User talk:NFLExpert49

Welcome!

Hello, NFLExpert49, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!--Biografer (talk) 01:02, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh by the way[edit]

I'll take that apology now. Rockypedia (talk) 03:45, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, please, You and I both know exactly what you did. Of course they're not going to be able to prove it, since you just used a bunch of proxies. NFLExpert49 (talk) 03:47, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I find your accusations unfounded and bordering on a personal attack. I still believe an apology for your aberrant behavior is in order. You may be here just to defend the actions of white supremacists, but I'm here to build a better encyclopedia. You might want to look at why you're doing what you're doing. Rockypedia (talk) 04:09, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to sneak in a deletion of something consensus was reached for seems a strange way of trying to build a better encyclopedia. NFLExpert49 (talk) 07:18, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 2017[edit]

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 ~~~~}}. Ad Orientem (talk) 16:26, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

NFLExpert49 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Um, excuse me: I am not the disruptive editor. Did you even bother to look at what was going on? The disruptive editor created the account "NFIExpert" (I am NFLExpert...you see the letter "L," as opposed to "I?") in reference to my username, then proceeded to edit war with himself as user:Str8 Outta Philly. I am not user:NFIExpert; Str8 Outta Philly is. This followed his disruptive editing under numerous different sockpuppets. On the Talk page, you can see consensus was reached on inclusion for the part about Terrell Owens being taken out of context in the "Controversy With Eagles" section, with user:Lizard_the_Wizard as the deciding party (he took my side against user:Rockypedia). User:Lizard_the_Wizard made the edits after consensus was reached, and soon after, the disruptive editing mysteriously started, which included edits from Str8 Outta Philly and his numerous sockpuppet IP addresses and different usernames. All I did was revert their constant vandalism. I also filed a sockpuppet report against User:Rockypedia, since it's pretty clearly he who created all of these accounts, including user:Str8 Outta Philly (unless you think it's all a giant coincidence that after consensus went against him, all these different disruptive sockpuppets came swarming in to specifically remove Lizard's/my edits). Please listen carefully to what I am saying: User:Rockypedia tried to sneak in yet another deletion of the content we argued over that consensus was reached for weeks after said consensus was reached on the Talk Page. Talk Page Consensus Diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATerrell_Owens&type=revision&diff=795686324&oldid=795679321 User:Lizard_the_Wizard adding in the fact that Owens stated on his radio show that he was taken out of context, with reliable secondary sources (August 15h, 2017) Diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terrell_Owens&type=revision&diff=795962661&oldid=795942412 Rockypedia removing content consensus was reached for without getting consensus diff (August 30th, 2017) : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terrell_Owens&type=revision&diff=798057889&oldid=796199835 Trying to hide the fact that he removed it, he only described this edit as, "added one source, expanded another," making no mention of the deletion. And lastly, here is me (from my previous apartment, before moving) re-adding what Rockypedia removed, mentioning that consensus had already been reached: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Terrell_Owens&type=revision&diff=799146145&oldid=799109952 After this, the newly created accounts/sockpuppets deleting this information, as well as another edit I made adding a section for Owens's eligibility for the Pro Football Hall of Fame, emerged. Again, please take the time to understand what I am telling you. NFLExpert49 (talk) 05:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Clearly there is more to this than originally thought. That said, mass reversions are still a specie of edit warring, though I concede there appear to have been extenuating circumstances here. I am going to be looking into this further. In the meantime DO NOT engage in edit warring or mass reversions, even if you believe you are right. The only acceptable reason for that is reverting naked vandalism or BLP violations. Ad Orientem (talk) 13:13, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I received your email and have read the above unblock request. This is highly convoluted but I am looking into it. Any other admins, especially those with check user rights are encouraged to jump in. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked NFIExpert49 for impersonating you. Beyond that I strongly encourage you to open an SPI investigation into the other allegations of socking. Be sure to include diffs. You can also reference NFIExpert49's block for rather obvious impersonation and all but certain socking. Unfortunately I do not have check user rights. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. A question: What is Wikipedia policy regarding dealing with good faith edits made after disruptive edits/vandalism? I have seen users with the rollback feature just restoring pages to the last version before the first disruptive edit, but that obviously seems unfair to users who make legitimate edits that end up removed because those edits interfere with reverting vandalism. NFLExpert49 (talk) 13:34, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a judgement call. Ideally we try to root out the vandalism w/o killing the good edits. But sometimes that's just not practical or it would end up being a huge time sink. In those situations reverting to the last known good version is acceptable. One normally puts an apology to good faith editors whose work may be lost in the reverting edit summary. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:42, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you join the discussions at Talk:Terrell Owens?[edit]

I've started multiple discussions at Talk:Terrell Owens, and was hoping that you'd participate. There's reorganizing and trimming that should be done, much of it on the content that you've been working on. I hope you'll help. --Ronz (talk) 15:37, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. --Ronz (talk) 01:22, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert for articles and content relating to post-1932 American politics and articles relating to living or recently deceased people[edit]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 09:54, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pleases don't edit talk page archives[edit]

I'm not clear why you would do it, especially as you've actually asked a question in one of your posts. No one's likely to answer. Doug Weller talk 17:55, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]