User talk:71.90.216.96

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

G5 only applies to articles where the blocked editor is the sole contributor. It is also a rationale for "Speedy Deletion", not AfD. Speedy only applies to articles where most all of the substantial edits were made by the creator. I fail to see why you refuse to listen to editors with an aggregate experience of roughly 15 years when you have been here three months. Doesn't logic tell you that they would be better versed in policy than yourself? By doing that, you are not assuming good faith. It's your future, do what you will. But I can pretty well promise you nothing good will come of this for you. Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But it is appropriate to name a CSD criterion for why an article should be deleted at AfD, right? Especially when the CSD templates keep getting removed from the article and the editors removing the templates accuse me of "vandalism" for placing the templates. Surely if a criterion allows an article to be speedily deleted, it also can be part of an argument to delete on AfD? 71.90.216.96 (talk) 05:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it is my opinion that the substantial edits to the nominated article were indeed contributed by the vandal that was the creator. 71.90.216.96 (talk) 05:23, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is faulty. Have you even looked at the history of the article? I am done. No need to reply. Good luck. You'll need it.Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:33, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The original version created by the vandal has most of the content and all of the formatting that the article currently has. Other editors have only incrementally added content. The vandal has done most of the updating of the page to keep it current (until he or she was blocked). This supports my opinion that the vandal is the substantial contributor. 71.90.216.96 (talk) 05:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please unblock me

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

71.90.216.96 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was blocked because some editor believes I am a sockpuppet of a vandal. That is not true and there is not a good reason to link me with the vandal that I supposedly am. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Latish redone for the editor's argument suggesting that I am a sockpuppet. That is not true and while there are a few pages that both me and the vandal have edited (possibly common interests?) my edits are actually legitimate, unlike the vandal's edits. See this tool which analyzes editor interaction. [1] In particular, the three accounts that I am accused of being a sockpuppet of, have eleven (11) common pages that they edited. Out of all the pages I have edited, only two (2) are common pages, and one (1) of those is the article I nominated for deletion, which was created by the vandal. 71.90.216.96 (talk) 17:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

The determination was that even if you aren't a sockpuppet, your editing was disruptive. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:25, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

71.90.216.96 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Then the reason should be changed? In my opinion, my editing isn't even disruptive - I make changes to articles to correct errors, and I saw an error in that an article created by a vandal was retained and therefore I nominated it for deletion. 71.90.216.96 (talk) 18:58, 23 December 2012 (UTC) Also, two (2) months seems excessive for non-sockpuppet "disruptive" editing. 71.90.216.96 (talk) 18:58, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Not an unblock request. This block is valid, no matter the reason in the block log. If, in a month, you determine you intend to be here to make positive edits to the project, feel free to come back and request an unblock properly (see WP:GAB). Until then, please note that you, the person, are prohibited from editing the project (✉→BWilkins←✎) 19:34, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.

I am not a sockpuppet and the vast majority of my edits are positive. But whatever 71.90.216.96 (talk) 19:40, 23 December 2012 (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.