|
As a compromise, I will accept your current revision. Cheers, AnupamTalk 01:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Syracuse University edit: sources 13 and 14 outline the reserved trustee spots for Methodist Associates, but the fact it's only 3 out of the 70 voting members of the Board of Trustees displays the irrelevancy of the Methodist entity in the affairs of the University and it's likely symbolic nature due to the University's historic ties with the group. To claim the University of Syracuse, which has explicitly claimed to be non-denomational/nonsectarian for nearly a century, is religiously affiliated or "maintains a relationship" with the UMC is quite a stretch and doesn't belong as a description for the University. Sources 15, 16, and 17 are all from religious sources that are independent of the University of Syracuse and again are based on the University's historical ties with UMC, instead of it's actual current standing as a nonsectarian university. Manning954 (talk) 05:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Syracuse University shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. — AnupamTalk 20:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Syracuse University with this edit, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 01:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello, and thank you for your recent contribution. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edit because I believe the article was better before you made that change. The lead section should not be that cluttered. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! Amccann421 (talk) 04:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on David Carr (American football). 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 that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
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. —Bagumba (talk) 22:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at David Carr.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. You need to visit the WikiProject National Football League talk page to see the discussion going on about your behavior on the article. CrashUnderride 22:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at David Carr (American football).
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. CrashUnderride 02:52, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~))
.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. —Bagumba (talk) 11:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Manning954 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
blocked for making a useful contribution. I delete information not important enough for the intro of David Carr (American football) and I get blocked. I see articles of starting players of Super Bowl teams that don't have it mentioned in their intros, but according to some of these people I've been "edit warring" with, it is relevant enough to add to the intro of a backup QB who literally did not play a single snap that year for the Giants. Not a single snap, you can look this up. A few months back, I add Carr's draft bust legacy to the intro and it gets deleted. David Carr is widely known as one of the biggest draft busts in NFL history. That is far more relevant than the fact that he won a super bowl ring as a backup QB, but nobody gets banned for deleting that from the intro, but I get banned for deleting information. As I've stated above, you either include both, or delete both. I'm fine with either option. Manning954 (talk) 22:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You are blocked for edit warring, not for the contents of your edits; any unblock request will need to address that, and only that. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 22:31, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
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.
Manning954 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
How do you address the "edit warring" without addressing the reason for it, which is the content of the edits? I wasn't "edit warring" for shits and giggles. I reversed those edits because the content didn't belong in the intro. And if this is strictly about edit warring, why didn't the users that reversed my edits get banned as well? Manning954 (talk) 22:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You don't believe the content belongs in the intro. Fine. You may be correct on that. But it doesn't matter. That's not grounds to engage in edit warring. In fact, there are almost no grounds for engaging in edit warring. Wikipedia:Edit warring explains in detail. Yamla (talk) 23:01, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
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.
Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at David Carr.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. His winning a Super Bowl ring IS noteworthy enough for the lede. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 12:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at David Carr.
If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 23:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to David Carr (American football). Marianna251TALK 16:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at David Carr (American football). UW Dawgs (talk) 17:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
I've just noticed this ongoing dispute, and I don't need to take any side at all in the substantive disagreement to strongly suggest to you that you discuss the matter at the article Talk page, persuade other editors that what you want to do makes sense, and then when they agree with you, then go ahead and make the edit. Testily arguing and wikilawyering is unlikely to persuade anyone to take a different opinion, and, sooner or later will result in an even longer block on your account.
Please. You seem to know your stuff about the NFL, and that's valuable; but you need to know your stuff about Wikipedia works, and you're not doing yourself any favors with your current approach. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 17:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
What in the world am I supposed to do? Three people have contributed to this dispute were having. Me and Lizard seem to be in agreement. You can see our discussions that we've had on my talk page. We either remove both or keep both. I'm fine with either option. Crash is the one who insists on keeping the super bowl ring info in. I'm cool with that AS LONG as the bust legacy is included as well, so as a result, I included the draft legacy info in the intro. Problem solved.......or so I thought. Now I've got Marianna and UW Daws reverting my edits without making any contributions to this discussion. There whole argument is I'm being "disruptive." Where am I being disruptive? Look at the three different talk pages we've had discussions regarding this issue. The NFL Wikiproject talk page, my talk page, and the articles' talk page. The only guy who is disagreeing with me is crash and he has abandoned his argument. And there is no dispute int he first place. Carr's draft legacy is relevant enough for the intro, especially if you are going to include his super bowl ring as a backup info there. Am I missing something here? Manning954 (talk) 18:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on David Carr (American football). 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 that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
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. Marianna251TALK 17:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates, as you did to User talk:Marianna251. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. Marianna251TALK 18:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
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:Manning954 reported by User:Marianna251 (Result: ). Thank you. Marianna251TALK 18:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~))
.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. NeilN talk to me 19:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text ((unblock|Your reason here ~~~~)) below. Bbb23 (talk) 21:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC) |