User talk:NuggetYT

September 2020

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Monsignor Farrell High School and Louis Tobacco without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. And your edits were WP:MINOR Meters (talk) 00:37, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, 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, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Louis Tobacco, you may be blocked from editing. Again, stop incorrectly calling your edits minor. Meters (talk) 00:54, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, NuggetYT. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Monsignor Farrell High School, 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, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
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 are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to 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 Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. And this also applies to your edits to Louis Tobacco since you are editing as the director of communications of Monsignor Farrell (of which Tobacco is president and CEO) Meters (talk) 01:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020

Your recent edits to User talk:Meters could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. Meters (talk) 01:13, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Meters (talk) 01:21, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm an administrator here. If your next action is anything but withdrawing the legal threat you made here, you will be blocked. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some things that you need to be aware of

This site's community does have a variety of social contracts. We're aware that you're ignorant of them, which is why you've been given multiple warnings instead of just being immediately blocked.

Framing things as "us being against truth," assuming we're aggressively rude (instead of trying to read our messages in the kindest tone you can imagine), and threatening to bring in lawyers when you didn't get your way after your failure to try to find a cooperatively route doesn't come across as the behavior of an rational adult who has to guide teachers and resolve conflicts among students.

There are ways to get what you want -- with our help, no less. You are letting your emotions get in the way of them. For that reason:

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action.

You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved.

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 ~~~~}}. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:38, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits did not cite a reliable source. No, you are not a source unless anyone editing the site can immediately access you 24/7.

While I do think that Meters could have hand-written a note explaining what to instead of just leaving templated messages ^{(granted, those templates were created by committee to be as non-aggressive as possible)}, your responses ignored all prospects of the possibility that Wikipedia has its own policies and acted like you own the articles (which you do not).

Meters flatly explained what you need to do. They did not sugar-coat it or kiss your ass, they were perhaps blunt, but they were not aggressive. You imagined that aggression because you weren't getting your way because you weren't trying to find a way to be cooperative.

Your own failure to try to find a way to cooperate lead you to make a legal threat, which you were instructed multiple times to withdraw.

Now, if you want to be a rational adult who knows how to cooperate with others and work with social contracts, we can help you with that. If you withdraw your legal threat, promise to avoid such threats in the future, and promise to assume good faith from other editors, you will be unblocked. If you can find professionally-published sources (such as the school's website) that has the info on there that you're trying to add, we can help you cite that to change the info in relevant articles. All you have to do is realize that we are volunteers who want to build an accurate and well-sourced encyclopedia and we want new editors to help out. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:53, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You call me immature? Instead of helping me out and reasoning with me you abuse your powers to block me, instead of trying to help update your in accurate facts. You repeatedly asked me for sources yet your false info managed to slip into the pages without accurate sources?? It makes no sense! All I ask of you is to just look up all of the points I tried to update with accurate facts, and you will see for yourselves that everything I mentioned is factual. What’s the point of allowing people to correct pages, when your just going to block them for doing so??? I have all of these points in the discussion and none of you gave a proper response. Instead you linked me an overly complicated and outdated she when you could have just fact checked it for yourselves and changed it on the spot. All I was asking was for you to put back what I updated on both the Monsignor Farrell and the Lou Tobacco page, as many points were either completely wrong and made up, or just outdated. NuggetYT (talk) 01:55, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't ask me anything. I'm not Meters. Pay attention. (Also, it's your job to find a source for your claims). I just came here because you made a legal threat and despite being clearly instructed multiple times to withdraw it, you refused to do so.

Until you can resolve the problem of that legal threat, it's very difficult to see your actions as those of a calm and rational adult.

My previous post was summarizing where you've gone wrong in the hopes that there's some part of you reasonable enough to learn from your mistakes and try to grow past them. If you'd like to prove me wrong in that hope, keep arguing and don't pay attention to what anyone's saying.

There are three human beings involved in this who want the relevant pages to be accurate, and you're coming at the other two with nothing but entitlement, hostility, and assumptions of antagonism. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:11, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NuggetYT, I was mistaken when I simply undid your first edits without comment. The claim that someone was the first president of a school that opened before he was born appeared to be vandalism, but I was checking the information. Once I realized that at least some of your changes were valid I immediately started reinstating them with sources as I verified them. If you check the history I made the first edit to restore material [1] only 10 minutes after the removal, at exactly the same time as you made your first post to my talk page, and I told you on my talk page that I had already restored one. I next attempted to verify the change in enrollment but had no success. As far as I can tell this private school is not listed in the National Center for Education Statistics database, the first place we attempt to use as a source for any US high school. After that you kept me so busy reading and replying to your multiple posts to my talk page that I never had time to verify and source any of the other changes.

And now I'm busy IRL. When I come back I may look at this again and see if I can improve the articles now that I'm aware there may be problems, but I have to say that I'm tempted to just walk away from these articles after your comments. For a director of communications, I'm not impressed with your approach to communicating. Meters (talk) 02:31, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]