User talk:Bmorrow151

Welcome

Hello, Bmorrow151, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of contents / Department directory

The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)

Need help?

Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

Bmorrow151, good luck, and have fun. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 10:00, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017

Hello, I'm Dan Koehl. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Boston Celtics, 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. Dan Koehl (talk) 09:33, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Super Bowl LI, without citing a reliable source using an inline citation that clearly supports the material. The burden is on the person wishing to keep in the material to meet these requirements, as a necessary (but not always sufficient) condition. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Jasper Deng (talk) 09:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did with this edit to Absence seizure. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jim1138 (talk) 10:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Super Bowl LI.
Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: Super Bowl LI was changed by Bmorrow151 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.853994 on 2017-02-13T10:38:20+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 10:38, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've also reported you for vandalism. Thank you.

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Materialscientist (talk) 11:48, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Brady

Please discuss this on the talk page. We've been around and around this, that statement qualifies as WP:FLOWERY. Also, please read up on WP:BRD and don't just re-revert a reversion. See WP:EDITWAR Tarl N. (discuss) 13:36, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Tom Brady shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 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. Lizard (talk) 02:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Bmorrow151. You have new messages at Tarl N.'s talk page.
Message added 03:15, 1 April 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Tarl N. (discuss) 03:15, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add the comment that his never having had a losing season is already in the article. It's an indication that he's been on a good team, and as such probably doesn't need to be in the lede. Either way, please discuss this on the Talk:Tom Brady page. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 03:17, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at Tom Brady. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:44, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Bmorrow151 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #17945 was submitted on Apr 02, 2017 19:23:05. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 19:23, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your email to me: You were the only one blocked because you were the only editor who violated the three-revert restriction. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:02, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for reverting your edit also has something to do with it; I'd be cross with the other editors if your edit was a positive change. Adding redundant information which is already noted elsewhere in the article and contains inaccuracies is certainly grounds to remove an edit. There was no "friends" backing someone up as you've alleged. That article is watched by many editors. All those who reverted your edit independently thought it was a net negative for the article or warranted talk page discussion. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 21:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion in one article is not a valid rationale for inclusion in another

Please note that the inclusion of similar content in one article is not a valid rationale for including it in another. Tom Brady is not Ben Roethlisberger and he's not Le'Veon Bell. Each of these should have separate discussions on their respective talk pages. Lizard (talk) 04:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:Michael Jordan Image.png

Thanks for uploading File:Michael Jordan Image.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 12:01, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Charles Haley Image.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Charles Haley Image.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F9 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the file appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use it — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. – Train2104 (t • c) 12:49, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Bmorrow151. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant text you keep adding over and over to the Bill Belichick article

Please stop. It already says this, in the sentence right before it, it already mentions his six championships. Why do you insist on saying the same thing in two consecutive sentences? You don't have to say it twice in a row. --Jayron 32 19:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Look, you've now done it three times. You're clearly edit warring and showing that you have no intention of discussing the matter or listening to other people's perspectives on this. --Jayron 32 19:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is your final warning. Please discuss this matter now. 331dot (talk) 19:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously don’t know the difference between Super Bowl titles and NFL titles. Belichick doesn’t solely hold the record for Super Bowl titles.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Bmorrow151 reported by User:331dot (Result: ). Thank you. 331dot (talk) 19:23, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February 2019

You have been blocked for 1 week from editing for edit warring, plus repeated unfounded accusations of sockpuppetry, after doing much the same thing previously (and getting blocked for it then too).

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot simply accuse people of scheming against you every time you do not get your way. When the block expires, you are free to propose your edit on the article talk page; I have no idea if you are right or not. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Block

How exactly did I not get my way when I proposed obvious scheming? I’m also smart enough to know that you will guys will stick together. Bmorrow151 (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You were reverted by two people. Instead of discussing on the talk page, you accused them of sockpuppetry and edit warred. After they objected to the accusation, you did it again (on 331dot's talk page). --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:03, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t know Wikipedia believed in threatening people to take back what they believe. That’s nice to know, but if I believe something I’m not going to be strong armed into changing my mind. So seeing as how I didn’t break the revision rule of more than three times I’m being blocked for my beliefs. Okay.

You're not blocked for what you believe; I don't care what's in your head. You're blocked for repeatedly making the accusation on-wiki, with no evidence, after having been blocked before for similar behavior. Also, as has been explained to you before, more than 3 edits is a bright line; if you're reverting several people with no discussion, it's edit warring with less than 4 reverts. So you're being blocked for both. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:22, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If I’m not blocked for what I believe then why did you mention it? And tell me when is the last time I’ve had a problem with anybody on Wikipedia? And why does your site say more than three if you can do as you please with less? Maybe you should get rid of that rule if you’re not going to follow it. But I guess it’s okay for your administrators to do it three times. As far as discussion I told him what the issue was when I made the edit and I didn’t realize he was trying to contact me. When I did I replied when I figured out how and now you’re bashing me because you don’t like my reply. So basically for Wikipedia if you suspect something make sure you don’t say anything and we’ll follow the rules we set sometimes like don’t revise more than three times. Is that the way it works?

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Bmorrow151 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #23911 was submitted on Feb 08, 2019 21:31:47. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 21:31, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As you still have access to this page, you need to make your unblock request here instead of on UTRS. 331dot (talk) 21:52, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Bmorrow151 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I just want my reason for being blocked clarified so it doesn’t happen again because getting different versions and insults thrown at me. They’re saying I did too many revisions, but my understanding of the rule was that was if you did more than three which I made sure not to do. Now they’re telling me they can basically block you if they feel like it even if you followed the guidelines which I don’t understand. Why have a guideline in place if the administrators aren’t even going to follow it? I’m also being told if I suspect that a user is using multiple accounts to keep it to myself. So now that I know you’re not allowed to report your suspicions otherwise you’ll be blocked I’ll make sure that doesn’t happen again. I also would like to know what actions I’m supposed to take when my dispute is against somebody who clearly has more power than me like an administrator. We disagreed what should be on a page. I told him why I thought it should be on there, he disagreed and got me blocked and now he’s changed it back to his version which seems like an abuse of power. So what is a powerless user supposed to do in that situation so I know for the future. Or do administrators get to just put whatever they want on a page and others should do nothing? I also was told I didn’t respond to discussions when I didn’t even remember how discussions work and when I did I responded and that clearly accomplished nothing. I was also told I had done this before which when I asked how long ago this took place my question was ignored. I don’t expect an administrator to side against another administrator, but I want to know these things for the future and what opinions I can and can’t voice

Decline reason:

Unblock requests that continue to attack other editors and fail to address your own actions will be declined. You are blocked for no other reason than your behaviour. Floquenbeam has provided concise and well-reasoned responses to each of the "concerns" you've raised above regarding your block. Please review WP:GAB if you plan on filing any further appeals. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:22, 8 February 2019 (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.

Replies to some of the questions in the unblock template, in case it helps the reviewing admin:

You were edit warring. You've been referred to WP:Edit warring several times, and you have in the past accused others of doing it. Read it again; it explains that you do not have to revert 4 times to be edit warring. You did not follow guidelines and get blocked anyway.
You are not being told what to think, or to keep suspicions to yourself; you're being told you cannot repeatedly make completely unfounded allegations, without evidence. Keep baseless suspicions to yourself.
As has been explained several times over the years in a couple of sections above this one, on this very talk page, if you disagree with another editor, you use the article talk page to discuss things. You have used article talk pages before, I find it hard to believe you forgot what a talk page was, so the comment that "I don't even remember how discussions work" seems unlikely..
You ask how long ago the previous instance took place; it is on this talk page, in the section "April 2017" above.
This has nothing to do with admin vs. non-admin; I'd have blocked you for this behavior whether or not the two users were admins.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 23:16, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So you guys are allowed to make accusations towards me but I can’t do the same. I guess you’re even allowed to imply Im a liar. I’m glad you don’t know what absent and complex partial seizures are and what the medication does to your memory. But you should be careful before acting like somebody is lying when it comes to what they do and don’t remember when you know nothing about them. There is a reason why I haven’t posted a lot of things, because you guys make these pages very complicated. I knew them at one time, but I forget these very fast due to my medical issues.

You cannot make accusations without evidence. Believe it or not, two different people can have the same opinion about something. That's not enough evidence. I'm very sorry for your medical issues, but we have no way of knowing something like that, we can only go with what is in front of us. It is up to you to take whatever steps are needed for you to adequately use Wikipedia with any medical issues you might have. 331dot (talk) 23:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You mean like you guys accusing me of lying about what I remember with no evidence? So it’s okay for you guys. That’s what I want to make sure of.

If we don't know about your medical issues, what are we supposed to think? 331dot (talk) 00:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is my main issue. You’re telling me to do things you can’t even do. You ask me what are you supposed to think. Why don’t you follow your own rule? If you can’t prove it keep it to yourself. I guess it’s harder than it sounds huh.

And what am I supposed to think when I find out there is a rule against more than three revisions and then one person does a revision on my edit. Then that person disappears and another person does the next two conveniently making it so they didn’t have to go over? Even if I was wrong that’s what I thought. I didn’t know there was a rule against speaking your mind. I guess I’m used to places with free speech.

We can prove what you have done. It is all in the edit history. Edit warring does not have to be three reverts, this is made clear in the policy. No one "disappeared". Free Speech means the government cannot jail or punish you for your speech, not that you can say what you want and face no consequences from private entities or others. 331dot (talk) 00:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to attempt to convince a heretofore uninvolved administrator with a new request, but you will need to address what you have done, not others. 331dot (talk) 00:28, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you prove what I remember and didn’t remember at that time, because that’s what I’m talking about? You accused me of lying and didn’t have proof of that but you have an issue with me accusing you with no proof. I just want to know if the same rules apply to all.

You either are not hearing me, ignoring me, or I'm not being clear. I hope it's me, but I won't repeat myself anymore. You can either request to be unblocked or let it expire, but if this same behavior continues after the block, you will be blocked for much longer. I hope that doesn't happen and that you edit productively and within guidelines. Good day. 331dot (talk) 00:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? I’m just waiting for my question to be answered. I thought that was okay. Can you prove what I remember and didn’t remember at that time, because that’s what I’m talking about? You accused me of lying and didn’t have proof of that but you have an issue with me accusing you with no proof. Why is one okay and not the other? I’ll be finished once I know the answer. I don’t see any point in an appeal after what I’ve read online. I just want my question answered.

I guess you guys know you have no defense for your actions and that’s why you won’t answer what I told you was my last question. It’s easy to tell somebody not to make accusations without proof but it’s kind of strange that almost at the same time you guys are making accusations without proof. You guys say admit your wrongdoings but you won’t even reply and admit you did the same exact thing. If you guys don’t have to follow your own rules that’s fine with me. I know how the world works. Just let me know though, because otherwise it’s confusing.

Your question has been answered. I'm sorry that you don't accept it, but it has been answered. Since you are declining to request to be unblocked, if you persist in carrying on about this matter, I will remove your access to this page for the duration of the block. 331dot (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Show me where you answered my question and I’ll be finished. Where did you answer my question about you guys making accusations against me with no evidence? How is it okay for you guys to make accusations with no evidence but it’s not okay for me? If you don’t have an answer just so say so and we can be done.

February 2019

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

331dot (talk) 16:37, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed your access to this page due to your persistence in carrying on about this matter. Your questions have been answered above. We can only go by the valid evidence in front of us; two users sharing an opinion is not evidence of sockpuppetry by itself. An edit history showing you edit warred and apparently did not heed advice about talk pages is evidence that you were not being truthful absent anything else such as medical issues, which we have no way of knowing unless you tell us. Any administrator may restore your access if they see a need to, but once your block is up I hope you change your ways. 331dot (talk) 16:45, 9 February 2019 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Bmorrow151 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #23915 was submitted on Feb 09, 2019 17:43:43. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 17:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Bmorrow151 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #23920 was submitted on Feb 11, 2019 13:37:25. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 13:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Based on UTRS #23920, in which Bmorrow151 agrees to stop "voicing suspicions" about other editors without evidence and appears to understand the problems, I have restored talk page access so that an unblock request can be made here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Bmorrow151 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I feel my block should be lifted because I was unaware of the rules in place and now that I know it won’t happen again. Until it was explained to me I was under the impression that edit warring took place if you did a revision more than 3 times. I wasn’t aware that 3 times was a number that really wasn’t important since that number has no bearing on what constitutes edit warring. That number was just stuck in my head and I made sure not to do it. After further reading the definition and having my questions answered I can see I am guilty of that. I was also informed that I had an issue two years ago that involved edit warring. I wasn’t aware of this until it was pointed out. Due to my medical issues I rarely remember things that happened that long ago when my seizures and the medication I was on at the time screwed up my whole memory. Due to this I also wasn’t aware of how to do certain things on Wikipedia like talk pages and discussions until I looked it up again when I was told to discuss on the edit history page. As far as I was concerned you gave your reasons for edits when you were submitting the edit. When I noticed that I was being told to discuss on a talk page I had to look up how to do that, because I completely forgot. That’s why as you can see I haven’t made any notes on my talk page or had any discussions with anybody from wikipedia in two years. All I remembered was how to do was basic edits. That’s my last point. I’ve been using Wikipedia without issue for two years. I’ve had my edits undone numerous times during that period without issue. So, it’s not like this is something I do all the time. If I’d remembered how discussions worked I would have used them sooner. Wikipedia is not the easiest site to navigate when it comes to things like that for me. I wasn’t in a great mood the other day and I also didn’t feel my questions were being answered in a way I could understand them. I also get very upset when people question the issues I’ve had with my memory like I’m making it up. I was also told I was blocked for making accusations. Seeing as how what you call sockpuppetry is hard to have evidence of I was going off of what I felt at the time. I had made an edit on Bill Belichick’s legacy and then it was removed by somebody who I hadn’t seen edit before on Bill Belichick. Then after I put it back up almost immediately another person removed it which seemed suspicious to me since I didn’t understand why two different people would do so. I wasn’t aware that both these people were administrators until later and that voicing your suspicions was against the rules without evidence. Now that I know I will keep my suspicions to myself. I can also see where the mix up was and why they didn’t agree with my edit and I will use what I have learned to have a discussion explaining my position better. I’m being blocked for seven days for making three revisions with one of them being to explain why I was making it. I’m not going to intentionally do something I know I’m going to be blocked for. It’s not like I’m some random person who just signed up a few days ago. I’ve been making basic edits for years and now that my memory has been refreshed on how to go about discussions on issues like this it won’t happen again. Thank you.

Accept reason:

As per discussion below, with a reminder to assume good faith rather than jumping to suspicions. Welcome back. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Boing! said Zebedee: I'm only online sporadically today, so I'll give my thoughts now:
- I have a few reservations about some of the comments in the unblock request, but it finally hits the highlights: (a) an understanding about edit warring, and (b) an understanding about making false accusations of socking to try to win an argument.
- The false equivalency of (a) BMorrow's repeated unfounded accusations of socking with (b) my skepticism that they didn't know about talk pages does not need to be clarified before an unblock. I can discuss that with them (briefly) on my talk page after they're unblocked, if they want.
- Happy to defer to anything Boing thinks best; don't wait for me to comment on any conditions, or lack thereof.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 16:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Good timing, Floquenbeam, thanks :-) You've essentially said what I was thinking. Here's what I had ready, so I'll post it anyway in case 331dot wants to respond... @Floquenbeam and 331dot: Reading this unblock request, it appears that Bmorrow151 was confused and in a bad mood after the block. And without commenting on medical issues, I can accept that they had forgotten things that happened and lessons that were learned two years ago. Anyway, however we got here, I'm seeing a new understanding of edit warring and a commitment to avoid it in future and to discuss disagreements on article talk pages, and an agreement not to voice suspicions without evidence (that latter could have been better phrased, but if I were one of the targets of the suspicions then I'd be satisfied with it). I don't think there's anything further to prevent by maintaining the block for the rest of the week, so would you object to an unblock? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- repinging @331dot:; Boing, when you fix a ping you have to add a completely new signature, not replace the old with the new. Why? I have absolutely no idea. But it didn't ping me, so I assume it didn't ping 331dot. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ooh, how strange, I really thought replacing the sig with a new one worked - thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think that I would like them to show that they understand WP:AGF, but I trust you to decide as you think best, Boing!. 331dot (talk) 17:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Birthdates

I took out the specific birthdates you put in on Tom Brady. Please see the privacy concerns at WP:DOB, in particular since they are minors. Tarl N. (discuss) 06:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason you left the birthdate of Brady’s oldest son?Bmorrow151 (talk) 07:19, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:CAPS

Take a look at MOS:CAPS. In general, Wiki prefers to not capitalize anything except proper names. It offers several examples similar to the changes you made which it describes as wrong. After reading that, if you still think it's appropriate, go ahead and re-revert, I think this is worth flagging, but not arguing over. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 23:02, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I’m still learning. The idea that headers and titles are supposed to be in sentence case still makes no sense. I’ll just have to get used to how unprofessional it looks. Thank you for letting me know. Bmorrow151 (talk) 11:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

using {{re}} and similar constructs

The change you made to add {{re}} to a paragraph you had edited previously didn't work. It didn't notify the desired person. It turns out the mechanism which triggers the notification is buried in the signature substitution. So only use these templates in new paragraphs you are adding with a signature. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 00:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Bmorrow151 (talk) 01:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but your recent edits, such as those to Tim Allen, appear to be intentional disruptions designed to illustrate a point. Edits designed for the deliberate purpose of drawing opposition, including making edits you do not agree with or enforcing a rule in a generally unpopular way, are highly disruptive and can lead to a block or ban. If you feel that a policy is problematic, the policy's talk page is the proper place to raise your concerns. If you simply disagree with someone's actions in an article, discuss it on the article talk page or, if direct discussion fails, through dispute resolution. If consensus strongly disagrees with you even after you have made proper efforts, then respect the consensus, rather than trying to sway it with disruptive tactics. Thank you. John from Idegon (talk) 09:13, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits? What are you talking about? Tim Allen was one edit. What recent edits were disruptive? As for Tim Allen I was just made aware from another discussion and article that we are supposed to put a person’s criminal convictions in their lead even if that’s not what they became famous for. So are we just supposed to do that for certain individuals because that’s confusing?Bmorrow151 (talk) 16:30, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First, that's a template. It's the edit to Allen that's the issue. Second, please point to the discussion where you were told that we are supposed to put a person’s criminal convictions in their lead even if that’s not what they became famous for. Perhaps cite a policy or guideline for it? Wikipedia has never worked on hard and fast rules and never will. Content is decided on an article by article basis by consensus. Our policies and guidelines reflect consensus (with only a few that are based in legal requirements, such as our policies on libel and copyright). John from Idegon (talk) 17:19, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why stating a fact about Tim Allen is an issue. He is a convicted drug trafficker who turned his life around. Are you saying we should push that further down in the article so we don’t offend anybody? How are we supposed to decide when it’s okay to bring up a person’s criminal history? Do we go by how liked the person is now?Bmorrow151 (talk) 17:44, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The information is already in the article. It's not a fact that needs to be stated twice. --Jayron 32 17:46, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to understand this. It's not the edit that is the problem. With consensus, that could be an acceptable addition. It's your stated motivation. It seems editors feel convictions should be inluded in the beginning of a person’s lead now so I’m making sure it’s fair to all. That's pretty much the definition of POINT. You stated in the quoted edit summary you were enforcing a consensus on another article on the Allen article. It would clarify things greatly if you'd tell us where you got that idea, but that doesn't change the fact the edit to Allen was POINTy. John from Idegon (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, per John, "convictions should be inluded in the beginning of a person’s lead" has not been stated anywhere as a general principle. If, in one person's article on Wikipedia it has been determined by consensus that a crime should be mentioned in the lead of that one single article, that has no bearing on any of the other thousands and thousands of articles at Wikipedia. If you think that on the Tim Allen article only that the crime is important enough to be given prominence in the lead (I'm not saying it is, and I'm not saying it isn't. I make no value judgement, for the purpose of this discussion, on the matter) then you should start a discussion at Talk:Tim Allen to see if consensus exists for you to do so. Your change to the lead section has been challenged, so the next step is to discuss the matter on the talk page and build consensus. --Jayron 32 18:09, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Matt Steffanina (June 11)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Matt Steffanina and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Matt Steffanina, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 06:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bmorrow151! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Theroadislong (talk) 06:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Career statistics sections

Hello, can you explain why you've made edits like this and this? Career statistics seem like a sub-part of a player's professional career, so I would expect them to be in a sub-section, rather than having independent headings. —Emufarmers^(T/C) 02:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because they are easier to navigate when people are just looking for stats. And I noticed that’s how it was done for the bigger stars like Tom Brady and Rodgers, but oddly not the others. And like I said it is much more convenient to find than scrolling through a person’s entire chronological career history when this really isn’t chronological. Bmorrow151 (talk) 13:25, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Matt Steffanina concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Matt Steffanina, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:41, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Matt Steffanina

Hello, Bmorrow151. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Matt Steffanina".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Snowycats (talk) 17:54, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from accusing me of doing something I didn’t do. I was making an edit. Not a test edit. Bmorrow151 (talk) 00:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would you prefer vandalism? When you make clueless edits, the nice way of putting it is to call it "tests". Your absolutely correct though. An editor with three years experience shouldn't be making test edits. The better description would be WP:CIR. We are all volunteers. It becomes problematic when one editor's refusal to internalize our WP:PAG wastes other, more productive editor's, time. John from Idegon (talk) 01:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crikies, you can't even manage to reply to a message correctly. I assume you were intending to post your reply in the next section? Egad. John from Idegon (talk) 01:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Extraterrestrial life, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. David J Johnson (talk) 13:43, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]