User talk:RoTi37

NBA heights/weights

Please try to understand where I am coming from. It is often quite difficult to determine a player's "true" height or weight. That's why the infobox specifically says "listed height" and "listed weight" - to provide some standardization, and ward off endless edit warring.

Now, there certainly are many cases when the NBA's official sources provide different numbers. In such cases, we do have to use some editorial judgment. I didn't realize the Raptors had different figures at that particular part of the website, but now I know. Zagalejo^^^ 02:53, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I've known for years that the NBA.com heights/weights are fishy. That's why the infobox says "Listed height/Listed weight". Unfortunately, there's no easy way to list the "true" numbers - sources vary, and you're never going to be able to satisfy everyone. (Weights, especially, can fluctuate wildly.) The "Listed height/Listed weight" method may not be ideal, but otherwise, we'd see nothing but constant bickering.

You're free to change the Raptors' figures yourself, as long as you indicate in the edit summary where you're getting your numbers. That particular page you linked to is easy to miss, so it would be good to point it out to other editors. Otherwise, they're just going to look at the main NBA.com profiles, and assume that you're wrong. Zagalejo^^^ 00:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the official Raptors 2012-2013 roster from the raptors website you will note valanciunas' listed height and weight. http://www.nba.com/raptors/roster/2012 I hope this matter has been resolved. Duhon (talk) 04:07, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Buddy this matter wouldnt be an issue if you hadnt vandalized the page while attempting to reference the "official" nba profiles. I agee that listed weights dont have to be recent, IF they are accurate; nba profiles are neither recent nor accurate. "ALL nba players are listed by their nba profile"? Really, you think so? Look at enes kanter's nba profile which still lists him at 267, while kanter himself admitted that he has dropped into the 240s by going on a seafood diet, which his wikipedia page reflects correctly. Seems like someone on wikipedia managed to do their homework, looks like im not the only one. Do some research first before you delude yourself on being correct - my listed source is from an official press release from the raptors organization and cannot be dismissed in favour of a source that is obviously incorrect and senseless; valanciunas' london 2012 profile listed him at 245lbs - does it makes sense for him to LOSE 14lbs after saying multiple interviews that he wants to bulk up to compete against dwight howard, and shrink an inch? Or does it make more sense for him to gain 12 more pounds after Lietuva's early exit in the olympics and reach 257lbs in time for training camp? The nba's height measurements are supposedly done with shoes, but there isnt a single source from 2011 onwards that lists valanciunas at shorter than 6'11". Surely the olympics would measure him without shoes right - nope he is listed at 7'0" in london 2012. So either the nba forgot to tell him to wear shoes or all the sources that list him as 7'0" gave him platform shoes to wear, OR his nba profile is outdated AND inaccurate. I suggest you continue to focus on chris duhon's profile page, and his alone, because you're obviously too lazy to do your homework. Don't continue to insult your own intelligence by valuing "official" nba profiles over logic that clearly proves the nba profiles wrong. Let a raptors fan who actually cares about the raptors and all their players get it right.RoTi37 (talk) 10:19, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is what NBA.com lists: [1] This is what player bio's use. DaHuzyBru (talk) 06:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal to an admin: Zagalejo or Bagumba. DaHuzyBru (talk) 06:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

January 2013

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jonas Valančiūnas. 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.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
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; 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. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 04:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heights

I have some other things to take care of right now. I'll comment soon. Zagalejo^^^ 06:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't run CheckUser myself. Only these people can. It shouldn't have to come to that, though. Let me comment at the Valanciunas talk page. Zagalejo^^^ 06:21, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Jonas Valančiūnas. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 06:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Err, I don't know if this was the best decision, considering that the other editor also broke 3RR, yet wasn't blocked. RoTi did leave the last edit to the article alone, and I thought we might be getting somewhere on the article talk page. Zagalejo^^^ 07:12, 31 January 2013 (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).

RoTi37 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I didn't see my last reason get posted, so I am going to say that if you don't want Wikipedia to look like an unfair dictatorship then you should also block Duhon if you're going to block me. I was already contributing to reaching a consensus on the Talk page after successfully appealing for an admin Zagalejo, after having an unproductive and lengthy exchange with stubborn user who may or may not have a second account to support his main account. RoTi37 (talk) 07:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Blocks are not meant to punish past actions, they are intended to help stop ongoing disruptive behavior. The block seems warranted as you resumed edit warring at around 6:00 GMT, a full six hours after the previous warring between you two subsided. The other party you are concerned with did not resume warring.—Bagumba (talk) 10:27, 31 January 2013 (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.

...and should you choose to write a WP:GAB-compliant request at some point, you'll want to read WP:NOTTHEM and WP:EBUR first (✉→BWilkins←✎) 10:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, some admins have stopped by my talkpage and convinced me that if you can contribute to the discussion, and not continue to edit war, that I will unblock you. The original block I feel was correct, and this is not me undoing it, it's reducing the time in which it was active. Please make sure to obtain consensus before you continue to make such changes on the page. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 19:55, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding sock puppetry

There may be something to that, but again, I can't run any of the CheckUser stuff myself, so I can't really prove anything. I don't think there's a pressing need to pursue this unless User:Brodey suddenly shows up at the Valanciunas page. Zagalejo^^^ 06:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LOL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.135.14 (talk) 02:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]