User talk:Truth0990
I'll be back
- Unless it's through following the instructions in the "blocked" section of this page, no, you won't. If you did manage to come back, those accounts would be blocked. Furthermore, new accounts that try to change "Zach Moore" to say he's "currently a free agent" will get mixed up with yours. If you really care about that, then you need to go about this legitimately. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm going to edit alot of pages from alot of accounts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truth0990 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
- They'll all be blocked immediately per WP:SOCK. Please find better use of your time and don't waste ours. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Nope it's a quarantine. I got nothing but time
March 2020
[edit]
Hello, I'm Eagles247. I noticed that you recently removed content from Zach Moore without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:56, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Zach Moore 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:58, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
[edit]
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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Truth0990 reported by User:Eagles247 (Result: ). Thank you. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:47, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Blocked
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:08, 14 March 2020 (UTC)False information Truth0990 (talk) 23:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
- That's not a response that's going to help.
- If you're trying to argue that you did not violate the three revert rule, this is pretty clearly your IP address. Trying to act like it's not is only going to make us distrust you.
- If you mean that the article has false information in it, the only way that would be a valid excuse would be demonstrating that it's actually potentially slanderous (as in, Moore could actually sue the site and win). Note that throwing around unsubstantiated claims of slander will get you indefinitely blocked, so don't try that.
- Really, your only way out of this is to demonstrate that you understand what you did wrong here. Don't try to blame other people, you need to accept that you objectively made some sort of behavioral mistake here and let us know how you plan to avoid that mistake in the future. At that point, you can go to the article's talk page and discuss the matter there. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:03, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
...Again
[edit]{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC)- This edit summary was a lie. Do not lie in edit summaries.
- When your block expires, your choices are to either:
- Go to Talk:Zach Moore, discuss why Moore should be described as a free agent instead of retired, and wait until people agree with you before trying to restore that edit
- Find a different article.
- Waiting until your block expires and going back to do the same thing (while doing a poor job of lying) is not an option. Doing that will only result in longer and longer blocks.
- This is a cooperative project that requires some small degree of maturity. If you continue to refuse to show any willingness to cooperate, you will not be welcome on this site. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
...And again!
[edit]For the same reason as last time, but this time indefinitely.
You, as a person, are no longer welcome to edit the site until you can read the instructions from your past two blocks and follow them. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC)