User talk:Crazyeyes85

March 2020

Hello, I'm Nyook. I noticed that you recently removed content from Yancy Butler without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Nyook ✉ 21:01, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Yancy Butler, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:03, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While I’m not familiar with this format I do know that what was published is factually inaccurate. Based on one small town paper and not was resolved immediately following and legally. By reposting this inaccurate data you are causing personal and professional harm to Ms, Butler. This is starting to look like a personal vendetta. I don’t understand why someone would continually repost harmful and inaccurate data. Crazyeyes85 (talk) 04:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yancy Butler

Edits were made as what was posted was not currently accurate. What was published was a Singular news article that was not actually and in subsequent legal proceedings were rectified. Inaccuracies are damaging professionally and personally. Crazyeyes85 (talk) 21:23, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Yancy Butler; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Ifnord (talk) 14:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please use the edit summary. I have reverted you one more time, but I'm not going to do it a second time. I recommed that you go to the article's talkpage and try to dscuss things there. Yust reverting back can eventually get you blocked, regardless wether you believe you are right or not. I'm not going to report you now, but the next man might not see this and press buttons. 14:57, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

I’m new to this but I did reply on the talk page or whatever. No one replied back they seem hell bent on destroying this woman’s life and I can’t sit for that. It’s wrong. Social media (the field I work in) is rampant with this type of carelessness. I’ve made an attempt to talk 4 times and nothing back. They’ve cost this woman work and that is wrong. How is inaccurate posting to this massive site okay in any instance?

With gratitude. 24.187.27.165 (talk) 14:58, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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:Crazyeyes85 reported by User:Ifnord (Result: ). Thank you. Ifnord (talk) 15:05, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve responded to each one. How can posting inaccurate material in any instance be okay. Specifically 2017. That is wrong and not correct data. Posted by a small town paper that never corrected it. It has cost money, work and is malicious. Crazyeyes85 (talk) 15:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 15:17, 31 March 2020 (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).

Crazyeyes85 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I don’t understand how you can block someone from trying to correct slander. I’ve commented or “talked” back on each edit. As I discovered that this was part of protocol. The 2017 article is wrong in regards to yancy butler. The small town paper never corrected and it should not be on Wikipedia if this is a factual news source. If it’s just slander that wholly different. I’m assuming there are well meaning people being this and I’m attempting to give you the correct info. What about what I’m doing is wrong and should be blocked? Crazyeyes85 (talk) 17:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As you don't understand why your edits were disruptive, there are no grounds to consider lifting your block. Yamla (talk) 17:33, 31 March 2020 (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.

There are protections for living people on Wikipedia; see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Additionally, not all verifiable content necessarily belongs on Wikipedia. If you read through our our core content policies, you can find arguments to support your position. You can then seek dispute resolution to argue those points and convince other people to remove the content. Repeatedly making the same edit against consensus is known as edit warring, and it's disallowed. I know this all sounds very bureaucratic, but it's how we operate. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:06, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]