User talk:71.90.216.96

November 2012

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Oconee County, Georgia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 01:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Hello, I'm Spencer. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Florida State Seminoles football, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Spencer^T♦C 23:14, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

December 2012

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Superconference. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Marco Guzman, Jr  Talk  11:10, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 03:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

F that.

DEAD LINK

Please use {{deadlink}} or {{dl}} Then, people who fix these things can find them. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 04:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Discuss changes; do not edit war

Your recent editing history at Florida–Georgia football rivalry shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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. See BRD for how this is done. 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. —C.Fred (talk) 04:41, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Most played rivalries in NCAA Division I FBS with this edit, even if you intend to fix them later. Such edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 08:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I believe you may be mistaken

Hi, I'm Gtwfan52. I spend a good amount of my time here on Wikipedia helping new editors find their way through the maze of policies, guidelines, rules and traditions here. I believe you are misunderstanding something, but I am not exactly sure of what, in regard to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Most played rivalries in NCAA Division I FBS.

Firstly, just because the editor who created an article was subsequently blocked is not a reason to delete any of their work. Secondly, there are dozens of other editors who have edited on that page. All pages on Wikipedia are the property of the project, not the editor who created them, and any editor, even those who may have been blocked at some time or another, have every right to edit on any page. There have been several experienced editors that have tried to nicely tell you at the deletion discussion that you are just not understanding, or possibly not hearing. And the AfD discussion is going to result in the article being kept, without a doubt. I have seldom seen such an overwhelming consensus.

When you nominate an article for deletion, you must make an argument based in policy. As I, and others have told you, there is no policy to delete work by editors who have been blocked solely for the reason that they were blocked.

Lastly, just now you have taken this dispute to WP:ANI. You have no grounds to do this. When people take baseless complaints to ANI, there is a tendency for the administrators there to look for a reason to apply WP:BOOMERANG. BOOMERANG is a policy that states that everyone involved in a dispute at ANI, even the one bringing the complaint, will have their work judged against policy and remedial action, such as blocks, are possible for anyone there.

My best suggestion for you at this point would be to withdraw your nomination of the article at AfD by simply typing "Nomination withdrawn" at the bottom of the discussion and signing it. I would also suggest that you withdraw your complaint at ANI. The only one who is going to lose with these proceedings is you.

I will leave a link to a place where you can ask questions to help you understand how things work around here after this message. I might also suggest that you consider WP:ADOPTION. If I can be of any assistance, don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. I apologize for my bluntness, but you were not hearing the many people that have tried to tell you nicely. Sometimes bluntness is the most appropriate mode of communication. Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:53, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Clearly the policy in favor of deletion is speedy deletion policy G5. Rhinoselated was indefinitely blocked, so that same editor used his or her account Latish redone to create the article. This apparently went unnoticed at the time because no one knew that the two were the same editor. 71.90.216.96 (talk) 05:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

And I did not see a need to invoke ANI until an editor called my deletion nomination "bogus", which is a clear violation of AGF. In my opinion, such violations should be sanctioned and I am not aware of another noticeboard where AGF violations are reported, I had tried the DR noticeboard earlier. 71.90.216.96 (talk) 05:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I also do not intend to withdraw my deletion nomination because I am not convinced that the G5 policy does not apply in this case, and I am also not convinced that the article needs to remain on WP. 71.90.216.96 (talk) 05:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

Hello! 71.90.216.96, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Gtwfan52 (talk) 04:54, 23 December 2012 (UTC)