User talk:Truefacts24

July 2024

Hello! I'm Michaeldble. Your recent edit(s) to the page Germany national football team appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been reverted for now. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Michaeldble (talk) 13:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is widely known information. Uruguay wears 4 stars on their uniform. This is confirmed by fifa and I have proven it over and over. Accept it now. Truefacts24 (talk) 16:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Germany national football team. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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 and 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. Michaeldble (talk) 15:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:43, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 2024

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Germany national football team) for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

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 ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 02:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 02:54, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Acroterion (talk) 03:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And not on the project page either. You are on the verge of a siteblock. Acroterion (talk) 03:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Switzerland national football team, you may be blocked from editing. Black Kite (talk) 05:34, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, I never vandalized the Switzerland national team. Why do you say that? Please explain. I add relevant and accurate information that propels teams only. Nothing I ever put on Switzerland was incorrect, I actually made it more correct than it was before. Their best ever finish in a football tournament was the 1924 Olympics which they came second place which is equivalent to a World Cup runner-up finish since that tournament was the first world championship. That should be displayed on the front of their page with the World Cup finishes. Besides that piece of important history, I saw that you didn’t like how it was coded “regional” which is on the backend and viewers don’t read but I saw no other way to code it as world and it accomplished the same thing of putting it next to world cups.Truefacts24 (talk) 11:54, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the template uses the word "vandalize" when giving the false information warning, which is probably a bit harsh in this case, but the Olympics being a regional tournament is simply false. The article was perfectly OK as it was mentioning the Olympics in the prose. It would be really useful if you could - for now - stop your crusade for equivalence between the Olympics and the World Cups and simply discuss your proposed changes with other editors, especially when there is not a consensus for your changes. Black Kite (talk) 12:11, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

People need to understand the history of football more, and this is what I’m trying to accomplish by giving teams their proper credit. That is all. Only the 1924 and 1928 Olympics are equal in value to the World Cups, I would say with more teams involved and a crazy knockout bracket those Olympic editions (which were the first 2 organized by FIFA) were more difficult to win than the first world cup in 1930 which only had a few teams in it since everyone didn’t want to travel to Uruguay for it. But people need to give proper credit for these tournaments because they’re unlike all other Olympic football tournaments that came after or before. All others are amateur players only while also being U23 since 1992, which is part of the U23 Wikipedia page records, not the senior teams. These 2 tournaments are the whole reason the FIFA World Cup was able to exist and are essentially World Cups even though that aren’t, they’re Olympics organized by FIFA in the same way as a World Cup.Truefacts24 (talk) 12:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sop canvassing to find people to help you circumvent your block. Your conduct causes me to think that your block may need to be extended and/or changed to a siteblock. Acroterion (talk) 13:04, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 19:55, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Acroterion (talk) 00:17, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Block appeal, I broke no rules stated

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).

Truefacts24 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was blocked for being accused of personal attacks. I never personally attacked anyone. I was pointing out people trying to argue against me in a consensus discussion as having a conflict of interest because their page said they are fans of the team I was editing a true verified fact about and that fact makes it look like the 4 championships their country has are not as rare. I’m copying and pasting the following from the Wikipedia guideline page on the person attacks rule: “Note that it is not a personal attack to question an editor about their possible conflict of interest on a specific article or topic“

Decline reason:

Being a fan of a team does not mean they have a conflict of interest.

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.

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).

Truefacts24 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I’m replying to my first block appeal. Here it is copy and pasted for full context, and my reply to the reply which I don’t agree with will be below:

Request reason: I was blocked for being accused of personal attacks. I never personally attacked anyone. I was pointing out a conflict of interest in people trying to argue against me in a consensus discussion because their page said they are fans of the team I was editing a true verified fact about and that fact makes it look like the 4 championships their country has are not as rare. I'm copying and pasting the following from the Wikipedia guideline page on the person attacks rule: "Note that it is not a personal attack to question an editor about their possible conflict of interest on a specific article or topic"

Decline reason: Being a fan of a team does not mean they have a conflict of interest.

My reply: That is the definition of a conflict of interest, which is now subjective apparently. Either way, the rule for personal attacks doesn’t say there has to be an objective conflict of interest, simply the fact that I thought there was a “possible conflict of interest”, according to my subjection, indicates that I was in full compliance of rule and should never have received a block for that while trying to achieve a fair consensus.

Decline reason:

No, that is not in any way the definition of a Wikipedia conflict of interest. You're not going to get anywhere this way. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 01:10, 20 July 2024 (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.

I didn’t personal attack though, me observing that someone is behaving in a biased way isn’t an attack to them personally, rather my confession of their behavior. It’s not considered an attack on them in a personal way, only on the discussion we’re having regarding the subject matter at hand. Truefacts24 (talk) 01:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Acroterion (talk) 21:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Vandalism"

If I see another "removed vandalism" in an edit summary while you're adding your preferred version, you will be blocked for a much longer time. Acroterion (talk) 00:18, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I won’t. I’m new here. In the future I’m not sure how to report vandalism if I see it. Also, How come when people personally attack me about my edits in their edit summaries you don’t threaten to block them? Truefacts24 (talk) 00:54, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You weren't reverting vandalism, and you have a history of attacking editors who disagree with you. Deflection isn't a good strategy. Acroterion (talk) 01:11, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn’t lie and say something was vandalism if I didn’t believe it was. In the future, how does one report what they believe to be genuine vandalism? Never before this have I believed another editor who had a different point of view was vandalizing a page.Truefacts24 (talk) 01:16, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This [1] and this [2] didn't revert vandalism, it was you inserting your preferred version and calling the previous version vandalism. You have returned to the pattern of editing for which I blocked you. You will get no more warnings about this. Acroterion (talk) 01:23, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You blocked me for “personal attacks” in a talk board when I thought there was a conflict of interest according to the rules which I later got clarification on in my 2nd appeal. I don’t understand what you have out for me, like I said I’m new here and learning. I’ll be careful, though, how I word edit summaries. Truefacts24 (talk) 01:26, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've just switched strategies from claiming other people have conflicts of interest to calling them vandals. It's the same thing. And I also blocked you for edit-warring. Now you're returning to the same subjects. If you revert anyone who undoes your edits, you will be blocked for resumption of edit-warring. Acroterion (talk) 01:31, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. Only that 1 case I believed was a vandal because they put fake news attack articles as historical sources. Why is it edit warring if I edit a page with great original sources, but if someone changes it and puts a smear article as a source, they’re ok and I can’t revert? So I just can’t revert and the rest of editors can? Truefacts24 (talk) 01:35, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Last warning You are very close to being blocked again. You claimed on another editor's talkpage that Marca was a "fake news website" - it's actually the longest running Spanish sports newspaper. This is, seriously, the last time that anyone is going to say this. Stop your POV warring or you will be blocked, and it will be indefinitely. Black Kite (talk) 15:13, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks (Redacted)

July 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Black Kite (talk) 15:29, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note for UTRS admins - the edit that prompted the block has been revision-deleted but can be seen here. Black Kite (talk) 09:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UTRS appeal #91346 is declined. --Yamla (talk) 11:26, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]