Hello, Fradio71, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:29, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you removed some content from 2019 in American television without 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; I restored the removed content. 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. Thank you! Sincerely, Redactyll ( talk) 04:37, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I made those, so I can remove them Coolguy3478 ( talk) 01:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
On The Talk Coolguy3478 ( talk) 01:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
No sir that's not how it works. You can't remove your own talk comments outside of your talk page.-- Fradio71 ( talk) 02:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
What if the editor realizes that his comments were in error? Like, clearly he was making disruptive comments and now wants the whole section to be removed because it's not about an article it's about him.-- Biografer ( talk) 03:25, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
According to our policies, if the posts are considered disruptive, the editor have a whole right to remove them. Now, one more revert from you and you might go to AN/I.-- Biografer ( talk) 03:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
No I am not. I'm trying to forget about it completely. Coolguy3478 ( talk) 15:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Biografer is right. Coolguy3478 ( talk) 15:48, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to 2018 in American television, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Do not remove Template:Split section again until consensus has been reached/agreed to by multiple editors. You have already been asked once on the article's talk page. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:57, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for
your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from
2019 in American television into
2020 in American television. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere,
Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an
edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and
linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution
. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{
copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at
Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. —
Diannaa 🍁 (
talk) 17:13, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2017 in American television, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anthony Mason ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:41, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Drmies ( talk) 18:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez 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 BRD 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. – Muboshgu ( talk) 20:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
"You've been reverted three times, therefore you must have known there was a discussion" is not an incrimination point unless I was told to see the talk page in any of them-- Fradio71 ( talk) 21:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the
guide to appealing blocks (specifically
this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}
. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the
arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (
by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.
Lord Roem ~ (
talk) 20:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
@ Lord Roem:
Fradio71 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Please copy my appeal to the
arbitration enforcement noticeboard or
administrators' noticeboard.
I was not made aware of a one-revert rule. I didn't even see any warning because I was busy working on 2016 in American television's notable events, and on mobile, there's no "You have new messages on your talk page" banner . The bell doesn't even show up. Most of all, I have been blocked 31 hours' for all that and removing blatantly unencyclopedic content. How is that justified whatsoever?
Fradio71 (
talk) 20:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Regardless of the Arbitration Enforcement provision, you could have been blocked under generic edit-warring, and I would uphold that block regardless. 31 hours is not enough time to form a consensus on a relevant noticeboard anyway. Given your attitude below, I've moved this straight to decline. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:34, 11 January 2019 (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.
When going to edit that page, there's a massive warning which notes the discretionary sanctions which apply. I have verified this warning was in place when you made your edits. Please clarify your request to indicate if you believe those warnings were not in place when you made your edits. Otherwise, I simply fail to see how you could have missed the warning. -- Yamla ( talk) 20:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
@ Lord Roem: you are now making the argument that a specific user who wasn't breaking any rules he had knowledge about and only removing unencyclopedic content, shouldn't be allowed to revert at all while everyone else can, and blocking him for a day and a quarter for even daring to do so is completely justified. In fact, it's not justified by any just means at all. You blocked him with the knowledge that he was making mobile edits according to the edit log. That in fact handicaps the user from seeing features that you have access to! The block, according to this discussion, should be lifted immediately. Fradio71 ( talk) 22:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
@
Yamla:@
Lord Roem: The red section of the 3RR page says The 3RR page, An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period.
so unless you have evidence of a 4th edit, the block is invalid. How is the lifting of the improperly-imposed sanctions taking so long?--
Fradio71 (
talk) 22:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
@ Jonathunder:, is it okay if I get your input on this? I'm sorry I have to ping you in order to ask, but I noticed you're an administrator and discussion about this unfair block has basically stalled. I don't want to have to wait 26 hours to edit again when I see no reason for the block to remain in place Fradio71 ( talk) 01:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
The BLP Barnstar | ||
For removing trivia from the AOC article, and maintaining your composure in the face of an unfair block, I salute you. I strive to emulate your patience. Ewen Douglas ( talk) 21:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC) |
Because you’ve decided to start reverting reviewing admins on an edit warring block, I’ve removed your talk page access. You can appeal using WP:UTRS. TonyBallioni ( talk) 05:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Fradio71 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
UTRS appeal #23744 was submitted on Jan 11, 2019 06:04:59. This review is now closed.
-- UTRSBot ( talk) 06:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
I assume by now you are aware of this, but just to make sure. Drmies ( talk) 01:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
yo uh idk how else to do this but seeing as you’re like the only one who can edit lana parrilla’s page, she and fred divorced back in 2017 !! their court files were leaked of their divorce & lana confirmed in november 2018 at dcc that she is currently single and no longer in a relationship !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.85.220 ( talk) 06:07, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to request that when you move content around in a page, you do the move as a single edit. It makes it more difficult for reviewers to figure out what you are doing if content is removed in one edit and placed somewhere else in a second edit. The edit comment should clearly state "moving text from xxx to yyy section" or something like that. Regards, Tarl N. ( discuss) 19:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi. What BLP/minors/privacy policy are you referring to in your recent edit summaries re: not naming the children of celebrities? (I agree with it, I just didn't know we had a policy on it.) Thanks. Leviv ich 18:59, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
I mostly reverted your edit to LeBron James regarding his children. Their names are well-publicized, and not a one-time leak or a scouring of public records. I do agree in privcy of minors, so am confused why you added their birth months when only their birth year was previously shown. It's even more trivial than the birth year, and just invites an editor to add the "missing" day, which would become more of a privacy concern. Regards.— Bagumba ( talk) 08:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I don’t need consensus, I have policy backing. However, WP:MINORS that you are citing is an essay. The top of WP:MINORS reads:
This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.On the other hand, WP:BLPNAME (Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Privacy_of_names) is a policy.— Bagumba ( talk) 09:24, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Relevant | Not relevant |
---|---|
|
|
Re your removal of this request, the Third Opinion instructions say: "If you are a party to a dispute and another party has requested an opinion it is improper for you to remove or modify the request, even if the request does not meet the requirements for a third opinion or because you do not want a Third Opinion. If you feel that the request does not meet the requirements for a third opinion and should be removed, post a request on the Third Opinion talk page to be evaluated by an uninvolved volunteer." The request has been restored. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 23:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Per a complaint at the edit warring noticeboard about a dispute on the Super Bowl LIII halftime show. EdJohnston ( talk) 17:55, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Fradio71 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I was allegedly blocked for disruptive editing and personal attacks. However, the problem is I was combatting disruptive editing. Which, according to community guidelines, means I was not edit warring. I even gave the user a 3RR warning was blocked because the disruptive editor reported me first, in order to gain the upper hand on a talk page discussion. I wasnt given a warning, only told after the fact that I was reported. It also seems that I've been blocked due to "personal attacks", however, if someone can actually review the circumstances, the only thing I "attacked" was the behavior of the person reporting me, not the person himself. Conflating behavioral critique with personal attacks is not a good look for any disciplinarian. Just because I used strong language doesnt make it a personal attack In fact, you would see that it was my character repeatedly attacked, not his. In addition, I had no idea that WP:3O requests can't be removed. I was already warned for it when my block was put into place and should therefore not be factored in, because that's double jeopardy. It is clear that this block plays right into my accuser's hand and it should be rectified immediately-- Fradio71 ( talk) 18:06, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This is not your first block for reverting others. Please use this time to review the policies on edit warring, personal attacks, and removing posts made by other users, and anything else that you've had problems with. Clearly, you do not have the understanding you will need to avoid further disruptive behavior and lengthier blocks. Also, "combating" equates with a battlefield mentality and ignores the fact that in edit warring, you are wrong even if you are right. Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:28, 7 February 2019 (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.
Excuse me? Your tone is pretty unacceptable from someone who's supposed to not only be neutral, but actually done an in-depth review
Fradio71 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
My first block for reverting others was a completely different set of circumstances. The word "combat" is used several times in some form in Wikipedia policy. Just because you don't like me using the word doesn't justify keeping the block. For someone so keen on context it's bizarre that you stripped my first block of that in order to justify upholding the block. Do I have to reiterate that when I made the AOC reversion I was on mobile and there was no 1RR template to be seen? In addition, one of my actual points in my unblock request were addressed, making it appear as if everything I said didn't matter and you were just going to uphold it anyway. And if "in edit warring, you are wrong even if you are right.", then why does the person who reported me get off scot-free if he was also edit warring, and therefore not right either? And if you're so held up on word choice, then how was anything I did "disruptive" or "personal attacks", when both accusations have been rebuked? It's incredibly antagonistic to uphold such a block, let alone threaten lengthier ones, and this one needs serious consideration instead of being brushed off and being talked down to, with a personal attack, no less when the case has already been made that I didn't break any policy I was already aware of. It's tiring to see that in both block cases emotion and pride prevailed over justice. 2000+ characters worth of appeal and maybe only a single digit amount heard. It's tiring being repeatedly pushed down like this.-- Fradio71 ( talk) 20:04, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 00:56, 8 February 2019 (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.
Meanwhile, the person who reported me is doing exactly what you're accusing me of doing: Removing information from reliable sources because their credibility is called into question. If Twitter wasn't a reliable source, there wouldn't be the citation template using it. Celebrities use it to announce births of children. At least when I removed a passage with CBS News, it was because the cited content was misleading. But this? I warned that his repott was in bad faith and I was brushed off. An injustice has been carried-- Fradio71 ( talk) 21:14, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
I did not say I didn't know the rules of the undo button. I already apologized for using it in the 3O page in the previously posted warning. But clearly that's not the issue. It's the misuse of the block button by the admins. The out of whack priorities regarding the usage of the unblock template. I laid out every reason why I shouldn't have been blocked in the first place, and yet the entire argument that has been given was "You did one small bad thing but this other guy made you look worse and we like that. Considering you broke the rules in order to make a point but have the seniority to get away with it, maybe you're not the person who should be lecturing me that the condescension and abuse is okay.-- Fradio71 ( talk) 04:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
If you are claiming an exemption, make sure there is a clearly visible edit summary or separate section of the talk page that explains the exemption. When in doubt, do not revert. Instead, engage in dispute resolution and, in particular, ask for help at relevant noticeboards such as the Edit war and 3RR noticeboard.Every time you say that you did things right, you show that you don't understand how things are supposed to be done, you show that you didn't RTFM. (And it doesn't matter if you learned it from other editors; we write TFM so we can RTFM and refer to it in times like these.) Leviv ich 05:19, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
PS: I don't have any interaction history with you, but I've read some of the material above, below, at ANEW, etc., and I'm detecting a clear pattern here. You're under the spell of the
Dunning–Kruger effect, specifically the version of it that causes people with a little bit of knowledge, experience, and understanding ("knows just enough to get into trouble", as the saying goes) to spout off as if they're experts and to treat others who actually do have expertise as if they are wrong, crazy, or lying. It's a common and usually temporary delusion; you get over it easily: a) stop being a know-it-all about things you really don't know much about like WP policy and its interpretation, b) listen more (a lot more), and c) actually learn the material. The third of these takes time; the first two are something to start doing right now, or your editorial history here is going to be very short. This kind of behavior is what we call a
WP:CIR problem; while that's labeled an essay, it's considered by the community to be actionable (i.e., if you exhibit a serious collaborative-editing competency problem you can simply be long-term blocked, or banned from the site). This isn't any kind of threat (I'm not an admin, and I don't take people to the "drama boards" unless I think the matter is very severe), but it's a firm prediction based on experience, and an easy way to avoid that outcome. Give that your block history also involves civility matters, I strongly recommend a perusal of
WP:HOTHEADS; following the advice in it can keep you out of a lot of trouble, and make your editing involvement much more pleasant for everyone, yourself included.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 02:51, 20 February 2019 (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. Thank you. Liqunaei ( talk) 07:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I've some followup suggestions, maybe we can find a local consensus. -- 109.77.237.77 ( talk) 01:00, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Sorry about that I mistakenly reverted the comment. Sincerely, Masum Reza ☎ 03:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Fradio71, you've now been reverted several times for improper use of 'rowspan' in Filmography tables. (Note that
WP:FILMOGRAPHY itself says that in regards to Filmography tables that "They allow for sortability and accessibility for the vision impaired."
, so it's right there in the guideline.) There have already been multiple previous discussion at my Talk page about this – start with
here and
here (see also:
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial/Internal guidelines#Avoiding rowspan/colspan) – so you may want to refer to these. If you have any other questions, ask... But, in general, you probably want to stay away from attempts to use 'rowspan' until you fully understand this issue. Thanks. --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk) 13:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Please engage in the issues at the article Lori Loughlin. I have explained why the information about her daughter being on the trustee's yacht is appropriate. But you are neglecting to engage the debate on the Talk Page: Talk:Lori Loughlin. Dogru144 ( talk) 00:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Drmies (
talk) 01:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)@ Drmies: Please review my comment on the noticeboard and see that the user who reported me made no good-faith attempt to actually resolve the dispute, and he's now blatantly misinterpreting rules to justify his actions-- Fradio71 ( talk) 01:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
( talk page stalker) Fradio - this is the 4th time you've been blocked for edit warring. Every time you get such a block, the hair trigger gets lighter. The next time will probably be a looong block. When you run into a situation where someone has added something inappropriate to an article, when they edit war, you need to not edit war yourself - there are other means of seeking help for the problem (for biographies of living people, WP:BLP/N is one such place). Edit warring, justified or not, will result in a block, as happened here. As for the other party, his edit has not been restored (at least, yet). Sometimes the best thing you can do is walk away and let someone else deal with a mess. At this point, you really do not have many options beyond walking away for a week. An appeal is unlikely to succeed. Tarl N. ( discuss) 02:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
( talk page stalker) Fradio71, you do need to take a step back. You will obviously eventually have to file an appeal, or else walk away from Wikipedia. Some points to consider when you do file:
Think about it for a while, read the WP:DR pages earlier mentioned. Other pages to read, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:HIGHMAINT (which doesn't describe you, but there are a couple of relevant paragraphs), WP:BAIT and WP:DEADHORSE. For humor, WP:WINWAR. Good luck, Tarl N. ( discuss) 01:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Fradio71 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
UTRS appeal #24372 was submitted on Mar 19, 2019 02:51:17. This review is now closed.
-- UTRSBot ( talk) 02:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Fradio71 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
UTRS appeal #24375 was submitted on Mar 19, 2019 06:44:32. This review is now closed.
-- UTRSBot ( talk) 06:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Fradio71 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
UTRS appeal #24381 was submitted on Mar 19, 2019 15:49:56. This review is now closed.
-- UTRSBot ( talk) 15:49, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
No need to submit more unblock requests, it just takes time for admins to get through the queue. It will probably be a day or two before you get a response. I saw one request by another user which had been sitting around for over a week. Tarl N. ( discuss) 15:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Fradio71, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:29, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you removed some content from 2019 in American television without 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; I restored the removed content. 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. Thank you! Sincerely, Redactyll ( talk) 04:37, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
I made those, so I can remove them Coolguy3478 ( talk) 01:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
On The Talk Coolguy3478 ( talk) 01:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
No sir that's not how it works. You can't remove your own talk comments outside of your talk page.-- Fradio71 ( talk) 02:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
What if the editor realizes that his comments were in error? Like, clearly he was making disruptive comments and now wants the whole section to be removed because it's not about an article it's about him.-- Biografer ( talk) 03:25, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
According to our policies, if the posts are considered disruptive, the editor have a whole right to remove them. Now, one more revert from you and you might go to AN/I.-- Biografer ( talk) 03:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
No I am not. I'm trying to forget about it completely. Coolguy3478 ( talk) 15:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Biografer is right. Coolguy3478 ( talk) 15:48, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to 2018 in American television, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Do not remove Template:Split section again until consensus has been reached/agreed to by multiple editors. You have already been asked once on the article's talk page. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:57, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for
your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from
2019 in American television into
2020 in American television. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere,
Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an
edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and
linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution
. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{
copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at
Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. —
Diannaa 🍁 (
talk) 17:13, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2017 in American television, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anthony Mason ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:41, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Drmies ( talk) 18:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez 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 BRD 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. – Muboshgu ( talk) 20:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
"You've been reverted three times, therefore you must have known there was a discussion" is not an incrimination point unless I was told to see the talk page in any of them-- Fradio71 ( talk) 21:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the
guide to appealing blocks (specifically
this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{
unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}
. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the
arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (
by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page.
Lord Roem ~ (
talk) 20:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."
@ Lord Roem:
Fradio71 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Please copy my appeal to the
arbitration enforcement noticeboard or
administrators' noticeboard.
I was not made aware of a one-revert rule. I didn't even see any warning because I was busy working on 2016 in American television's notable events, and on mobile, there's no "You have new messages on your talk page" banner . The bell doesn't even show up. Most of all, I have been blocked 31 hours' for all that and removing blatantly unencyclopedic content. How is that justified whatsoever?
Fradio71 (
talk) 20:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Regardless of the Arbitration Enforcement provision, you could have been blocked under generic edit-warring, and I would uphold that block regardless. 31 hours is not enough time to form a consensus on a relevant noticeboard anyway. Given your attitude below, I've moved this straight to decline. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 04:34, 11 January 2019 (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.
When going to edit that page, there's a massive warning which notes the discretionary sanctions which apply. I have verified this warning was in place when you made your edits. Please clarify your request to indicate if you believe those warnings were not in place when you made your edits. Otherwise, I simply fail to see how you could have missed the warning. -- Yamla ( talk) 20:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
@ Lord Roem: you are now making the argument that a specific user who wasn't breaking any rules he had knowledge about and only removing unencyclopedic content, shouldn't be allowed to revert at all while everyone else can, and blocking him for a day and a quarter for even daring to do so is completely justified. In fact, it's not justified by any just means at all. You blocked him with the knowledge that he was making mobile edits according to the edit log. That in fact handicaps the user from seeing features that you have access to! The block, according to this discussion, should be lifted immediately. Fradio71 ( talk) 22:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
@
Yamla:@
Lord Roem: The red section of the 3RR page says The 3RR page, An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period.
so unless you have evidence of a 4th edit, the block is invalid. How is the lifting of the improperly-imposed sanctions taking so long?--
Fradio71 (
talk) 22:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
@ Jonathunder:, is it okay if I get your input on this? I'm sorry I have to ping you in order to ask, but I noticed you're an administrator and discussion about this unfair block has basically stalled. I don't want to have to wait 26 hours to edit again when I see no reason for the block to remain in place Fradio71 ( talk) 01:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
The BLP Barnstar | ||
For removing trivia from the AOC article, and maintaining your composure in the face of an unfair block, I salute you. I strive to emulate your patience. Ewen Douglas ( talk) 21:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC) |
Because you’ve decided to start reverting reviewing admins on an edit warring block, I’ve removed your talk page access. You can appeal using WP:UTRS. TonyBallioni ( talk) 05:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Fradio71 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
UTRS appeal #23744 was submitted on Jan 11, 2019 06:04:59. This review is now closed.
-- UTRSBot ( talk) 06:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
I assume by now you are aware of this, but just to make sure. Drmies ( talk) 01:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
yo uh idk how else to do this but seeing as you’re like the only one who can edit lana parrilla’s page, she and fred divorced back in 2017 !! their court files were leaked of their divorce & lana confirmed in november 2018 at dcc that she is currently single and no longer in a relationship !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.85.220 ( talk) 06:07, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to request that when you move content around in a page, you do the move as a single edit. It makes it more difficult for reviewers to figure out what you are doing if content is removed in one edit and placed somewhere else in a second edit. The edit comment should clearly state "moving text from xxx to yyy section" or something like that. Regards, Tarl N. ( discuss) 19:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi. What BLP/minors/privacy policy are you referring to in your recent edit summaries re: not naming the children of celebrities? (I agree with it, I just didn't know we had a policy on it.) Thanks. Leviv ich 18:59, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
I mostly reverted your edit to LeBron James regarding his children. Their names are well-publicized, and not a one-time leak or a scouring of public records. I do agree in privcy of minors, so am confused why you added their birth months when only their birth year was previously shown. It's even more trivial than the birth year, and just invites an editor to add the "missing" day, which would become more of a privacy concern. Regards.— Bagumba ( talk) 08:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I don’t need consensus, I have policy backing. However, WP:MINORS that you are citing is an essay. The top of WP:MINORS reads:
This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.On the other hand, WP:BLPNAME (Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Privacy_of_names) is a policy.— Bagumba ( talk) 09:24, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Relevant | Not relevant |
---|---|
|
|
Re your removal of this request, the Third Opinion instructions say: "If you are a party to a dispute and another party has requested an opinion it is improper for you to remove or modify the request, even if the request does not meet the requirements for a third opinion or because you do not want a Third Opinion. If you feel that the request does not meet the requirements for a third opinion and should be removed, post a request on the Third Opinion talk page to be evaluated by an uninvolved volunteer." The request has been restored. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 23:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Per a complaint at the edit warring noticeboard about a dispute on the Super Bowl LIII halftime show. EdJohnston ( talk) 17:55, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Fradio71 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I was allegedly blocked for disruptive editing and personal attacks. However, the problem is I was combatting disruptive editing. Which, according to community guidelines, means I was not edit warring. I even gave the user a 3RR warning was blocked because the disruptive editor reported me first, in order to gain the upper hand on a talk page discussion. I wasnt given a warning, only told after the fact that I was reported. It also seems that I've been blocked due to "personal attacks", however, if someone can actually review the circumstances, the only thing I "attacked" was the behavior of the person reporting me, not the person himself. Conflating behavioral critique with personal attacks is not a good look for any disciplinarian. Just because I used strong language doesnt make it a personal attack In fact, you would see that it was my character repeatedly attacked, not his. In addition, I had no idea that WP:3O requests can't be removed. I was already warned for it when my block was put into place and should therefore not be factored in, because that's double jeopardy. It is clear that this block plays right into my accuser's hand and it should be rectified immediately-- Fradio71 ( talk) 18:06, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This is not your first block for reverting others. Please use this time to review the policies on edit warring, personal attacks, and removing posts made by other users, and anything else that you've had problems with. Clearly, you do not have the understanding you will need to avoid further disruptive behavior and lengthier blocks. Also, "combating" equates with a battlefield mentality and ignores the fact that in edit warring, you are wrong even if you are right. Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:28, 7 February 2019 (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.
Excuse me? Your tone is pretty unacceptable from someone who's supposed to not only be neutral, but actually done an in-depth review
Fradio71 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
My first block for reverting others was a completely different set of circumstances. The word "combat" is used several times in some form in Wikipedia policy. Just because you don't like me using the word doesn't justify keeping the block. For someone so keen on context it's bizarre that you stripped my first block of that in order to justify upholding the block. Do I have to reiterate that when I made the AOC reversion I was on mobile and there was no 1RR template to be seen? In addition, one of my actual points in my unblock request were addressed, making it appear as if everything I said didn't matter and you were just going to uphold it anyway. And if "in edit warring, you are wrong even if you are right.", then why does the person who reported me get off scot-free if he was also edit warring, and therefore not right either? And if you're so held up on word choice, then how was anything I did "disruptive" or "personal attacks", when both accusations have been rebuked? It's incredibly antagonistic to uphold such a block, let alone threaten lengthier ones, and this one needs serious consideration instead of being brushed off and being talked down to, with a personal attack, no less when the case has already been made that I didn't break any policy I was already aware of. It's tiring to see that in both block cases emotion and pride prevailed over justice. 2000+ characters worth of appeal and maybe only a single digit amount heard. It's tiring being repeatedly pushed down like this.-- Fradio71 ( talk) 20:04, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 00:56, 8 February 2019 (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.
Meanwhile, the person who reported me is doing exactly what you're accusing me of doing: Removing information from reliable sources because their credibility is called into question. If Twitter wasn't a reliable source, there wouldn't be the citation template using it. Celebrities use it to announce births of children. At least when I removed a passage with CBS News, it was because the cited content was misleading. But this? I warned that his repott was in bad faith and I was brushed off. An injustice has been carried-- Fradio71 ( talk) 21:14, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
I did not say I didn't know the rules of the undo button. I already apologized for using it in the 3O page in the previously posted warning. But clearly that's not the issue. It's the misuse of the block button by the admins. The out of whack priorities regarding the usage of the unblock template. I laid out every reason why I shouldn't have been blocked in the first place, and yet the entire argument that has been given was "You did one small bad thing but this other guy made you look worse and we like that. Considering you broke the rules in order to make a point but have the seniority to get away with it, maybe you're not the person who should be lecturing me that the condescension and abuse is okay.-- Fradio71 ( talk) 04:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
If you are claiming an exemption, make sure there is a clearly visible edit summary or separate section of the talk page that explains the exemption. When in doubt, do not revert. Instead, engage in dispute resolution and, in particular, ask for help at relevant noticeboards such as the Edit war and 3RR noticeboard.Every time you say that you did things right, you show that you don't understand how things are supposed to be done, you show that you didn't RTFM. (And it doesn't matter if you learned it from other editors; we write TFM so we can RTFM and refer to it in times like these.) Leviv ich 05:19, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
PS: I don't have any interaction history with you, but I've read some of the material above, below, at ANEW, etc., and I'm detecting a clear pattern here. You're under the spell of the
Dunning–Kruger effect, specifically the version of it that causes people with a little bit of knowledge, experience, and understanding ("knows just enough to get into trouble", as the saying goes) to spout off as if they're experts and to treat others who actually do have expertise as if they are wrong, crazy, or lying. It's a common and usually temporary delusion; you get over it easily: a) stop being a know-it-all about things you really don't know much about like WP policy and its interpretation, b) listen more (a lot more), and c) actually learn the material. The third of these takes time; the first two are something to start doing right now, or your editorial history here is going to be very short. This kind of behavior is what we call a
WP:CIR problem; while that's labeled an essay, it's considered by the community to be actionable (i.e., if you exhibit a serious collaborative-editing competency problem you can simply be long-term blocked, or banned from the site). This isn't any kind of threat (I'm not an admin, and I don't take people to the "drama boards" unless I think the matter is very severe), but it's a firm prediction based on experience, and an easy way to avoid that outcome. Give that your block history also involves civility matters, I strongly recommend a perusal of
WP:HOTHEADS; following the advice in it can keep you out of a lot of trouble, and make your editing involvement much more pleasant for everyone, yourself included.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 02:51, 20 February 2019 (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. Thank you. Liqunaei ( talk) 07:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I've some followup suggestions, maybe we can find a local consensus. -- 109.77.237.77 ( talk) 01:00, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Sorry about that I mistakenly reverted the comment. Sincerely, Masum Reza ☎ 03:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Fradio71, you've now been reverted several times for improper use of 'rowspan' in Filmography tables. (Note that
WP:FILMOGRAPHY itself says that in regards to Filmography tables that "They allow for sortability and accessibility for the vision impaired."
, so it's right there in the guideline.) There have already been multiple previous discussion at my Talk page about this – start with
here and
here (see also:
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial/Internal guidelines#Avoiding rowspan/colspan) – so you may want to refer to these. If you have any other questions, ask... But, in general, you probably want to stay away from attempts to use 'rowspan' until you fully understand this issue. Thanks. --
IJBall (
contribs •
talk) 13:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Please engage in the issues at the article Lori Loughlin. I have explained why the information about her daughter being on the trustee's yacht is appropriate. But you are neglecting to engage the debate on the Talk Page: Talk:Lori Loughlin. Dogru144 ( talk) 00:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Drmies (
talk) 01:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)@ Drmies: Please review my comment on the noticeboard and see that the user who reported me made no good-faith attempt to actually resolve the dispute, and he's now blatantly misinterpreting rules to justify his actions-- Fradio71 ( talk) 01:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
( talk page stalker) Fradio - this is the 4th time you've been blocked for edit warring. Every time you get such a block, the hair trigger gets lighter. The next time will probably be a looong block. When you run into a situation where someone has added something inappropriate to an article, when they edit war, you need to not edit war yourself - there are other means of seeking help for the problem (for biographies of living people, WP:BLP/N is one such place). Edit warring, justified or not, will result in a block, as happened here. As for the other party, his edit has not been restored (at least, yet). Sometimes the best thing you can do is walk away and let someone else deal with a mess. At this point, you really do not have many options beyond walking away for a week. An appeal is unlikely to succeed. Tarl N. ( discuss) 02:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
( talk page stalker) Fradio71, you do need to take a step back. You will obviously eventually have to file an appeal, or else walk away from Wikipedia. Some points to consider when you do file:
Think about it for a while, read the WP:DR pages earlier mentioned. Other pages to read, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:HIGHMAINT (which doesn't describe you, but there are a couple of relevant paragraphs), WP:BAIT and WP:DEADHORSE. For humor, WP:WINWAR. Good luck, Tarl N. ( discuss) 01:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Fradio71 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
UTRS appeal #24372 was submitted on Mar 19, 2019 02:51:17. This review is now closed.
-- UTRSBot ( talk) 02:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Fradio71 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
UTRS appeal #24375 was submitted on Mar 19, 2019 06:44:32. This review is now closed.
-- UTRSBot ( talk) 06:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Fradio71 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
UTRS appeal #24381 was submitted on Mar 19, 2019 15:49:56. This review is now closed.
-- UTRSBot ( talk) 15:49, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
No need to submit more unblock requests, it just takes time for admins to get through the queue. It will probably be a day or two before you get a response. I saw one request by another user which had been sitting around for over a week. Tarl N. ( discuss) 15:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)