User talk:173.3.61.190: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 00:52, 3 November 2019 edit173.3.61.190 (talk) →November 2019: re← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 18:18, 4 November 2019 edit undoGonzo fan2007 (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators42,597 edits +cmt
(5 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 6:		Line 6:
	::::You're wrong about that, too, sport. There is NO requirement to log in. As for the rest, WP:V requires that the info be verifiABLE. It is. You can verify it. So go ahead. Or stay in an edit war with an IP address, and get yourself into some shit. YOU reverted first, so you'll violate 3RR before me. (Yeah, I'm not actually a noob). ] (]) 00:52, 3 November 2019 (UTC)		::::You're wrong about that, too, sport. There is NO requirement to log in. As for the rest, WP:V requires that the info be verifiABLE. It is. You can verify it. So go ahead. Or stay in an edit war with an IP address, and get yourself into some shit. YOU reverted first, so you'll violate 3RR before me. (Yeah, I'm not actually a noob). ] (]) 00:52, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

			:Here, I'll help you extricate yourself from the situation you've gotten yourself into. Here are some quick and easy sources of varying quality I found in a 2-second Google search. Knock yourself out.
	] Your recent editing history at ] shows that you are currently engaged in an ]; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See ] for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ].
			:-Went to Raiders in 1976:
			:-Raiders won two Super Bowls:
			:-Tooz helped them win those games:
			:If there's something else you doubt, tag it. Or do some research. This is REALLY basic stuff. None of it is in doubt. It doesn't need citations, but if you want to do them, go right ahead. I don't want to (because I'm on a cell phone, and it's a pain in the ass), and I don't have to. ] (]) 03:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
			:PS - As a retired admin whose RfA passed unanimously before you even started editing here, I can tell you edit wars of this sort don't do you any favors.] (]) 03:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

			] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> ] (]) 04:46, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
	'''Being involved in an edit war can result in you being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—'''even if you don't violate the three-revert rule'''—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ] (]) 00:47, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
			:LOL. K. A big reason I'm not here anymore is that, after several years, I got sick of all the procedural circle-jerks. So, while I replied over there, it will be the last time. Looks like someone is now doing your job for you on the article (which, again, an aspiring admin should have had no problem doing himself), so I'm all set. You're never going to argue your way into being right about this, no matter where you post. I suggest you move on to something you can fix. ] (]) 13:08, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
	:''If this is a ], and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider ] for yourself or ] so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.''<!-- Template:Shared IP advice -->

			<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px">]<div style="margin-left:45px">Anonymous users from this IP address have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''72 hours''' for persistently making ]. </div><div style="margin-left:45px">If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the ], then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx\|" code. -->{{tlx\|unblock\|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}.  ] (]) 14:06, 3 November 2019 (UTC)</div></div>
			: ''If this is a ] and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by ]''.<!-- Template:uw-disruptblock -->
			::{{U\|Bbb23}}, stumbled upon this discussion. After reviewing it, this blocks seems to be a pointless, if not an outright bad, block. Sure there was a dispute, and the IP wasn't being especially nice, but the issue was resolved. What behavior does a block prevent right now? The "disruptive" editing was adding accurate, albeit unsourced, info that was accidentally removed in a previous edit. This just comes across as a punitive.<span style="white-space:nowrap; font-family:Harlow Solid Italic;">] ] @ </span> 18:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 18:18, 4 November 2019

November 2019

Hello, I'm Doniago. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, John Matuszak, 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. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 22:58, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

That requirement is for biographies of living people. Not every damn thing. Is there something in those two sentences that you doubt? Do you think that he DIDN'T play for the Raiders? Do you think they DIDN'T win the Super Bowl? Or did you just revert me out of hand because I'm not logged in? 173.3.61.190 (talk) 00:01, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

No, it isn't just for BLPs. Please see WP:V, also, please review WP:BURDEN before you re-add the material, and consider that it would probably be a lot faster to simply add a source than to argue about whether one should be needed. Also, if you do have an account here, you certainly shouldn't be editing without being logged in. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 00:46, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

You're wrong about that, too, sport. There is NO requirement to log in. As for the rest, WP:V requires that the info be verifiABLE. It is. You can verify it. So go ahead. Or stay in an edit war with an IP address, and get yourself into some shit. YOU reverted first, so you'll violate 3RR before me. (Yeah, I'm not actually a noob). 173.3.61.190 (talk) 00:52, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Here, I'll help you extricate yourself from the situation you've gotten yourself into. Here are some quick and easy sources of varying quality I found in a 2-second Google search. Knock yourself out.

-Went to Raiders in 1976:

-Raiders won two Super Bowls:

-Tooz helped them win those games:

If there's something else you doubt, tag it. Or do some research. This is REALLY basic stuff. None of it is in doubt. It doesn't need citations, but if you want to do them, go right ahead. I don't want to (because I'm on a cell phone, and it's a pain in the ass), and I don't have to. 173.3.61.190 (talk) 03:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

PS - As a retired admin whose RfA passed unanimously before you even started editing here, I can tell you edit wars of this sort don't do you any favors.173.3.61.190 (talk) 03:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. DonIago (talk) 04:46, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

LOL. K. A big reason I'm not here anymore is that, after several years, I got sick of all the procedural circle-jerks. So, while I replied over there, it will be the last time. Looks like someone is now doing your job for you on the article (which, again, an aspiring admin should have had no problem doing himself), so I'm all set. You're never going to argue your way into being right about this, no matter where you post. I suggest you move on to something you can fix. 173.3.61.190 (talk) 13:08, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 14:06, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

Bbb23, stumbled upon this discussion. After reviewing it, this blocks seems to be a pointless, if not an outright bad, block. Sure there was a dispute, and the IP wasn't being especially nice, but the issue was resolved. What behavior does a block prevent right now? The "disruptive" editing was adding accurate, albeit unsourced, info that was accidentally removed in a previous edit. This just comes across as a punitive. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)