User talk:GoPhoenix1

Curt Cignetti coaching record

You keep putting his overall head coaching record in the spot for his current record at Elon. Current record is only for the record of their current job at their current school. His wins at IUP should not be included there. There is a spot for overall record in the info box where that goes. Please refrain from updating the wrong information in the future. Thank you. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 03:53, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the current record field is for his record at ELON ONLY!! Not his overall head coaching record. Please stop changing the page to inaccurate information.Bsuorangecrush (talk) 04:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have been permitted to update the page on behalf of the Coach. Please do not make any more edits. GoPhoenix1 (talk) 15:12, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care who "permitted" you do update it, you are updating it incorrectly. The current record section is only for record at his current position at Elon, which is 14–9. The overall record section is where his overall head coaching record belongs, which is 67–26. How do you not understand the difference? Please go look at any other coaches page who has had multiple head coaching jobs to see how it is done. Just in the CAA you can look at Greg Gattuso, Danny Rocco, Jim Fleming, Russ Huesman, Chuck Priore. Please do no make any other edits to his record before taking your argument to Talk:Curt Cignetti Bsuorangecrush (talk) 19:16, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Take your arguments to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football before editing again. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 19:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just reported you at [[1]].Bsuorangecrush (talk) 19:53, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the documentation at Template:Infobox college coach, specifically:

current_record
Record with current team [populate only for active coaches or administrators]

Your edits seem to be inappropriately inserting "all-time" record into the "current_record" parameter which is explicitly designated for "current team." UW Dawgs (talk) 19:56, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to switch the headers around? GoPhoenix1 (talk) 19:57, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's a template used for all college coaches. Bsuorangecrush (talk) 19:59, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There has to be a way to change around the header. I know you say that there isn't but I'm sure there is. GoPhoenix1 (talk) 20:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why would it need to be changed? The header is "Current position" which would be Elon then his record at Elon. Further down the table is "Head coaching record" with his overall head coaching record. Why would you want that changed? Bsuorangecrush (talk) 20:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to argue to change a project-wide template on one page to suit the particular wishes of one particular coach, you should make your case at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football. It won't happen on this page based on this discussion alone. JohnInDC (talk) 20:05, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just the order. I have no problem with having the records reflect, but there has to be a way to have the overall record above and the current record below. Don't see why that's an issue. GoPhoenix1 (talk) 20:05, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's an issue because it's not how the infobox is generally organized. If you want to plead for an exception, make your case at the link I cited above. JohnInDC (talk) 20:06, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Their current position and record is more relevant than their overall record, thus it is higher on the table.Bsuorangecrush (talk) 20:07, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So you're just going to ignore any discussion and edit warring warnings and just keep doing it how you want? Bsuorangecrush (talk) 20:19, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per JohnInDC's suggestion of taking this issue up at WikiProject College football, I can't think of a plausible rationale for an exception to the standard infobox format here. That Curt Cignetti or an agent on his behalf would like the article about him to look a certain way is not a valid reason. GoPhoenix1, I recommend you let this issue go, and if you return to editing after the expiration of your block, please do so in a productive manner. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 23:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 2018 - 3RR warning

Your recent editing history at Curt Cignetti shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; 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 talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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. 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. JohnInDC (talk) 19:53, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see that you're finally engaging in discussion above. Good. Please don't make that same edit again - no matter what the coach has told you to do - until you get agreement here on the Talk page to do it. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 19:59, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up. Who do you report to for Wikipedia? GoPhoenix1 (talk) 20:06, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No one. We're all volunteers, all charged with helping familiarize newcomers with Wikipedia's policies and practices. Some of us have a bit more back-office authority (administrative kind of stuff) but not me. JohnInDC (talk) 20:11, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reported now at WP:3RRN. JohnInDC (talk) 20:29, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that removing a good-faith report about you from a noticeboard is unacceptable behaviour. You may rebut the claims, but you may not just remove the report. —C.Fred (talk) 20:46, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

COI?

Hello, GoPhoenix1. 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 conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. 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 conflict of interest 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 which forms all or part of work 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. UW Dawgs (talk) 20:22, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

December 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring and blanking the report at WP:AN3. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. B (talk) 20:50, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pro tip: blanking the AN3 report does not get you out of being blocked and will usually get you blocked more quickly and for longer. --B (talk) 20:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]