User talk:74.194.176.82

Welcome

Hello, 74.194.176.82! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already loving Wikipedia you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Happy editing! Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 21:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

August 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Greece national basketball team. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 20:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I did NOT break the three revert rule

I did NOT make 3 reverts in 24 hours, nor more than that. Yellow Evan has made 3 in 24 hours and obviously false reported me, after I warned him about it. Please review that and restore the edit as I last made it, and remove my warning, and the false threat to ban me. Otherwise I will take it up with other mods. Thank you.74.194.176.82 (talk) 20:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I will not restore your edit. Please direct your attention to the talkpage first, and then I may seriously consider it. It is not a "false threat" or whatever you make it out to be. Note how I said "appear" rather than is. And edit warring is different from 3RR. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 20:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow Evan is the one that is edit warring, not me. You need to actually check who is causing the problem before you make a threat to ban someone.74.194.176.82 (talk) 20:20, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never reported you. BTW, it reverted two times in 24 hours. I carefully checked that. I am just reverting it because it is WP:OR. It will be kept if a source is provided. Also, I tired to discuss on the talk page, but no one was answered. Y E ^Tropical ^Cyclone 20:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone reported me and you are the only person that could have done it. If you did it off site with a buddy of yours then you broke site rules. Also, I did not make more than 3 reverts. And as soon as you would have been breaking that rule you had this other guy revert it back. I have not even broken the rule and am being told I cannot restore it back. You are the one that started the edit warring by removing things from the page and falsely claiming original research. You reported me, and then you lied about reporting me just now.74.194.176.82 (talk) 20:29, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please calm down. More of this paranoia may (notice how I said "may") get you blocked. It is not a threat; I simply do not wish for you to be blocked. It takes two to edit war, by the way. Please read the essay on edit warring, and notice how it is much different from breaking 3RR. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 20:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not paranoid. You had no reason to threaten to ban me unless someone reported me. I am taking this up with other mods. Good day sir.74.194.176.82 (talk) 20:33, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I checked, Yellow Evan received no warning for edit warring and he is the one that caused it and he is the one that actually did it. Not me.74.194.176.82 (talk) 20:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Dont worry nobody reported you. You will not be banned. However, you could be blocked for only 24 hours. We are not reporting you. Y E ^Tropical ^Cyclone 20:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, you caused it by reverting the edit. also, I reverted tow times during 24 hour. No offense, but learn how to count. Y E ^Tropical ^Cyclone 20:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the user rights of both of you. And now you threaten the implication of a 24 hour block. I am putting this on the admin notice board. You can explain it to them. Thank you.74.194.176.82 (talk) 20:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, it their is no Wikipedia policy for acting like an admin and not being one. Your AN is not gonna go anywhere. Sorry. Y E ^Tropical ^Cyclone

Please do not discuss this anymore. The admins will handle it.74.194.176.82 (talk) 21:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There I warned him. But you also participated in the edit war, therefore you are equally to be warned. You satisfied? :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 21:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are acting like you are an admin. According to the check user feature you are not. Please do not discuss this further until I get an explanation from an actual admin, and not a pretend one. If the check user feature is in error then someone can explain that also.74.194.176.82 (talk) 21:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All editors are equal. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 21:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Threatening blocks for something when I didn't even do anything wrong and sending messages like that implies you are an admin. This has no reason to be discussed further as you are not willing to provide any explanation for that. As I said, let the admins explain it.74.194.176.82 (talk) 21:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I told you: it is not a "false threat" or whatever you make it out to be. How can I "act" like an admin? The template is for everybody to use; that's why it's a template. Also, I can explain it if I want to; all editors are equal. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 21:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not edit war and I did not break the 3 revert rule. So there was no reason for me to receive that template from you. Also, Yellow Evan didn't get the template from you and you added it later in a sarcastic way. So once again, please let the admin handle it. This conversation is going nowhere. Thank you.74.194.176.82 (talk) 21:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please, follow the instructions on the AN page and put your complaints at the bottom of the page next time. I had to do it for you this time, but please be more careful. Thanks. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 21:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

WP:Edit warring merely requires making repeated changes to an article. You were indeed edit warring on Greece national basketball team. The three-revert rule is a limit, not an entitlement. You do not have to break the 3RR to be edit warring.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So how was Yellow Evan not edit warring, when he was the one that started it all and was removing information for no reason and reverting more than I was?74.194.176.82 (talk) 22:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at the history, it seems Yellow Evan was also edit-warring; however, that doesn't mean you're not also at fault. Rather than edit warring and repeatedly reverting other users' edits, please discuss controversial edits on the article's talk page instead, and attempt to establish a consensus over what the content of the article should be. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say he wasn't, and he has indeed been warned for it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I was not removing it for no reason it is original research. In Wikipedia, you need sources to support you claim. Sorry. I tired to establish a consensuses on the article talk page and discussion. Y E ^Tropical ^Cyclone 22:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is a depth chart original research? You actually, said, "I don't see depth charts on many basketball articles" and that was why you removed it. You then started on about original research. And the depth chart was not even original research.74.194.176.82 (talk) 22:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, everybody, calm down. The AN thread is over. Move everything to the article's talkpage, please. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 22:17, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need. There is really no reason at all to discuss it at the talk page. A depth chart is not original research. If it is then so is the roster template and that should also be removed. But then it should be removed also from all basketball articles. I can understand if the depth chart was wrong and outdated. But original research does not make any sense.

There is a need. An edit war started. An editor disagreed with another. Therefore the edit(s) was(were) controversial. Please discuss whether or not it was OR on the article's talkpage. Please also read Wikipedia's core policies regarding talkpages and how to gain consensus. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 22:22, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need. Yellow Evan threw a fit and I have no reason to put it back on there after all that trouble he caused over nothing. My point is that he was removing something that had been on there for a long time and his reason was actually incorrect. It seems odd to me that anyone can remove something and claim whatever they want, edit war if it is put back and then it has to become "controversial". It was not added, it was removed info that had been there for a long time and that many other articles also have, which is the opposite of what he said about it. So actually no, it was not controversial. It's a practice of removing something a personal editor did not like, and nothing more. In the future he should not do that.74.194.176.82 (talk) 22:27, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"It's a practice of removing something a personal editor did not like, and nothing more." That's exactly why it's controversial. Please, if you wish to add/remove/do whatever the heck you want with the article, discuss it on the talkpage. I don't care, just drop it, okay? If you don't want to put it back into the article, work on some different topic. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 22:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

74.191, arguing over whether or not something is controversial is not constructive; if it involves an argument, it is automatically controversial. Please attempt to establish consensus rather than reverting any further; you might consider trying WP:3O (but first, discuss on the article's talk page). GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One editor does not make it controversial and one editor does not make consensus. Anyway I am removing this from my talk page.74.194.176.82 (talk) 22:37, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One editor does make it controversial, I'm afraid. You're right that one editor does not make consensus, however, and that extends to you as well. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You know what? You're completely right. That's why when you reverted Yellow Evan's edit that means that you just became part of a dispute. You participated in an edit war, and you also made his reverting you controversial. If only he reverted you, that's his fault. But now you are at fault too. So yes, it is controversial, and yes, one editor does not consensus make. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 22:43, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look, okay, the edit can be restored if it follows CONSENSUS. Have you read the essay yet? :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 22:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AN thread

As I mentioned in the AN thread, please bear in mind that admins aren't "privileged" users in wikipedia, and that any user may issue a warning if your edits are against policy, though only an admin can administer a block, if appropriate. If you need any help contributing constructively, feel free to ask me on my talk page.

You may find the following links helpful:
WP:GNG	Articles usually need to meet this guideline to be notable enough for inclusion
WP:SPAM	Articles and other pages which are advertisements are not acceptable and are likely to be speedily deleted
WP:NPOV	Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia: coverage of a topic should always be neutral. Remember to be especially careful with your edits if you have a conflict of interest with the subject.
WP:V	Material on wikipedia needs to be verifiable. If you add something controversial, make sure you provide a reliable secondary source.
WP:RS	Sources need to be published by a third party to be considered reliable, and should not be a blog or user-contributed (this includes wikipedia, social networking sites, etc.)

GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 22:04, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sock puppet

You have been blocked 1 month as a sock puppet. (blocked by –MuZemike 23:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC))[reply]
You may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but please read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Nice try, Wiki Greek Basketball. –MuZemike 23:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You blanked your talk page! I'm going to request for a modified block here. みんな空の下 (トーク) 00:11, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not block me. Please. I am trying to figure this out.

MuZemike can you please talk to me.74.194.176.82 (talk) 00:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Muzemike can you please discuss this with me here? I am asking kindly.74.194.176.82 (talk) 00:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Muzemike please talk to me about this. I am asking you sincerely and very nicely. Can we talk please?74.194.176.82 (talk) 00:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.