User talk:12.76.10.90

August 2024

Hello, I'm AntiDionysius. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Oklahoma State Cowboys football have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. AntiDionysius (talk) 22:27, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Oklahoma State Cowboys football, 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. win8x (talking | spying) 01:25, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I gave a valid reason in the edit summary. I even made a talk page post about it. There is a link in the post that clears Oklahoma State from the allegations contained within the section. The section is entirely irrelevant. It serves no purpose when the premise behind it was debunked. There needs to be a valid reason given for its inclusion rather than its removal, as there has not been one given. 12.76.10.90 (talk) 01:30, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Oklahoma State Cowboys football, you may be blocked from editing. I know you made a talk page post, but that does not mean you can continue making a controversial edit, allow other editors to engage without your talk page post and discuss the edit before engaging in it again MagentaCat1 (talk) 01:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

This edit is not controversial. No one has actually engaged in the rationale behind it other than me. The second revert literally did not even check the edit history to see if a reason was given, they just assumed. The conversation behind the section is dead and has been for 6 years. The last mention of it suggested breaking it off because they acknowledged that misconduct allegations are not a case-by-case unique issue that warrant their own sections within pages unless they incur substantial penalties (this case was dropped entirely). Not a single person in the entire edit history of the page has provided a valid reason for its inclusion. The first edit that included it did not even give a justification for it. This is not vandalization. It is removing an irrelevant section that was never given a valid reason to be there in the first place. Edits such as these do not require extensive discussion that will never take place anyway. The accusation of vandalization in this case is reckless and you need to be more careful about it. 12.76.10.90 (talk) 02:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely hysterical that 3 separate people have reverted your edit, thrown a fit, and accused you of vandalism while they refuse to address your argument, reply to your messages, or become educated on the topic itself. Wikipedia never ceases to amaze me. Riptide10 (talk) 01:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. - - AntiDionysius (talk) 06:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

How can he comment on content when he’s being accused of “vandalism” every time he removes a section that was proven to be false? Do you not see an issue with multiple people (including you) throwing accusations out without ever even trying to become educated on the topic or engage in a good faith discussion, even AFTER he writes out a well-articulated argument for his reasoning? Absolutely embarrassing. Riptide10 (talk) 07:09, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Are you replying to me? Because in this instance I'm not accusing this person of vandalism, I'm saying they're not allowed to engage in personal attacks, which is a separate thing which they unambiguously did. That prohibition on attacking other editors applies even if they are correct in a dispute over content. AntiDionysius (talk) 07:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

You literally went on this talk page and said you removed his edit because “it did not appear constructive”. You are not educated on the topic, so why are you picking and choosing what edits are allowed and disallowed? Riptide10 (talk) 07:38, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

I did do that, yes. Now I'm discussing a different thing. They made a personal attack here on this talk page.

I'm not "picking and choosing what edits are allowed". The cycle of someone edits, another person disagrees and undoes the edit, and then the community talks about it and works out the best way forward is core to Wikipedia's. consensus-based system. There's now discussion going on the talk page of the relevant article. You are welcome to participate in it. AntiDionysius (talk) 07:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

What discussion? Only one person on there has done any research on the topic whatsoever. The rest are either on here screeching about “vandalism”, pretending that a Sports Illustrated hit piece that was quickly disproven belongs in an article about the history and culture of Oklahoma State football, or fawning over how “well written the article is.” Delusional power tripping “administrators” at it again. Riptide10 (talk) 07:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

This discussion. Again, if you are welcome to participate in it if you feel the discussion has been lacking something. If you're not willing to participate in the discussion and are so convinced that Wikipedia is irredeemably terrible then I'm really not sure what the point of this conversation is or what recourse you're asking for.

Also, no one here is an administrator, so I'm not sure what power any of us would be tripping off. AntiDionysius (talk) 07:55, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Again, one side of the argument is well thought out with sources and verifiable information. The other is you and fellow simple-minded people advocating for it to be kept in, “because it’s well written”, “because false allegations are a part of OK State football”. It’s ludicrous. It’s based entirely on personal opinion rather than factual information. You cannot have a reasonable discussion when one side has no facts or sourcing to base their argument on. I’m not asking for anything, just that you realize that throwing a fit about “personal attacks” while simultaneously supporting false information be kept in an article “because it’s notable!” is unbelievably pathetic. Riptide10 (talk) 08:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

If you're not asking for anything and just want to call other people "pathetic" then I think we're done here. AntiDionysius (talk) 08:13, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Look at how the the users @Jeff in CA and @Dcheagle reacted when I attempted to fix a section in the Oklahoma State football wiki that was sloppily put together and filled with spelling errors. How can you pretend that Wikipedia is a fair and reasonable place when it’s full of people who are unable to cope with the fact that other people are more knowledgeable and thorough about a subject then they are? It’s just a popularity contest rather than a place where real information is supported. Totally embarrassing. Riptide10 (talk) 07:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

That's fine, but you should hold yourself to the same standard. Accusing me of vandalism when this is objectively not true, and you know this is not true, is the same as a personal attack. So I'll have to return that warning right back to you. Furthermore, you should engage in this discourse honestly and actually read the relevant material before you take a position. You have given several opinions about the topic but have not provided support for any of them. I gave you proof that the allegations were dropped less than a year after they were made and you carry on as though I hadn't said anything at all, yet you continue to give opinions on it. A lot of people would call that being dense or obtuse. What would you call it? 12.76.10.90 (talk) 23:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistently making personal attacks. No matter how strongly you are convinced that another editor is mistaken, please explain why you think that in a civil and friendly manner. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  JBW (talk) 15:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

---