User talk:Cmard69

March 2022
Please stop edit warring to add unsourced material to Post University‎. Material in this encyclopedia must be supported by reliable sources and so far you have not provided any.

Additionally, your Wikipedia username is very similar to the name of the person you are trying to add to the article. If you have a relationship with that person, you should review our policies regarding conflicts of interest. ElKevbo (talk) 00:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately there is no "edit warring" whatever that means. Unfortunately it's not unsourced materials and much was provided.Please provide the source that you have that supports your un-"reliable" claim of having a relationship with person. If you cannot please refrain from stating that in Wiki Cmard69 (talk) 00:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Your edit doesn't include any sources; it provides no evidence that supports the assertions that you have made (that this person exists, that hold that position, and that they're associated with that university). Please review our core policy of "verifiability"; it's essential that editors in this project provide sources otherwise we have no way of knowing if what they're adding or changing is accurate.It doesn't take a rocket scientist to notice that your username is "Cmard69" and the name you are trying to add to the article is "Christopher Marden." There's nothing wrong with having a conflict of interest; we all have relationships with many people and institutions. But refusing to answer reasonable questions or take advice about a potential conflict of interest is not collegial or productive. ElKevbo (talk) 01:01, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately you have not posed any questions for one to answer but instead made assertions without any verifiable backup. I think you made need to re-read the policy as you are attempting to link an action to a policy which is in fact not linked in the first place. Attempting to berate someone without substance is not collegial or productive. Be better! Cmard69 (talk) 01:37, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Since you seem to be skirting around this question, I'll ask it directly: are you Christopher Marden, or, if not, do you have any kind of relationship with him? Your username matches his name quite well as noted previously. There's nothing inherently wrong with having a conflict of interest, but there are special processes you should follow if you do have one, such as creating an edit request. In regards to your actual edits here, I see no reliable sources added that support who Marden is and/or why he is notable. SignalHire, the site you attempted to cite (and formatted incorrectly), does not appear reliable to me, nor does it appear to have any editorial control that would make it so. In any case, edit warring is absolutely never the right way to resolve content disputes here on Wikipedia, and can quickly lead to your editing privileges being revoked. Per the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, please discuss this change on the article's talk page before even attempting to make it again. Bsoyka  ( talk ) 02:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately there has been no skirting around any questions as no questions have been asked. It appears you have not read the posts properly I would encourage you to go back and re-read them. To answer your question... no! Unfortunately I don't see any "edit warring". But it appears you have made wild accusations without any backup. Please re-read the policies as nothing was done incorrectly and then replay back here Cmard69 (talk) 02:12, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * While I still find that difficult to believe, let's move on from that point and assume you are not connected to Marden in any way. Either way, Marden does not appear notable enough for inclusion in that list, nor does SignalHire appear to be a reliable source. In addition, I have not accused you of edit warring (yet). I am simply noticing a likely direction that this scenario could go that is already unfolding. I am quite familiar with the relevant policy and don't feel the need to re-read it at this time, but (and not to be rude at all) you, a brand-new editor with zero article-space contributions outside the Post University article, may want to consider it. Bsoyka  ( talk ) 02:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You don't have to find anything to beleive, there is alot that you asserted without evidence that is hard for me to beleive. Unfortunately you absolutely accused me of "edit warring" and so did your friend @ElKvebo. Unfortunately notibility as a US Army Military Commander is a prestigious and highly sought after honor which not many people get. Mr. Mardin obtained that honor and to my understanding is still working his way up. It appears you may need to re-read and reevaluate my footprint. Cmard69 (talk) 02:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I did not, actually. What I said was: edit warring is absolutely never the right way to resolve content disputes. In addition, I don't believe I've ever even interacted with before this issue arose; it's not like we're working together and "out to get you" per-se. You also don't seem to understand Wikipedia's core guideline around notability based on your previous reply. Just because someone holds a position in a military doesn't inherently make them notable. Please read WP:GNG. For example, I have a family member who is the current commander of an arguably more notable unit in the United States Army, but you won't find me adding them to their college's alumni section, because that information is not cited in reliable sources (along with my obvious COI).  Bsoyka  ( talk ) 02:41, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You antiquated that I engaged in "edit warring" as evident is the above text of you that you again restated. Noone has stated that you have worked with anyone so stating such unprovoked is strange. "Arguably" is subjective and bias in nature and according to the guidelines there is not supposed to be any bias. I would arguable say that your "family member" may indeed not be a commander of an "more notable unit"... furthermore according to what you have stated that would not be a reasonable edit as it's your family member. Good thing Mr. Mardin is not my family member. Cmard69 (talk) 03:07, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

You did: so did your friend @ElKvebo. As for your point about my family member, you're completely missing the main idea. I will not be discussing the notability of my family member's unit, as that is an irrelevant detail. The actual point of my reply was that neither alumniship is notable enough to include like this. Regardless, at this point, you have actually broken the three-revert rule and I will be opening a discussion at WP:ANEW shortly. Bsoyka ( talk ) 03:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Post University 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. —C.Fred (talk) 03:18, 21 March 2022 (UTC)


 * It appears others have engage in edit warring per policy please have them not chnage the page to how they think it should be and instead use the talk page to resolve the issue. There continue edit warring should be cuase for there removal and blocked from being allowed to edit. Cmard69 (talk) 03:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Only one editor has reverted the page more than one time; nobody else is in peril of being has been blocked for edit warring. —C.Fred (talk) 03:24, 21 March 2022 (UTC) revised 03:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Stating "your friend" is an expression which is widely used throughout the United States and attempting to take it out of contect to meet your predetermined outcome is intellectually dishonest at best. Cmard69 (talk) 03:22, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes so the person is an other which makes my statement accurate. Cmard69 (talk) 03:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)


 * You have broken the three-revert rule. No other involved editors did. Bsoyka  ( talk ) 03:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Personal attacks
Can someone please adress @ElKevbo he has made wild assertions which have not been recieved well and has attempted to become hostile. Cmard69 (talk) 02:07, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from making personal attacks (such as he has made wild assertions). I have replied on your talk page; let's continue the discussion there rather than creating unnecessary and irrelevant sections here. Bsoyka  ( talk ) 02:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Bsoyka Unfortunately there have been no personal attacked contrary yo what claimes you have made without any evidence what so ever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmard69 (talk • contribs) 02:15, March 21, 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll rephrase: please assume good faith, particularly when this is an incredibly experienced editor attempting to inform you of some of Wikipedia's most crucial policies and guidelines. Asking someone to adress [sic] them when they have done nothing wrong and using false accusations such as stating they have attempted to become hostile (not true at all) just doesn't make sense. Again, let's move this discussion to your talk page rather than continuing it here.  Bsoyka  ( talk ) 02:32, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * @Bsoyka attempting to continue this conversation after it has already move to talk is unprofessional at best. I would urge you at @ElKevbo to practice and assume good faith. Unfortunately zero false accusations have been made unlike what you have asserted. This xan all be seen in the text and it doesn't not make sense to state falsities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmard69 (talk • contribs) 03:02, March 21, 2022 (UTC)
 * This is inaccurate. There is absolutely no reason for you to accuse ElKevbo of having attempted to become hostile. That is not true at all, and is a false accusation. I encourage you to apologize and move on in regards to this. In addition, please direct me to a point in this discussion where I have not assumed good faith and I'd be happy to correct it. Bsoyka  ( talk ) 03:12, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately this is very accurate and is evident of itself in the text. I encourage you to stop making far fetched allegations and assertions and proceed forward. Please read your prior text to see your question. Cmard69 (talk) 03:18, 21 March 2022 (UTC)


 * If this is very evident, it should be easy for you to prove it by quoting text from this page. I encourage you to do so. Bsoyka  ( talk ) 03:23, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

March 2022
 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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. 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:. —C.Fred (talk) 03:24, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I see that others have broken the rule multiple times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmard69 (talk • contribs) 03:31, March 21, 2022 (UTC)


 * Who, and when? —C.Fred (talk) 03:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

It's extremely clear and self evident as stated above. User reverted multiple times, that in itself breaks the rule you quoted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmard69 (talk • contribs) 03:36, March 21, 2022 (UTC)


 * Correct. You broke the rule; nobody else did. That's why you are blocked. Any further discussion on the matter needs to focus on your behaviour and how you will follow Wikipedia guidelines and policies going forward. —C.Fred (talk) 03:38, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not an admin, but note that multiple reverts more than three reverts.  Bsoyka  ( talk ) 03:45, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Yup its clears other(s) broke thr revert rule clearly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmard69 (talk • contribs) 03:46, March 21, 2022 (UTC)


 * Given your failure to understand the three revert rule, I'm wondering if it would be prudent to extend your block. —C.Fred (talk) 03:47, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

It's clear you don't understand the rule yourself. A proper step would be to remove yourself. I'll have others verify my stance and make factual and much needed edits as well so feel free to retaliate as you need to — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmard69 (talk • contribs) 03:51, March 21, 2022 (UTC)


 * He understands the policy perfectly in this case. Please name one editor who has broken the three-revert rule by making more than three reverts on a page within 24 hours, and show when they did it. Also, see WP:MEAT and don't do that at all. Bsoyka  ( talk ) 03:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately that I'd not accurate and as such has no place on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmard69 (talk • contribs) 04:03, March 21, 2022 (UTC)


 * What part of what I said is inaccurate, and why? Practically half of this user talk page consists of your replies saying Unfortunately followed by vaguely telling an experienced editor they're wrong, so I'd appreciate some further explanation. Bsoyka  ( talk ) 04:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

This has already been states multiple times, unfortunately it appears you cannot accept factual reality. Please explain why your unable to — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmard69 (talk • contribs) 04:09, March 21, 2022 (UTC)


 * No, it has not been. I'm going to be direct here. You've indicated that another editor violated 3RR recent at Post University. You need to do one of two things in your next reply: 1) admit you misspoke and retract the claim or 2) indicate which editor and which specific edits violated the rule. Any other dodging answer calls into question whether you are able to participate constructively in the project going forward. —C.Fred (talk) 04:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

No beating around the bush here, alrwady stated. Why are you not accepting of fact — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmard69 (talk • contribs) 04:18, March 21, 2022 (UTC)


 * Was it really that difficult to pick from options 1 and 2? You haven't "already stated" anything; good try. Also, please sign your messages. Bsoyka  ( talk ) 04:19, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Correct really, it appears you cannot participate constructively — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmard69 (talk • contribs) 04:20, March 21, 2022 (UTC)


 * Sure thing. I think I'm just about done here; you are continuing to avoid simple and direct questions about your false accusations and personal attacks, and there's really nothing more to say about your behavior. Bsoyka  ( talk ) 04:23, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately no playing here just truthfulness, thanks for the try though — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmard69 (talk • contribs) 04:24, March 21, 2022 (UTC)

Reverts
Your desire to add a person to the Notable alumni list has been reverted five times by four different editors. It's not them, it's you. When your temporary block ends, please do not return to the scene of the crime. David notMD (talk) 09:52, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Correct: its them. Oh I'll be back and I have multiple on standby ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmard69 (talk • contribs) 11:06, March 21, 2022 (UTC)


 * Hilarious. Now let's get one thing straight, as I'm not sure how many involved editors it'll take to get this through to you: you are not correct here. You are very clearly ignoring the consensus of the community, and you seem to lack a basic understanding of what defines notability or edit warring on Wikipedia. You have tried to make your changes to Post University five separate times, and each one was reverted, with almost every revert coming from a different editor. As a general hint, when six experienced editors disagree with your changes and no one supports the changes, they're generally a bad idea. I'm not sure how you think the rest of this is going to play out for you, but I can tell you it won't be in your favor. Your threats of meatpuppetry definitely don't help your case here, nor will they even work. You may be thinking that having friends with computers makes your changes invincible, but have you heard about page protection? Anyways, pinging here for reconsideration of the length of your block. (And please don't try to twist my words in your reply this time, thanks.)  Bsoyka  ( talk ) 14:23, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I endorse Cullen328's indefinite block. I agree with the WP:NOTHERE assessment. I'm tempted to add WP:CIR; I can't be sure if this individual is unable to give a straight answer to a question or is just unwilling. —C.Fred (talk) 18:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * In regards to your comment on CIR, it appears to me they're just unwilling to answer questions here with (what appears to me as) attempts to twist others' words to their desired outcome. However, note of course I'm not an admin and this is just what I've seen on this talk page. Bsoyka  ( talk ) 18:36, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

March 2022
 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:. Cullen328 (talk) 16:02, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately your assertion that mob rule is some sort of high ground of correctness is completely asinine at best. That you fir admitting that others have engaged in "edit warring" as you described it. I don't think you understand how things will play out despite your desperate attempts to assert that you do. I have no need to edit when others will edit. It appears these "experienced" editors can not handle factual statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmard69 (talk • contribs) 17:09, March 21, 2022 (UTC)
 * Please read Consensus; it will answer your belief that the consensus of the project's community somehow isn't correct at all. (This is an English Wikipedia policy that has gone through 2,681 revisions; it's correct.) Also, no one has admitted that others have engaged in edit warring here, as that is not true. Introducing: page protection. If necessary, editing privileges on that page can be suspended for more people than just you.  Bsoyka  ( talk ) 18:31, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

fortunately I have given a straight answer to evert question asked unlike any other individual in the talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmard69 (talk • contribs) 18:50, March 21, 2022 (UTC)
 * Not true; would you like me to share examples? Bsoyka  ( talk ) 19:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately it appears you "experience" has led to a lack of ability to articulate questions as the majority of what was said by others where statements, false accusations and incorrect assertions which are leaps from any defined question. The mere couple questions that where asked where answered however it appears the bias of "experienced editors" has clouded thier ability to accept fact and truth and has made it rough for them to accept thier own incorrectness. Additionally when edit privileges are removed from others additional editors will emerge so no skin off my back — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmard69 (talk • contribs) 18:55, March 21, 2022 (UTC) revised 18:58, 21 March 2022‎ (UTC)
 * Not everything here is a direct question for you to answer, nor does it need to be. Please exactly quote any instance of someone else here making a false accusation, because, as far as I can see, the only person making such claims is you. Also, you're missing my point. Administrators aren't limited to blocking specific users; they can protect the Post University page itself to prevent editing from any new users. Bsoyka  ( talk ) 19:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Also, please sign all new messages by adding ~~~~ to the end of each one. This is required; see WP:SIG. Bsoyka ( talk ) 19:09, 21 March 2022 (UTC) revised 19:10, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I have provided plenty of guidance to the matter you questions which in plainly in the text.im still waiting for the page to be protected as you claimed. I think your missing the entire point — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmard69 (talk • contribs)


 * Back to the matter at hand: you have been blocked because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. Any further discussion needs to be in relation to that block: either an appeal of it or some other item related to your misconduct that led to the block. —C.Fred (talk) 21:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Apologies; agreed, let’s not stray too far from the topic. Bsoyka  ( talk ) 22:04, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I have keep the matters related to the unwarranted applying regulations different for different people, indeed. It unfortunatly appears @Bsoyka has different intentions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmard69 (talk • contribs) 22:21, March 21, 2022 (UTC)


 * Someone just said to keep this page related to your block; deflecting accusations at me may not be the wisest choice here. I will not be responding to your comments about my behavior here; if you would like a response from me regarding this, email me at . Also, I will say this again: Sign your messages by adding ~~~~ at the end. This is required by WP:SIG, and continued failure to do so probably doesn't reflect too well on you if you're looking for an unblock. Bsoyka  ( talk ) 22:53, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

No defelction only factual information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmard69 (talk • contribs) 01:00, March 22, 2022 (UTC)


 * And is this factual information relevant to your block? It doesn't appear that way to me. (Again, but bolder: Sign your messages. Not doing so really isn't helping your situation here.) Bsoyka  ( talk ) 04:02, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately only relevant information from me, but it appears your intention is to be irrelevant. Your really not helping your situation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmard69 (talk • contribs) 05:32, March 22, 2022 (UTC)


 * You completely missed both points I made there. First of all, I'll rephrase: my behavior is not relevant to your block in absolutely any way. It is your block that you earned for your actions and your actions alone, and, as mentioned, any further discussion on this page should be regarding your behavior. Second of all, why are you deliberately choosing not to sign your messages? Do you even want to have your block removed at all, or are you just going to keep digging yourself a bigger hole? Finally, I'd like to note that I can sense this getting very close to the revocation of your talk page access, so I advise you to very thoroughly consider how you word your responses now. Bsoyka  ( talk ) 12:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes I'm tracking that missed all the takeaways @Bsoyka and your behavior is contrary to what you states. And as I stated previously Your behavior is mentioned and highlighted. As I stated previously I have no need for a block to be removed when others are willing to edit the page with factual information as I have done already. It appears your upse becuase your childish antics did not bother some. It's sad and evident by your behavior that you cannot accept reality and factual information so much that you want to remove opposition by any means necessary. Fortunately life goes on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmard69 (talk • contribs) 12:48, March 22, 2022 (UTC)


 * If you are not asking to be unblocked, there is no reason for you to continue participating here. You may think you're starting a sort of revolution by asking your friends to edit for you, but I see no evidence of any attempts to do so, nor will they work out well. I do not see how my actions could possibly be interpreted as childish, sad, or not accepting of reality, but if another editor who actually understands the relevant policies and guidelines believes otherwise, they may bring it up on my talk page. However, again, this discussion is not about me; it is solely about your behavior and your block. Per "Deny recognition", I think now is a good time for me to step out, as this discussion is going nowhere productive or on-topic. Consider this my closing message here; any further questions or comments for me can be directed to my talk page by unblocked editors. Bsoyka  ( talk ) 16:23, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

 Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive. ([ block log] • [ active blocks] • [ global blocks] • [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/autoblock/?user=&project=en.wikipedia.org autoblocks] • contribs • deleted contribs • [ abuse filter log] • [ creation log] • change block settings • [ unblock] • [ checkuser] ([ log]) )

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice. —C.Fred (talk) 17:06, 22 March 2022 (UTC)