User talk:Manning954

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome[edit]

Hello, Manning954, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

As you have just started editing, I hope you find the following selection of links helpful and that they provide you with some ideas for how to get the best out of Wikipedia.

Happy editing! Fæ (talk) 11:39, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Finding your way around
Editing articles
Getting help
How you can help

Re:Syracuse University religious affiliation[edit]

As a compromise, I will accept your current revision. Cheers, AnupamTalk 01:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Syracuse University edit: sources 13 and 14 outline the reserved trustee spots for Methodist Associates, but the fact it's only 3 out of the 70 voting members of the Board of Trustees displays the irrelevancy of the Methodist entity in the affairs of the University and it's likely symbolic nature due to the University's historic ties with the group. To claim the University of Syracuse, which has explicitly claimed to be non-denomational/nonsectarian for nearly a century, is religiously affiliated or "maintains a relationship" with the UMC is quite a stretch and doesn't belong as a description for the University. Sources 15, 16, and 17 are all from religious sources that are independent of the University of Syracuse and again are based on the University's historical ties with UMC, instead of it's actual current standing as a nonsectarian university. Manning954 (talk) 05:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good work defending the article from those that use Wikipedia as a place to push a POV. They will misrepresent any source to that end. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 19:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on Syracuse University and International Association of Methodist-related Schools, Colleges, and Universities[edit]

Your recent editing history at Syracuse University shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

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. 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.   — AnupamTalk 20:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 2012[edit]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Syracuse University with this edit, 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.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 01:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit to David Carr (American football)[edit]

Hello, and thank you for your recent contribution. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edit because I believe the article was better before you made that change. The lead section should not be that cluttered. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! Amccann421 (talk) 04:05, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on David Carr (American football). 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. 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; 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. —Bagumba (talk) 22:36, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016[edit]

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at David Carr.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. You need to visit the WikiProject National Football League talk page to see the discussion going on about your behavior on the article. CrashUnderride 22:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 2016[edit]

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at David Carr (American football).

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. CrashUnderride 02:52, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is your deal? I removed minor information that doesn't belong in the intro. I had information regarding his draft bust status removed and that is far more relevant to David Carr's football career than the fact that he won a super bowl ring as a backup QB on the Giants. How is that relevant enough for the intro? Especially considering he didn't play a single snap that season. He literally didn't play a single snap, you can look it up. Not even a single garbage time snap. Manning954 (talk) 08:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring, as you did at David Carr (American football). 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 appeal this block 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.  —Bagumba (talk) 11:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You see it's simple, everyone on a teams roster gets a Super Bowl ring, no matter if they played a single snap or zero. They were on a Super Bowl winning team, therefore, they are Super Bowl champions. Just like how equipment managers, trainers, etc. get rings also. And the regarding the draft bust information, a) you were told multiple times why it was removed, b) you were told also how and where to include it to make it work and c) you've been a bit of a jerk, not responding, etc. So, now maybe you'll get it through your skull that things aren't done the way you want them to be done, but a certain, proper way. CrashUnderride 12:42, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah buddy, I'm aware that everyone on the roster gets a ring. Trust me, I'd bet a lot of money that I'm more knowledgeable on the NFL than you are. Okay, if a backup QB that didn't play a single snap who gets a super bowl ring based on only the fact that he's on a roster is included in the intro, then his status as one of the biggest draft busts is certainly far more relevant and should be included in the intro. This is absoultely undeniable if that is the case. And now I'm blocked from editing. Unreal. I mean this is why wikipedia is an absolute joke when it comes to resolving disputes. You have a handful of mods that hold all the power. You take an awesome thing like wikipedia where you crowdsource and let anyone edit, but when a dispute arises, you literally have 1-2 people making the decision based on their own opinion of the situation. What a fucking joke. If you agree that David Carr's draft bust legacy is more relevant than the fact that he won a Super Bowl ring as a back up QB where he literally did not play a single snap the entire year, then you agree that his draft bust legacy belongs in the intro. Otherwise neither belongs in the intro which is what I'm fine with, which is why I removed it. Otherwise, if you insist on keeping it there, then I should be allowed to place his draft bust legacy in the intro as well. Manning954 (talk) 20:15, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And where are these suggestions telling me what the better thing to do is? I get one constructive suggestion saying the lead shouldn't be so cluttered. Okay I'm cool with that, I'll remove the citations that are cluttering it up. It's literally 3 sentences without the citations. Manning954 (talk) 20:22, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that if the 2 were put side-by-side, the fact that he's seen as a bust would outweigh his earning a super bowl ring. I would say that neither of those things belong in the lead as it currently is. If the lead was more than just a few sentences, as it is now, then I think we could include both those facts in it. But the lead is meant to be a summary of the article, and since the article at the moment is so paltry, the lead can only be very brief. The main reason I reverted your removal of the super bowl ring from the lead is because I knew it would have just been re-added later by that same IP. He's VERY persistent and has been doing this for about a year for every player who has ever been on a super bowl winning roster. If not for that, I'd agree to either remove both from the lead, or rewrite the article so that the lead could include both. Lizard (talk) 22:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
why would his persistence be the reason to keep it there? By that logic, shouldn't my persistence of removing it hold the same weight? Isn't that the whole point of wikipedia? When a user makes an edit another user deems to be inappropriate, then that user should be able to edit and remove it. Seeing that you agree with me and any reasonable person would agree that information pertaining to a backup QB winning a ring is not relevant enough for the intro, then you should be on my side and reverting his edits, instead of mine. Instead you continue to revert my edits, which led to an "edit war", which ended up in me getting a temporary ban, when it seems you agreed with my edits this whole time. Why isn't anyone banning that guy making the same edits over and over again that we both agree is wrong for this article? Manning954 (talk) 10:33, 30 August 2016 (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).

Manning954 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

blocked for making a useful contribution. I delete information not important enough for the intro of David Carr (American football) and I get blocked. I see articles of starting players of Super Bowl teams that don't have it mentioned in their intros, but according to some of these people I've been "edit warring" with, it is relevant enough to add to the intro of a backup QB who literally did not play a single snap that year for the Giants. Not a single snap, you can look this up. A few months back, I add Carr's draft bust legacy to the intro and it gets deleted. David Carr is widely known as one of the biggest draft busts in NFL history. That is far more relevant than the fact that he won a super bowl ring as a backup QB, but nobody gets banned for deleting that from the intro, but I get banned for deleting information. As I've stated above, you either include both, or delete both. I'm fine with either option. Manning954 (talk) 22:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are blocked for edit warring, not for the contents of your edits; any unblock request will need to address that, and only that. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 22:31, 19 August 2016 (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).

Manning954 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

How do you address the "edit warring" without addressing the reason for it, which is the content of the edits? I wasn't "edit warring" for shits and giggles. I reversed those edits because the content didn't belong in the intro. And if this is strictly about edit warring, why didn't the users that reversed my edits get banned as well? Manning954 (talk) 22:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You don't believe the content belongs in the intro. Fine. You may be correct on that. But it doesn't matter. That's not grounds to engage in edit warring. In fact, there are almost no grounds for engaging in edit warring. Wikipedia:Edit warring explains in detail. Yamla (talk) 23:01, 19 August 2016 (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 address the edit warring by noting that in the future, you will seek consensus on the article talk page rather than by repeatedly inserting or removing contested material. I don't see you've discussed your issues with the article on the talk page at all; in fact, you've not used an article talk page since 2012. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 22:58, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Jpgordon, that's fair. Why was I the only one banned then? If this was strictly about "edit warring?" When other users have continuously reverted my edits? Manning954 (talk) 23:31, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which one other user has been repeatedly reverting your edits? --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 01:40, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
look at the edit history. Several users have reverted my edits. For the record, I don't want anyone to get banned from editing. I do believe the reverts were made in good faith. My contention is that my reverts were made in good faith as well and you can look above for my reasoning for them. Despite that, I'm the only one that gets banned and it's claimed that it was because of "edit warring." If that were the case, why was I the only one that got banned when several other users have continuously reverted my edits? Manning954 (talk) 09:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at David Carr.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. His winning a Super Bowl ring IS noteworthy enough for the lede. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 12:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I've stated several times, I have no issue with that being included in the intro, as long as the bust legacy information is also included there. I will be including the bust legacy as well. Manning954 (talk) 13:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
bust legacy has been added to the intro as it is far more relevant information that a backup QB winning a ring. Feel free to revert and cry for the ban of anyone that wants to remove it from the intro. Nice bio btw, really cool that you are "anti-culture." Cool story bro. Tell us more about your adventures. You hate prima donnas, but you watch professional wrestling? Yeah makes sense. How many scarves and Norah Jones albums do you own? Manning954 (talk) 14:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at David Carr.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 23:49, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to David Carr (American football). Marianna251TALK 16:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

the sources are in the body of the article. And isn't the intro supposed to be a summary of the article, where you don't necessarily have to have sources/citations, particularly when you have the sources in the body of the article? Manning954 (talk) 17:06, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at David Carr (American football). UW Dawgs (talk) 17:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

do you want to clue me in on which part of my edits have been disruptive? Adding Carr's bust legacy to his intro is "disruptive." How so? Care to explain? Manning954 (talk) 17:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Click any of the WP:DISRUPT links which appear extensively on your Talk page and was the cause of your block earlier this month. UW Dawgs (talk) 17:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
oh you mean the bullshit temp ban I got for my "disruptive" editing. Even lizard agreed that was bullshit and he was one of the guys "edit warring" with me on the David Carr intro issue. Go look at his comment on the NFL wikiproject talk page. This is his comment: I wouldn't exactly call it disruptive editing. We're likely inciting him at this point, and I can see why. From his point of view we unjustly ganged up on him, called his edits "disruptive," and even blocked him from editing, without really getting into a fair discussion. Although we tried, there was never a consensus on it. We strong-armed him, plain and simple. I'd be pissed off too. Lizard (talk) 01:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Me and Lizard have actually have come to agreement on this issue as you can see on my talk page. Again, where am I being "disruptive." You have not answered the question.Manning954 (talk) 17:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Crash has given up after he couldn't refute what I said. He could not refute the fact that Carr's draft legacy is far more relevant than him winning a super bowl ring as a backup QB. He could not refute this and gave up his argument. The consensus has been reached. It seemed we had this resolved and then you come out of nowhere and now were in another "edit war." Do you want to chime in and actually give your reason why you reverted my edit that actually relates to the actual content of the article? Your "consensus" argument doesn't work since we already came to a consensus on the issue and you blindly calling my edits "disruptive" isn't valid either? Any other reason you reverted it except for shits and giggles or to ignite another "edit war?"Manning954 (talk) 17:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Use the article Talk page and obtain agreement for the edit you'd like to make[edit]

I've just noticed this ongoing dispute, and I don't need to take any side at all in the substantive disagreement to strongly suggest to you that you discuss the matter at the article Talk page, persuade other editors that what you want to do makes sense, and then when they agree with you, then go ahead and make the edit. Testily arguing and wikilawyering is unlikely to persuade anyone to take a different opinion, and, sooner or later will result in an even longer block on your account.

Please. You seem to know your stuff about the NFL, and that's valuable; but you need to know your stuff about Wikipedia works, and you're not doing yourself any favors with your current approach. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 17:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What in the world am I supposed to do? Three people have contributed to this dispute were having. Me and Lizard seem to be in agreement. You can see our discussions that we've had on my talk page. We either remove both or keep both. I'm fine with either option. Crash is the one who insists on keeping the super bowl ring info in. I'm cool with that AS LONG as the bust legacy is included as well, so as a result, I included the draft legacy info in the intro. Problem solved.......or so I thought. Now I've got Marianna and UW Daws reverting my edits without making any contributions to this discussion. There whole argument is I'm being "disruptive." Where am I being disruptive? Look at the three different talk pages we've had discussions regarding this issue. The NFL Wikiproject talk page, my talk page, and the articles' talk page. The only guy who is disagreeing with me is crash and he has abandoned his argument. And there is no dispute int he first place. Carr's draft legacy is relevant enough for the intro, especially if you are going to include his super bowl ring as a backup info there. Am I missing something here? Manning954 (talk) 18:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the article talk page and there is nothing approaching consensus there. Your approach has been combative and insulting to other editors, which doesn't help you, and you're the only one who's broken 3RR with your edits on the page. I have no interest in the article's topic, but I have reverted your edits because everything I can see points to you being disruptive and repeatedly adding an edit that does not have consensus.
You can't properly establish consensus by discussing on one or another person's talk page - it needs to be on the article talk page so that everyone concerned can see the discussion and contribute to it. If you're discussing on individual talk pages, as you seem to be doing, please break off from that and take it to the article talk. Please also take a moment to read through WP:CIVIL. Marianna251TALK 18:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How else are we supposed to reach a consensus when nobody else is contributing to the conversation. The next best thing is to look at the discussion that has taken place on the NFL wikiproject page and user's talk pages. And even if we were just using the article's talk page, you can see crashunderide has abandoned his argument. You abandon the argument, that means you concede. Regardless of that. the draft legacy information is relevant enough for the intro. There is no dispute here. Any reasonable person will tell you that Carr's draft legacy is more than relevant enough to be included in the intro. Manning954 (talk) 18:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've offered what I think is really good advice - stop arguing and hectoring and wikilawyering. I'm not going to waste time saying the same thing again. Good luck, then. JohnInDC (talk) 18:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
you commented that the word "bust" is provocative. It's only provocative to those that don't follow sports. It's a common word used to label an athlete that doesn't live up to their billing. If anything, saying he was "extremely disappointing" is actually far more provocative lol. Stop arguing? Isn't that the whole point of trying to resolve a dispute? Manning954 (talk) 18:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 2016[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on David Carr (American football). 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. 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; 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. Marianna251TALK 17:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus has been reached. Look at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League. Look at section "Mannning954". Look at the discussion on my talk page. Look at the talk page of the article. The only guy that was arguing against me was Crash and he has given up his argument. Manning954 (talk) 18:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates, as you did to User talk:Marianna251. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. Marianna251TALK 18:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? You keep making reverts to an edit where a consensus has been reached. You are making disruptive edits. You will be blocked if you continue.Manning954 (talk) 18:15, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon 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:Manning954 reported by User:Marianna251 (Result: ). Thank you. Marianna251TALK 18:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

fantastic. How do you suppose you will explain yourself when you realize you have reverted edits which were made with a consensus? Manning954 (talk) 18:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 2016[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at David Carr (American football). 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 appeal this block 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.  NeilN talk to me 19:14, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Manning954&oldid=1138919415"