Jump to content

User talk:97.112.217.211

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

[edit]

Hello 97.112.217.211!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. You are welcome to continue editing articles without logging in, but you may wish to create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits. If you edit without a username, your IP address (97.112.217.211) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started.

Happy editing! - wolf 20:12, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Finding your way around
Editing articles
Getting help
How you can help

October 2022

[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Flint River Academy. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Jacona (talk) 19:51, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It takes two to edit war, if you would quit reverting my edits I wouldn't have to keep unreverting them. Whether the demographics are accurate is irrelevant, demographics don't go in the main body of the description and have always had their own sub-section in any article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.217.211 (talk) 18:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing the point here. Per WP:BRD, you made a:

  • Bold edit. It was
  • Reverted. If you disagree, you then
  • Discuss the matter on the article talk page.

Anyone can just continually hit "undo", becuase they think they're right. That is why we have talk pages, and policies against such behaviour, otherwise it becomes disrupritive. As for the RSA syndrome page, the entry you keep removing is supported by sourcing and consensus. Your edit has neither. It has also been discussed before, but feel free to bring it up again. But first, you really should self-revert. Thanks - wolf 20:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war notice

[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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:

  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.

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. - wolf 20:11, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Flint River Academy, you may be blocked from editing. — Moops ⋠T⋡ 20:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

[edit]

You are now involved in edit wars on two differenrt articles. Is there some reason why you refuse to simply go to the talk pages and discuss, as is required by our policies? Simply hitting 'undo' repeatedly is not the way to go about making any changes you seek. (courtesy ping: Jacona) - wolf 20:21, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. - wolf 20:30, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring takes two people 97.112.217.211 (talk) 20:31, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You've been reverted by two different people today at Flint River Academy. —C.Fred (talk) 20:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And? I've explained to both of them that accuracy of the demographics is irrelevant. In literally any article that cites demographics of a town, institute, whatever, the demographics have their own section.
I'd be willing to bet that if I went to one of those pages and added demographics to the main description *that* edit would be reverted too... 97.112.217.211 (talk) 20:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You have not engaged on the talk page. You need to do that and work toward consensus. —C.Fred (talk) 20:43, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They didn't either. They just kept reverting my edits 97.112.217.211 (talk) 20:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a great example as to why Wiki is not considered a valid academic source. You have a bunch of (Personal attack removed) freaking out and reverting edits just to try to get the last word, regardless of whether they're correct. 97.112.217.211 (talk) 20:56, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is a collaborative project. You must be willing to work with other editors to edit here. If your edits continue to contain personal attacks against other editors, you will be blocked from editing. —C.Fred (talk) 21:05, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They weren't willing to work with me. They kept reverting my edits without starting anything on the talk page. 97.112.217.211 (talk) 22:31, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As the editor initiating the change, there is a little more onus on you to start the talk page discussion. Further, with your early edit summaries of "Removing race baiting propaganda that does not add to the description of the institution", I can see why they would assume your edits were not good faith edits. —C.Fred (talk) 22:37, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why would they not be good faith edits? It literally *was* race baiting propaganda. The person originally reverting them even left a note referring to it was a 'lily white school'.
She kind of proved my point. 97.112.217.211 (talk) 23:04, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a diff for when that happened? —C.Fred (talk) 02:47, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Check the edit history of Flint River Academy. It should be pretty near the top. 97.112.217.211 (talk) 03:29, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Found it. This diff was left after you starting making the claim that it was "race baiting propaganda", and the full text of their edit summary is "Restored sourced content. Demographics, from reliable sources are not 'race baiting'. Removing them from the article on your almost lily-white school that was founded by racists as a segregation academy is censorship. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED."
The only word in that edit summary that I'm inclined to fault is "your", since it is a direct accusation that you have a conflict of interest with FRA. However, even that I'm inclined to let slide, since the article has a history of tampering by editors with conflicts of interest, so it is not unreasonable to assume that an IP address newly arrived to the article is not also an alumnus or other individual with a COI. —C.Fred (talk) 13:16, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for proving the point that wiki is a leftist cesspool devoid of an interest in accuracy.
But no, I have nothing to do with FRA. It's race baiting whether it's 'accurate' or not. Find me another page that has the demographics listed in the main body of the description rather than in its own section.
Also, I would appreciate you checking out the talk page of RAS Syndrome. I've made the valid point ad nauseum that 'DC Comics' is not redundant, (Personal attack removed) basically just ignored it and told me to drop it because "Well that's just the way it's been for years" as if an error persisting for long enough makes it not an error. 97.112.217.211 (talk) 13:47, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Someone even got the point on the RAS page itself that all apparent repetitions are NOT redundant, in the non-examples section of the RAS page:
>Sometimes the presence of repeated words does not create a redundant phrase. For example, "laser (light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation) light" is light produced by a light amplification process. Similarly, "OPEC countries" are two or more member states of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, whereas "OPEC" by itself denotes the overall organization.
>SIMILARLY, "OPEC COUNTRIES" ARE TWO OR MORE MEMBER STATES OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE PETROLEUM EXPORTING COUNTRIES, WHEREAS "OPEC" BY ITSELF DENOTES THE OVERALL ORGANIZATION.
They understand that OPEC is the organization and OPEC countries are members of that organization. Just like DC is a company and DC comics are a product put out by that company. 97.112.217.211 (talk) 13:52, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This has fast become net-negative. C.Fred, along with the extended comments here, (with yet more personal attacks), this user has bombarded the RAS tp thread with more comments, such as:

"I'll 'let it go' when right finally prevails instead of a bunch of petulant children who just want their way because "B-but that's just the way it's always been".",

And then, before I had a chance to reply, or had even returned to WP:

"Ok well if you're just going to ignore my points, I'm going to go back to editing the page based on the fact that I'm correct.".

Whether this is an angry, evading sock user just looking to push disputes, or someone new to WP with a WP:CIR issue, and is just generally hostile with a "must have my way" type attitude, their worthwhile contributions at this point are nil, they've made no effort to collaborate or learn any policies & guidelines to help contribute or avoid disruption, and meanwhile, they seem to think bludgeoning, insulting and edit-warring to have their way is only way to build and improve content. - wolf 17:24, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You never addressed my points as to why it's not a redundant acronym. 97.112.217.211 (talk) 17:47, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which is not true, but more importantly, I think you have some comments and behavioural issues that that are in more immediate need of address. - wolf 18:28, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But you really didn't though. The page itself has an example that refutes DC comics being redundant. 97.112.217.211 (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022

[edit]
Stop icon with clock
Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing from certain namespaces ((Article)) for a period of 24 hours for edit warring.
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.
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 ~~~~}}.  —C.Fred (talk) 20:41, 29 October 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

I should be unblocked because I was correct, or the other two users should also be blocked for also engaging in edit warring.

Decline reason:

Being correct does not allow you to engage in edit warring. Everyone involved in edit warring believes they are correct. What's happened to other users is not relevant to your request. Yamla (talk) 21:14, 29 October 2022 (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.

  • Blocks are preventative, not punitive. This IP is blocked to prevent further disruption at articles. I would like the user of this IP to explain this comment, where they state an intent to return to edit warring immediately upon expiration of their block, and explain why they should not be blocked for a longer duration from at least that article. —C.Fred (talk) 19:01, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because I was verifiably correct the entire time. The RAS page itself even has an example of exactly what I'm referring to with the 'OPEC Countries' example under 'non-examples
Other than that, where am I wrong, or employing opinion?
Detective Comics is the company
Comics are a product they sell
Here's my source and verifiability: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/redundancy
"the part of a message that can be eliminated without loss of essential information"
You cannot eliminate 'comics' from DC comics when referring specifically to comic books because DC is the company and they have many products aside from comic books. When referring to their action figures, the company name does not change to 'Detective Action Figures'. When referring to their apparel, the company name does not change to 'Detective Apparel'. etc.
There is no exemption to WP:3RR for being "verifiably correct". —C.Fred (talk) 19:26, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If wolf had paid attention, more than one edit would not have been necessary. It's still not a redundant acronym now, any more than it was six months ago. 97.112.217.211 (talk) 23:52, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Annnd as soon as the block was lifted, he went right back to edit warring. (pinging C.Fred) - wolf 01:58, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I explained ad nauseum as to why it's not redundant. You didn't address any of it. 97.112.217.211 (talk) 02:01, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You just keep going in circles. The content has been discussed. Your points have been addressed. You can't just keep going on, and on, and on, about hownl your opinion is right and everybody else is wrong. The entry is supported by consensus and sourcing. You haven't even acknowledged the former, as to the latter, well this comment of yours basically sums up your position:
"You can add all the incorrect sources in the world, they're still incorrect

It

Is

Not

A

Redundancy"

This whole situation is becoming farcical. - wolf 02:19, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You never addressed any of my points. You've done nothing but ignore them and keep reverting my edits without actually getting into the substance of anything I've posted. 97.112.217.211 (talk) 02:25, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was asked to take it to the talk page to reach a resolution. That didn't do any good. It didn't even matter that the VERY PAGE being edit warred over contains an example basically IDENTICAL to the one I'm talking about as NOT being a redundant acronym. 97.112.217.211 (talk) 02:28, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Still does not justify you removing that entry, (x3, within minutes of your edit warring block expiring and an admin warning you not to do it). I strongly suggest you self-revert. - wolf 02:42, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war notice #2

[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on RAS Syndrome. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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:

  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.

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. Cnilep (talk) 02:21, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I tried, I really did. Wolf keeps claiming my points have been addressed when they haven't, and just reverting my edits regardless. 97.112.217.211 (talk) 02:30, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And despite an admin making it clear to you to not engage in further edit warring on that page, regardless of whether how right you think you are, you went and did just that. Within a hour of your edit-warring block expiring, you are now at 3RR on that article. I strongly suggest you self-revert. At some point you need to realize this project is governed by policies and guidelines, and they apply to you, just like everybody else. - wolf 02:39, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There, I think my most recent edit is a fair compromise. 97.112.217.211 (talk) 03:09, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
After you self-reverted, I swapped out the note you added for the correct tag, that still notes the entry as disputed and directs readers to the talk page thread. I will again say that you are not being gas-lit, we just disagree. That said, I still encourage you to read and learn the relevant policies and guidelines, and if you still seek to have that entry removed, have a policy-based reason to do so. It will save a lot of debating on the talk page and disruption to the article. - wolf 03:22, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I maintain that I did but it was just taking up way too much time. 97.112.217.211 (talk) 03:32, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. There is no rush. The standard for many discussions is to keep them open a week. —C.Fred (talk) 11:54, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just really don't see how I *didn't* make the case for it not being a redundant acronym. 97.112.217.211 (talk) 21:21, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not you made the case for it, you can't ramrod the change through when it's been objected to until consensus has been reached. If it's been a week and there's no reply to your message, then post something along the lines of "I hear no objections. Does that mean it's okay to make the change?" If a few days go by with no objections, now you've got a case for the talk page supporting your position. —C.Fred (talk) 21:45, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Eh I'm good with the dispute being noted in the entry. 97.112.217.211 (talk) 01:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion #2

[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Cnilep (talk) 02:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

[edit]

Also, please don't post personal attacks, such as this edit summary, focus on edits, not editors. Thank you - wolf 20:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please stop with the personal attacks. This latest one is particularly offensive and has been removed. Pinging C.Fred, as additional sanctions should be considered. - wolf 20:55, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Did you ever consider there's a reason they wanted away from them in the first place?" - I'm also curious; by "they" do you mean "white people", and by "them" do you mean "black people"? If not, feel free to clarify. Thanks - wolf 17:30, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon with clock
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.
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.
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 ~~~~}}.  Daniel Case (talk) 03:03, 1 November 2022 (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).

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

Request reason:

Decline reason:

That doesn't undo the edit warring. 331dot (talk) 05:51, 1 November 2022 (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.

Which "issue" was resolved? Clearly not the content dispute, as the edits at RAS syndrome show. Clearly not your behaviour, as your edits to the same article show. For anybody to consider unblocking you, you will need to demonstrate that you understand the guidelines on edit warring and agree to follow them. —C.Fred (talk) 16:41, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:97.112.217.211&oldid=1128193203"