User talk:2601:155:8300:1659:F551:3B17:414B:8B8F

Help me
Please help me with Ross Mathews. Flightime and I disagreed over content. Cfred stepped in and explained to me what is wrong. Cfred made edits. Lourdes is now repeatedly reverting the progress Cfred made, telling me I shall be blocked agian( I never was), telling me to use talk page she she didn't. I dont know concretely but this feels like flightime is behind this. I am going through "hello ross" episodes to add episode source. Factual verifiable information( his mount vernon orgins, his mother, brother, nephew, dead dad, his partner of 10 years salavatore) lourdes has reverted. 2601:155:8300:1659:F551:3B17:414B:8B8F (talk) 14:33, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello I am still looking for help. 2601:155:8300:1659:F551:3B17:414B:8B8F (talk) 15:00, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * When you are once again able to edit, the best way to proceed is to discuss the challenged edits on the talk page Talk:Ross Mathews, including the evidence that you believe supports the claims and that they are notable for addition to the article. Remember that inclusion is not simply a matter of being true, it depends on being able to verify it with reliable sources. And not every bit of information is considered necessary for inclusion. Get consensus before re-adding contested information.  — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 20:51, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

July 2018
Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. 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:. Drmies (talk) 15:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.


 * Blocked for edit warring, using unreliable sources, failure to discuss proposed changes, false claims of harassment and vandalism. Drmies (talk) 15:03, 28 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you, can you extend my talk page protection ? This user is persistent. I do have this report and this one    -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 15:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Responded there. Drmies (talk) 15:12, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you :)   -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 15:16, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Drmies, I ask you to reconsider. I repeatedly engaged flighttime

I tried to dialogue with flighttime

[dialogue attempt 1]...[dialogue attempt 2]... [dialogue attempt 3]...

[dialogue attempt 4]...[dialogue attempt 5] so the article could be made better and flighttime just deleted my posts. Now flightime is here posting warning, claiming harassment and stalking, it is ludicrous! I feel flighttime may have asked lourdes to edit on its behalf. Agreed upon changes that Cfred made were reverted, lourdes did not post on talk page yet demanded I do that. 2601:155:8300:1659:F551:3B17:414B:8B8F (talk) 16:16, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

woah now I am getting upset.I see [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#User_talk:FlightTime this] and  this. Why are you all protecting flighttime? I was asking flighttime about sources! I was not posting insults or teasing. I was not following around and reverting all its edits. drmies you really need to look again! 2601:155:8300:1659:F551:3B17:414B:8B8F (talk) 16:29, 28 July 2018 (UTC)


 * You repeatedly "engaged"--yeah, in personal attacks ("How about you READ instead of just reverting to get your edit count # higher?", "ponyo Mind your business"). This was a matter to be discussed on the talk page. You've been trying this for a few days now, and that's long enough. And you may think someone asked someone else to edit on their behalf, but here we like to do evidence, not feelings, and those false accusations aren't helping you either. While you keep hammering the point that User:C.Fred made "agreed on changes", but that's not true--I read over User_talk:C.Fred, and C.Fred is telling you repeatedly to discuss (and to spell 's name correctly). Yet you don't discuss. That C.Fred may not have reverted all your edits is not an endorsement of the rest. Summarizing: you've been edit warring, making false accusations, you refused to actually discuss on the article talk page, you insulted an editor or two, and with this behavior you've wasted the time of at least two editors and three administrators. I suggest to all of them that they disengage from discussing this with you, since it's a waste of time. Drmies (talk) 16:27, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

DrMies, yes the first one I agree that the edit count comment was wrong. After that I did post to flighttime about the sources and flighttime was not responsive. Do you see that? If the matter is to be discussed on talk page ok, but why am I the only one held to that standard?. The Ponyo comment I really still feel insulted so that is all I can say. I ask you to look as I was trying to show flighttime sources for the information to be added to the article.

I am saying Cfred told me "this is what is wrong do this to make it better" and I did(or so I thought). After that another jumped on me(what it felt like) and they didnt use talk page. If the talk page must be used, okay, but why am I the only one who must use it and everyone else is allowed to edit article?

Lastly i do not want to be disengaged. I do not want to waste you or anyone else's time. I want to add factual information to make the article better. Help in doing is welcome.2601:155:8300:1659:F551:3B17:414B:8B8F (talk) 16:37, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Cfred

 * You are the one initiating the change. That means the burden is on you to initiate discussion if you want to edit the page. As I said to you three days ago, "You've tried bold; you were reverted; now it's the time for discussion. That's exactly the WP:BRD model. You have yet to make a single post to Talk:Ross Mathews. If you are interested in improving the article, then (once your block expires) you need to post there, provide your sources, and build consensus for the changes you desire in the article. If you do not engage in discussion, it is not unreasonable for other editors to revert to the status-quo version without explanation on the talk page—and, further, they can revert at will if your changes violate WP:BLP. —C.Fred (talk) 17:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Cfred you are back finally. I dont get that part. WHy is that I have burden to initiate discussion versus just editing? The edits you made were reverted, why is that? Your version is not status quo? Factual evidence (him being from mt vernon, his partner of 10 yrs) was reverted. I feel you worked with me and good information with good sources was added.

I viewed it as flighttime didnt like my edit then got its friends to jumps on me as it was flighttime then ponyo then lourdes all saying you are wrong, not looking at the edtis i made and the attempts at resolution with flightime.

It was your edit being revert that made me think Lourdes acted on behalf of flightttime. Factual evidence was removed. The info I added was deemed bad yet no one is making efforts to improve the article. I feel like the message is no you cant edit it it is fine, as no one has edited it!

Next, I am being called a stalker and harrasser. I was trying to work it out with flighttime ( [dialogue attempt 1]...[dialogue attempt 2]... [dialogue attempt 3]...

[dialogue attempt 4]...[dialogue attempt 5]    ) and it deleted the info. Drmies pointed out how saying "you just want a higher edit count" is wrong and I accept that. But why is that that what I point as as harrasing/disrespectful to me is ignored? Drmies said i feel but have no facts, just as ponyo feel disrespected and flighttime feels disrespected. I asked flighttime to stop and it didnt, but I am deemed the harrasser and stalker. I was insulted by Ponyo and warned but when I reported ponyo I dont even know what happened, I cannot find the report I made.  2601:155:8300:1659:F551:3B17:414B:8B8F (talk) 18:00, 28 July 2018 (UTC)