User talk:K27soccer

Hello

April 2019

Your recent editing history at Bluevale Collegiate Institute shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 you 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.
Stop adding Keval Tripathi to the infobox. There is no such person on staff at the school. There is no such position as "Co Prez". If this is student position, then we do not list student positions and we do not name ~~non-students~~ non-notable students [corrected 5 May] You have already broken WP:3RR. If you do it again I will ask to have you blocked for either vandalism or edit warring. Meters (talk) 22:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meters what gives you the right to say it doesn’t belong. We have decided it does as a form of recognition and you just get rid of it. We want to acknowledge people like our school presidents and vice principals but you don’t seem to understand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by K27soccer (talk • contribs) 22:32, April 18, 2019 (UTC)

See WP:WPSCH/AG, in particular WP:WPSCH/AG#WNTI. The school article does not belong to you or to the school. It does not matter what you would like to see in the article. We have guidelines on what should be in schools article, and your material does not belong. IYou've taken me to 3RR, but I only undid you once. You, onthe other hand made your edit 4 times in less than 24 hours, breaking 3RR. And I see you have added it again, but with different students listed. So, your first four attempts were also vandalism. You will certainly be blocked this. Meters (talk) 22:39, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Block notice

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent disruption.

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 ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:45, 18 April 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).

K27soccer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was not vandalizing any pages. I was only putting factual information on the page that wasn’t hurting anyone in any way and wasn’t making the encyclopedia any worse. All I was doing was adding relevant information. As well, my undos were to get rid of a users edits for false information which I had to revert twice. So I only had an edit war two times with Meters so the 3RR rule should be neglected. K27soccer (talk) 03:10, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your edits were indeed inappropriate. Yamla (talk) 12:11, 19 April 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.

Editor was not blocked for edit warring, but here are the diffs to show that editor was indeed edit warring, and contrary to what he or she claims, it was vandalism, not adding relevant information:

[1] added "Keval Tripathi " as "Co Prez"
[2] ditto
[3] ditto
[4] ditto
[5] added "Sara Danbrook" and "Sarah Peng" as "Co-Presidents"

So, broke 3RR attempting to add presumably incorrect information, and then made a fifth attempt to add what I assume are the correct names. Either way, per WP:WPSCH/AG#WNTI we don't list non-notable students by name. I only uindid one of these edits.

Yes the editor made some valid edits along the way, but that's not what the block is for. Meters (talk) 03:33, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meters, in the article it says people other than the principal are usually not added. It doesn’t say they can’t be added. Also these students are notable. Tell me why you think they aren’t notable because I don’t see how all of a sudden, your opinion is always the corect answer.

K27soccer, you had 4 reverts within a roughly 24 period which is a form of edit-warring. In your unblock request, you need to make some assurances that edit warring will not be a problem in the future and that you can handle your disagreements with other editors. No one always get their way on Wikipedia and you have to be able to handle that which, right now, seems unlike your behavioral patterns. Take some time, collect your thoughts and rewrite your unblock request after reading the Guide for Unblocks which offers the advice you'll need to follow. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:51, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've told the editor that we have guidelines on how to write school articles, and provided the link where it is clearly stated that non-notable students are not listed by name. There is zero evidence that these students are notable. It's not my opinion that they should not be listed, it's the guideline on school articles, which was created by consensus. Meters (talk) 03:59, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you still didn’t tell me how they were non-notable. For the people in Waterloo, Ontario, those two individuals are very notable. Isn’t Wikipedia suppose to be an encyclopedia for the world. If other people read this page they will learn something about our community and that’s a good thing. So next time an outsider visits any mentions those names, we will be pleased that they have informed themselves. Also Meters, do you work for Wikipedia or do you work for some school board, because I don’t see how this is related to you in any way.

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).

K27soccer (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I’m sorry about what happend. I having edited on Wikipedia in a long time. I definitely didn’t mean to cause any disturbances because I only wrote down factual information. Next time I will be sure to read the article guidelines before making edits because I didn’t know those were a thing. Sorry guys.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:03, 5 May 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.

You "only wrote down factual information". Could you explain the entirety of your editing history from October 2016 through January 2018? Specifically, I'm talking about all of the vandalism edits you made prior to even getting involved in the Bluevale Collegiate Institute edits that ultimately led to your block?-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:06, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]