User talk:Hughesjc91

Redskins / Commanders

Please stop your changes changing "Redskins" to "Commanders". The team was not known as the Commanders during Taylor's tenure. Changing it is revisionist history. Whether history is offensive or not is irrelevant. It's history. We don't change it because it's offensive. I've reverted your changes. Please do not continue this behavior. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_National Football League#Changing team names when team name changes. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This reflects the current name. The team page has the former name in it and it can be found via the link. Hughesjc91 (talk) 16:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The current name is not what the name was when he played for the team. You are revising history and your are also BLATANTLY in violation of WP:3RR for which you have been warned but ignored anyway. Whether you are doing this as an IP or as a logged in editor, the effect is the same. This behavior must stop. We don't work our way forward on Wikipedia by attempting to bludgeon people into submission and force our preferred version forward. Multiple people have reverted you. Your changes are not welcome. Dispute resolution asks we discuss. You were invited to the discussion and have ignored the discussion. I wouldn't be surprised if an administrator blocks you now for your behavior. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not a revision of history considering it’s the current name of the franchise. A note can be made on the page denoting the team was under a former name at the time. Hughesjc91 (talk) 16:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care how right you think you are. I don't care if you are 100000000000000000% right and everybody else in the entire universe it just flat wrong. Trying to brute force your changes onto the project is NOT how we do things here. Either you accept that, and work WITH the community rather than against it, or you will never make progress here. When multiple people keep reverting you, you have got to start thinking "Hmm, maybe I'm doing something wrong" rather than "oh hell no, they're all wrong and I'm right!". Wikipedia is a community project, not a project where you are right and everyone else can take a hike. Got it? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. You've already been blocked. If you persist in this behavior using IPs or other logged in accounts, your changes will be undone. Either join discussion to gain Wikipedia:Consensus for your changes, or you're just wasting your time. Brute force does not work on Wikipedia. Good day. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only commenting in case you appeal your block. Wikipedia is about accuracy, despite the reputation it has with some people. Saying players like Sean Taylor, John Riggins, Doug Williams, etc played for the Washington Commanders is just flat inaccurate. It's literally no different than if you said Warren Moon played for the Tennessee Titans or Johnny Unitas played for the Indianapolis Colts. The only difference between these examples is the reason why the team names changed. If a player plays before and after a name change, Like Len Dawson or Steve McNair for example, both names are listed. If you are able to edit again, please remember this.--Rockchalk7 17 06:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For accuracy, the location of the team or a team name change should be updated. For example in this article it mentions “Redskins Park” that location is now known as Commanders Park. The ring of honor is now the Commanders Ring of Honor. In the interest of accuracy shouldn’t those parts at least be updated to reflect their current name? Hughesjc91 (talk) 15:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes all the current things associated with the franchise have changed. But once again to say players who played for the Boston Braves, Boston Redskins, Washington Redskins, or Washington Football Team (all of the franchise's previous names) that did not also play for the franchise from 2022 to now is flat out inaccurate. Sean Taylor played for the Washington Redskins. Alex Smith played for the Washington Redskins and Washington Football Team. John Riggins played for the Washington Redskins. Cliff Battles played for the Boston Braves, Boston Redskins, and Washington Redskins. None of these players, or any player who played for the franchise through the 2021 season and not after played for the Washington Commanders. I'll once again use the example of Johnny Unitas. To say he played for the Indianapolis Colts is a false statement, literally no different than stating Sean Taylor played for the Commanders. Only time Commanders should be listed for someone who played for the Redskins is in a case like Montez Sweat who played before and after the name change.--Rockchalk7 17 05:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Sean Taylor. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. the team name used is that in use during the player's time with the side. We don't censor information because it is now deemed offensive. The inappropriateness of the Washington team name is acknowledged and discussed at the article on the team. Nthep (talk) 16:04, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hughesjc91! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Sean Taylor several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Sean Taylor, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Sean Taylor 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; read about 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:08, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing certain pages (Sean Taylor) for disruptive editing at Sean Taylor and continuing to do so after several warnings and invitations to discuss..

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Nthep (talk) 16:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Keith Rendleman (April 15)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by CNMall41 was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines for sports persons and athletes). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

This is the only reference I see here that would count towards notability. The rest are bios or unreliable (once written by "web team" which indicates paid placement or press release).

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Keith Rendleman and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

CNMall41 (talk) 20:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hughesjc91! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! CNMall41 (talk) 20:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Keith Rendleman

Hello, Hughesjc91. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Keith Rendleman, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 19:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Keith Rendleman

Hello, Hughesjc91. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Keith Rendleman".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]