwise stable topics which interest you seem to be recently flooded by IP activity. This can lead to blocking. Cheers, UW Dawgs (talk) 00:28, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:LOGOUT is the relevant section on editing while logged out. UW Dawgs (talk) 00:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

September 2018
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on UCF Knights football. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.'' There are two users who disagree with you. Per WP:BRD, you need to discuss it after UW Dawgs reverted you the first time.'' Corky  05:25, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Unblock request
Since implementation of this block four months ago, the editor has been continuously editing while logged out, engaged in multiple sessions of account creation, squirreling them away for later use, and then used those new accounts in a manner meant to evade detection. Some of these new accounts have gone through SPI, but not all of them. Before an admin comments further, suggest the admin solicit a comprehensive list of all new accounts created post-block by the editor. UW Dawgs (talk) 03:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Not withstanding the obvious bias and personal hatred UW Dawgs has towards me, as I mentioned earlier, I take responsibility for all my actions, both pre-block and post-block. I promise I will not engage in such actions again. Please don't base your decision on one editor's biased opinion of me. I am deeply sorry for my wrongdoings and would like to continue editing in a constructive manner. CalebHughes (talk) 04:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If Caleb complies with all of Boing!'s suggestions, I would at that point consider supporting reinstatement. Caleb actually made some positive contributions as an editor and could, if sincerely contrite, become a valuable contributor. Alabama–Clemson football rivalry, which survived a recent AfD as "Keep", is an example of such a positive contribution. Cbl62 (talk) 10:45, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I just blocked four more socks at Sockpuppet investigations/CalebHughes, three of which were created after the master's last and obviously preposterous unblock request. He didn't even wait for Boing! to decline the request.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Disappointing. Cbl62 (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Unblock request
Under the standard offer, which is what I assume you are invoking, your appeal will be posted to the Administrator's noticeboard for discussion. Is the appeal above what you want us to copy across there? (Appeals which consist of little more than, "Time's up, unblock me now" tend to get shot down in flames and result in an effective community ban, which is why I suggest you may want to make a more extensive statement). To reviewers: For what it's worth, CU shows no other activity on the IP used to make this appeal. Yunshui 雲 水 14:53, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * To clarify Yunshui's points. You were so abusive as to be considered banned, not just blocked, under WP:3X. Therefore, no admin may just lift your ban, it can only be lifted by community consensus. I agree with Yunshui, there's no chance your ban will be lifted with the request you've made so far. WP:SO isn't a guarantee, you still need to address the behaviour that lead to your initial block and then your continued bad behaviour after that point. On the bright side, it looks like you have at least stayed away from Wikipedia for the past few months, so that will count in your favour. --Yamla (talk) 15:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * And I make three. Per above. You will need to list all other accounts you have used. You will need to more fully address the other behaviors-- what you did wrong, what you will do instead. You will need to give examples of the positive contributions you will make. You will need, IMO, to accept a WP:TBAN on AfD's. you will need to show understanding of the alternatives to edit warring and affirm that you will not edit war. That you will not sock goes without saying.  I will not decline as it has been moments since the last admin comment was made. Perhaps you can amend your request to fully address the issues in a way that someone can carry it to WP:AN with some hope of success--  Deep  fried  okra    15:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I cannot possibly name all the sock accounts. There are far too many. All that of which I have been accused I admit to. I admit also to edit warring and other disruptive behaviors, to which I apologize. I will not engage in such behaviors in the future, and one need only look at my useful contributions to see evidence that my editing can be constructive. If unblocked, I will make constructive edits, avoid socking and edit warring, and treat others with respect. CalebHughes (talk) 01:33, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Louisville–West Virginia football rivalry for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Louisville–West Virginia football rivalry 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 Articles for deletion/Louisville–West Virginia football rivalry until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Cbl62 (talk) 14:13, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Arkansas–Texas Tech football rivalry for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Arkansas–Texas Tech football rivalry 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 Articles for deletion/Arkansas–Texas Tech football rivalry until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished. Let&#39;srun (talk) 16:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)