User talk:Kraucrow

November 2014

Hello, I'm Avono. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Ignatas Konovalovas, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Avono♂ (talk) 22:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic basketball rosters

Please explain this addition and the subsequent revert of the removal of old teams? Templates have limited space and more than one line is unnecessary. The players are being referred to as playing for (and are being promoted by) their current clubs. Instead of an edit war, let's discuss. Rikster2 (talk) 10:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Having club they've singed inbetween seasons is not accurate because they played zero official games with that club and does not truly represent where they come from. "Limited space" is not really an issue and by adding extra info it makes more accurate and not crowded. We can compensate for some "crowdiness" to make information more accurate. If it was all by my way I would only add club they've played last season keeping new singed club totallly out of the picture. I'm making adjustments by allowing new club being listed there.

If someone's reading rosters in 2018 or other future years then he would be confused and misinformed about clubs players played before the tournament Kraucrow (talk) 11:59, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then we need to go with the old club because having two teams on a template with limited space does not work. Your edits to the Sapian template were also reverted by another use before I reset it. Rikster2 (talk) 12:17, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to open up a consensus discussion at WP:Basketball and will link it here so you can express your opinion. Please do not add the changes again until after that has run its course as you bold edits are being contested. Rikster2 (talk) 12:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basketball#"Current team" listed on Olympic rosters. Rikster2 (talk) 12:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Dude - I specifically asked you not to force your changes again until the discussion had occurred. It is completely inappropriate to just revert the changes again after adding your comment to the discussion. We need a consensus and until we get one the article should go back to where it was before your bold edits. Cut it out. Rikster2 (talk) 13:22, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 2016

Your recent editing history at Template:2016 Summer Olympics Brazil men's basketball team roster shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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 your 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.
I am not going to revert you again, but your behavior is totally inappropriate. Wikipedia is driven by consensus and you are not letting it play out Rikster2 (talk) 13:29, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sure, thank you. I'm not vandalizing the page by adding some retarded info. I'm adding accurate information for the ones reading in the future. "Limited space" is just thing you thought about and decided that it is limited. And it is not limited for the sake of accuracy. Kraucrow (talk) 13:34, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sure, but on Wikipedia format choices are made by consensus and at least 2 editors have disagreed with you and no one except you has added this back. So get off your high horse. The discussion is meant to see what the majority view is. Rikster2 (talk) 13:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Be right back: creating 10000 new accounts to edit the page and make it majority view if you're so into making editor count as argument in this... Kraucrow (talk) 13:43, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for disclosing ahead so the IP addresses can be checked against each other after the fact. Seriously, stop being a dick. I'm just asking you to follow the community guidelines. But clearly you aren't that interested. Rikster2 (talk) 13:47, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which community guideline is violated by adding correct information? Just because you revert something three times to strain over to some "three revert rule" does not mean you are right, It just mean you're playing with weak stuff. "three revert rule" my a***. Wait till five-point-palm exploding heart technique on your three revert rule Kraucrow (talk) 13:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. Yeah, what I propose is also "right," it's just a matter of how to format. Which is why the discussion is posted so others can chime in and a consensus decision can be reached. But whatever, man. Rikster2 (talk) 14:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]