User talk:Fradio71

Welcome!
Hello, Fradio71, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:


 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:29, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Recent edit to 2019 in American television
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you removed some content from 2019 in American television without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Sincerely, Redactyll (talk) 04:37, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I did say why. I was reverting vandalism. The added content was unsourced first of all, and second of all confuses the changing networks section for something that includes syndicated repeats--Fradio71 (talk) 05:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

January 2019
I made those, so I can remove them Coolguy3478 (talk) 01:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

On The Talk Coolguy3478 (talk) 01:19, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

No sir that's not how it works. You can't remove your own talk comments outside of your talk page.--Fradio71 (talk) 02:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

What if the editor realizes that his comments were in error? Like, clearly he was making disruptive comments and now wants the whole section to be removed because it's not about an article it's about him.--Biografer (talk) 03:25, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

According to our policies, if the posts are considered disruptive, the editor have a whole right to remove them. Now, one more revert from you and you might go to AN/I.--Biografer (talk) 03:38, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * But it’s not out of genuine remorse. He’s removing the comments to be disruptive.--Fradio71 (talk) 04:36, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

No I am not. I'm trying to forget about it completely. Coolguy3478 (talk) 15:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Biografer is right. Coolguy3478 (talk) 15:48, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * BS. The disruption here is caused only by you. If you would have listened to his numerous pleads of stopping on restoring the content non of this disruption would have happened in the first place. Let him remove it as per WP:Forum.--Biografer (talk) 21:13, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * And yes, people can remove things from talkpages if they violate our guidelines and policies. In this case, please read WP:NOTFORUM and WP:ANARCHY (the latter was used by a user in the post the whole time and therefore subject to removal).--Biografer (talk) 21:18, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Do not, and I will capitalize it: DO NOT come to this talkpage to make statements. We are discussing your fate as well as his. By commenting here you are showing more disruption and mistrust toward yourself. Cease it, please.--Biografer (talk) 21:13, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * There were no “numerous demands”. He was insisting on removing it because “He made it”, except he’s removing other people’s comments along with it. It’s against the rules for y’all page comments to be removed unless the comments violate the rules.--Fradio71 (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The comments that he made were against the discussion in general (a blatant violation of WP:NOTFORUM). If you want, we can create a panel on removal by asking other editors their opinion. And yes, the comments that he made did violated the rules which I stated above. Why you can't understand it?--Biografer (talk) 21:54, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Why are you hassling me about the rules I didn’t break? Three other users have put back the threads because at their core they’re Semi-protected edit request threads. He can’t remove his comments because 1) He doesn’t hold that power 2) He’s trying to act like we should all forget about it and 3) It’s too late. Now please stop trying to make excuses for him.--Fradio71 (talk) 21:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe you both did. I think he can move those comments to his talkpage? Seen plenty of editors doing just that. I'm not making excuses, just trying to explain what rules his comments broke which you deny to understand.--Biografer (talk) 22:12, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I will see if might give you a glimpse of what I am saying?--Biografer (talk) 22:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

January 2019
Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to 2018 in American television, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. ''Do not remove Template:Split section again until consensus has been reached/agreed to by multiple editors. You have already been asked once on the article's talk page.'' The Doctor Who  (talk) 03:57, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from 2019 in American television into 2020 in American television. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I do apologize for not attributing. I kinda figured that with this site having gone through so many years of American television, that such pages have a de facto template to them or sorts. Its own traditional format, you know what I mean? A general use for a specific type of page. I didn’t think I’d need to credit. It all felt understood. My assumption was stupid, and I’ll remember better for next time, but considering 2021 is far enough off that there’s not even a hint of a show ending, or a show setting a premiere date in that year, we won’t have to worry for a while--Fradio71 (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Who knows who originally wrote it at this point? But if we say where we got it, our licensing requirement is fulfilled. :) — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2017 in American television, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Anthony Mason ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/2017_in_American_television check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/2017_in_American_television?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

January 2019 Revert
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 18:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You'd have to deem the edit I reverted as valid first before deeming the revert invalid--Fradio71 (talk) 18:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

January 2019
Your recent editing history at Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez 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&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 don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I was removing unencyclopedic content, you have abused your power just so you could get your way--Fradio71 (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have not "abused my power" to "get [my] way". There's a talk page discussion where consensus is clearly not in my favor. You edit warred to remove content without engaging in discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I didn't even know there was a talk page discussion. I was doing my duty to remove unencyclopedic content. I was using common sense.--Fradio71 (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Any time you make three reversions, which you did here, here, and here, without looking to see if the matter is under discussion, you're in the wrong. Ignorance is not a defense. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

"You've been reverted three times, therefore you must have known there was a discussion" is not an incrimination point unless I was told to see the talk page in any of them--Fradio71 (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not what I said. I said you reverted three times without looking to engage in discussion. That's one revert short of a 3RR violation, which is much more generous than the 1RR the article is under. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Why should I have looked to engage in discussion about gossip?--Fradio71 (talk) 21:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Because talk pages aren't for "gossip", they're for relevant discussion about article content. That you don't think to look to the talk page to discuss what you feel is "gossip" is a clear sign of the problem here. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Now you're deliberately misreading what I wrote. A clear admission that my block was not justified and in fact done in bad faith. I never called talk pages gossip, but that discussion would be and is about including gossip and trivia about a person in encyclopedia articles. I'm done getting worked up defending myself against you. I'm this close to turning negotiations into demands because there's only so much patience I can have--Fradio71 (talk) 22:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No, you seem to be misreading what I wrote. It's a discussion about biographical information about AOC, and clearly needed discussion instead of edit warring. You are quite worked up. I suggest you use the remaining time in the 31 hours to reflect. Perhaps study the Talk page guidelines. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I don’t need 31 hours to know that you are disrespectful and willfully obtuse. I don’t need you gaslighting me about civility when all I’ve done is remain calm in the face of adversity--Fradio71 (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If you call me "disrespectful and willfully obtuse", I'd say you need a reminder about WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. And don't worry, you can delete this comment too, and it'll be my last on your talk page whether you do or don't. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Making an observation about your behavior is not uncivil. You made clear attempts to rile me up so that you would look like the good guy in this. And you failed--Fradio71 (talk) 23:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Blocked
To enforce an arbitration decision and for for violating the 1RR on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page:. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)  Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" [in the procedure]). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

When going to edit that page, there's a massive warning which notes the discretionary sanctions which apply. I have verified this warning was in place when you made your edits. Please clarify your request to indicate if you believe those warnings were not in place when you made your edits. Otherwise, I simply fail to see how you could have missed the warning. --Yamla (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * (Just to be clear, I'm taking no position on the appropriateness of the content of your edit; while I stay away from most articles about American politics, the content of your edit looks generally appropriate to me. But you weren't blocked for the content, you were blocked for the 1RR violation. --Yamla (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I was on mobile. Both the browser version and the Android app dont show the warnings or any template like Outdated, which I used within Notable events items on 2017 in American television but didn't show up in my view even after having placed it. I was only aware of the three-revert rule which I know I didn't break.--Fradio71 (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I have confirmed this user was editing from mobile and that the 1RR warning does not appear on mobile. On that basis, I'd like to lift the block with a reminder to work toward consensus on the article's talk page. Is that okay with you? --Yamla (talk) 21:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, I disagree. They reverted three times (1, 2, 3) in less than 24 hours. It's unambiguously edit warring, almost breaching 3RR too. If they'd like to appeal, their unblock request can be submitted to the AE noticeboard. Best, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:35, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No,, that is not an argument. Almost breaking a known rule is not the same as actually breaking said rule. And I'm being blocked an additional 30 hours for it. You cannot insist that this block is justified.--Fradio71 (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Let's get picky here for a moment: this is their first time, and the explanation is "Wrong". Well, it's not "wrong", since it's verified in the cited article from Vogue, as I mentioned in this revert. So I don't know what the clamor is about: even if you don't see notifications or whatever on mobile, you can still see the history, and if I am reverted I go to see what the reason for a revert is. But given that "Wrong" I have my doubts about this editor's good will and competence. Drmies (talk) 21:40, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) WP:3RR isn't permission to revert three times but no more. It says, "The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." And although you were not aware, that page was subject to 1RR, not three. (I'm trying to be impartial here) --Yamla (talk) 21:42, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Precisely, which is why I feel a 31-hour block for a first violation is both justified and, by all accounts, pretty standard. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Attacking my character in the name of getting picky does you no favors. I used the word "wrong" because it is the wrong type of information to use on an encyclopedia about a woman who was already attacked for similarly trivial things as how she dresses, was nicknamed in high school, and chooses to have fun. And yet "It was in the Vogue article" was a good reason to revert me back?


 * There was no indication of talk page discussion, no indication of a differing ruleset, and no knowledge of rules broken by the alleged offender. It's like a pie contest that hid a signpost with the rules behind an easily-missable bush, without verbally explaining the rules, and then punishing the entrant for missing the sign. So why the 31 hour block? At maximum it should have been two. --Fradio71 (talk) 21:47, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

you are now making the argument that a specific user who wasn't breaking any rules he had knowledge about and only removing unencyclopedic content, shouldn't be allowed to revert at all while everyone else can, and blocking him for a day and a quarter for even daring to do so is completely justified. In fact, it's not justified by any just means at all. You blocked him with the knowledge that he was making mobile edits according to the edit log. That in fact handicaps the user from seeing features that you have access to! The block, according to this discussion, should be lifted immediately.Fradio71 (talk) 22:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

The red section of the 3RR page says so unless you have evidence of a 4th edit, the block is invalid. How is the lifting of the improperly-imposed sanctions taking so long?--Fradio71 (talk) 22:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You said, "unless you have evidence of a 4th edit, the block is invalid" but I'm afraid this is not accurate. WP:3RR says, "The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." Users can and do get blocked for fewer than four reverts. And of course, this particular article was subject to 1RR, not 3RR. At this point, given your reactions here, I'm afraid I no longer support unblocking you. --Yamla (talk) 01:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I read it. This alleged “rule” allows those with the power to block anyone they feel like JUST because they didn’t like the reversion someone made. That is the definition of bad faith editing. But if you must insist on that token, then I have the power to revoke your withdrawal of support, because I was found to be innocent near immediately and yet it’s almost 8 hours later and I’m still blocked on a foundation of nothing. Because if you really supported patience and good demeanor, I wouldn’t have been blocked in the first place--Fradio71 (talk) 04:21, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

, is it okay if I get your input on this? I'm sorry I have to ping you in order to ask, but I noticed you're an administrator and discussion about this unfair block has basically stalled. I don't want to have to wait 26 hours to edit again when I see no reason for the block to remain in place Fradio71 (talk) 01:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll give my input, but you probably won't like it. Even though I may agree with you on whether the trivia belongs, if I could I would sustain the block (but I can't as I am "involved" in that article). I would encourage you to just sit it out. Especially on pages which are under restrictions, the thing to do is not edit war, but keep discussing on the talk page. When you come back, please be more cautious. Jonathunder (talk) 01:44, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * But I wasn't even edit warring. I was removing unencyclopedic information that was restored under false pretenses. Look at the edit summaries for the reversions. They're wafer thin and deserve to be put under a microscope. One of the users reverted me twice and then hounded me on my talk page telling me I'm a rule breaker when everything points to the contrary. I shouldn't have to sit out a block that has no reason to stand. A first offense should be one hour or two. 31 is so arbitrary and has no basis in anything.--Fradio71 (talk) 01:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a bit unfair and you probably should have been given a clearer warning. It's a harsh way to learn the rules, and 31 hours is arbitrary but it isn't forever. Go do something else. Wikipedia will still be here next week. Jonathunder (talk) 01:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Responding to to "This is unfair!" with " Deal with it." says a lot about you. It says you'll defend the injustice over doing what's right. I stayed within the rules I knew of, and you're also letting the people who failed to do their jobs properly get away with their wrongdoing. My block should have been lifted the minute it was made clear that I had no knowledge that the 1RR was in place when I made the edits--Fradio71 (talk)
 * I'm not allowed to intervene on your behalf, as I've edited the article and given my opinion, which may be the same as yours. But let's clarify something. This isn't about "injustice" or righting wrongs. It's a website with editing rules so things don't descend into chaos. It will be here when we come back. I'm signing off for the night where I am. Please go do something enjoyable where you are. Jonathunder (talk) 02:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "This isn't about righting wrongs. It's a website with editing rules."
 * This is a section where a wrongly, unfairly and harshly blocked user is appealing to be unblocked. You used such adjectives to describe the block. This section describes how arbitrarily the governing body deals with lower-tiered users. It is therefore exactlyabout writing wrongs. Even on the flip side, discipline is about attempting to right wrongs.How they did such a poor job of explaining the rules and understanding the user's circumstance that it's the user who gets punished for it. shouldn't have to wait it out just because you deemed it short enough that I don't need to be unblocked. And considering an involved user who also broke the 1RR rule but knowingly, has passed judgment on me without even reading the blocking thread, that I deserve what I got. They tried to throw the civility guidelines at me because I didn't like the way they were talking to me. But apparently that's okay and nothing will be done about it because she's higher-powered and more experienced. And that is injustice. It’s not that hard to unblock a wrongly blocked user.
 * I didn't willingly or knowingly break any of the editing rules. How is repeatedly proving any of this "chaotic"? If you think me minding my own business while editing Wikipedia (I was submitting a revision to the March section of 2016 in American television article when I realized I was blocked because the edit wouldn't go through" is chaotic, then maybe the lowly user isn't the problem--Fradio71 (talk) 03:10, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

 * I am honored. I hope I'm unblocked soon--Fradio71 (talk) 21:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , you strive to violate 1RR on a contentious article by reverting content three times without checking to see if it's under discussion? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:45, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * How dare you. He had no idea the article was under 1RR. He was removing tabloid trivia from a BLP. And he was blocked unfairly, and handled it with more composure than I probably would have, and you come here to belittle his actions? We need more editors like him, not less. Your comment is the kind of thing that drives new editors away. I don't see you assuming good faith at all. Perhaps you've been doing this so long that you've grown cynical. I hope you can change your point of view. Good day, sir. Ewen Douglas (talk) 22:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * She also tried to call when I mentioned along the lines of “The Vogue article can mention anything about her, but that doesn’t mean it all belongs on Wikipedia” a false equivalence because I used a hypothetical Mac and cheese recipe. She took issue with the hypothetical recipe, like any recipe wouldn’t be notable when it depends on the person. Just like significant others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fradio71 (talk • contribs) 17:30, January 10, 2019 (UTC)
 * , he edit warred on a controversial article with a big ole' warning about 1RR present for all to see. Per the above thread, he does not appear to be handling it with much composure at all. Giving him a barnstar for it is questionable. "Assume good faith" doesn't mean "bury your head in the sand". This edit edit warred, violating 1RR and one away from violating 3RR, and you're congratulating him for it. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


 * 1) I did not edit war. I removed unencyclopedic information on a page.
 * 2) “He does not appear to be handling it with much composure”? Considering your perception is in question, using it as a concrete judgment isn’t wise.
 * 3) “He edit warred on [an] article with a big ole warning about 1RR present for all to see” WOW. WOW. In the very same breath as saying “He doesn’t seem to be keeping his composure”, you outright ignore the discussion that showed at the time, I was mobile-only. Templates that aren’t infoboxes don’t show up on mobile. So you just showed that you chose to bury your head in the sand regarding me and portray me as a rulebreaker when I didn’t break any rules I had knowledge of at the time--Fradio71 (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Muboshgu (talk, I have to say, I'm concerned with you hounding Fradio71 on his talk page and in particular, ignoring the facts surrounding his unfortunate block. As I stated before, I firmly believe that behavior like yours, from an established editor (nearly 12 years!) serves only to drive new editors away. I am attempting to be understanding of Fradio71's position in this, and you're committed to slandering him. I really don't think it's constructive. Ewen Douglas (talk) 01:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , responding to someone on a talk page isn't "hounding". You pinged me, btw, so I will respond. I'm done responding to this user in that above thread. I am not misrepresenting the facts either. There are three strong admins commenting in the "Blocked" section, and they all agree that this user's behavior was wrong. You and all new editors are welcome to join the conversation, but that does mean "conversation". Edit warring to get your way is never acceptable. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey, you reverted me twice (The post-block one counts) so where's your 31 hour block? You at least knew there was a 1RR in place when you made your reversions. An edit war is not fought by one sole side. If you're going to make an exception for yourself, there should be one for me. Unless you don't actually believe "edit warring to get your way is never acceptable.Where do three admins say I'm explicitly wrong. I see the admin who placed the block feel "justified" because another admin got picky, and the third admin who was ready to have the block lifted after they verified my statements as correct. So you're again making things up and misrepresenting the situation just to make me and now a second person look bad--Fradio71 (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Talk page
Because you’ve decided to start reverting reviewing admins on an edit warring block, I’ve removed your talk page access. You can appeal using WP:UTRS. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC) --UTRSBot (talk) 06:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions
I assume by now you are aware of this, but just to make sure. Drmies (talk) 01:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Lana Parrilla
yo uh idk how else to do this but seeing as you’re like the only one who can edit lana parrilla’s page, she and fred divorced back in 2017 !! their court files were leaked of their divorce & lana confirmed in november 2018 at dcc that she is currently single and no longer in a relationship !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.108.85.220 (talk) 06:07, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I’m gonna need a source on that. Like, credibly putting the words to paper--Fradio71 (talk) 07:10, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Tom Brady
I'd like to request that when you move content around in a page, you do the move as a single edit. It makes it more difficult for reviewers to figure out what you are doing if content is removed in one edit and placed somewhere else in a second edit. The edit comment should clearly state "moving text from xxx to yyy section" or something like that. Regards, Tarl N. ( discuss ) 19:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * My apologies for not being clear about my intentions. I was on mobile, so scrolling back up to the destination section in desktop view would’ve been tedious. Even if I was using the mobile view, I would’ve had to do it section by section. I do appreciate your concern and I will try to be better.--Fradio71 (talk) 19:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

BLP/minors/privacy policy
Hi. What BLP/minors/privacy policy are you referring to in your recent edit summaries re: not naming the children of celebrities? (I agree with it, I just didn't know we had a policy on it.) Thanks. Levivich  18:59, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Check with about it, but I believe the page is Wikipedia:Minors--Fradio71 (talk) 19:04, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I created the redirect shortcut WP:NONAME pointing to Minors and persons judged incompetent, which I think covers the notion of not naming celebrity's children when a general description will suffice (which you are fixing with your edits). (If you have a better shortcut name suggestion, go for it.) I'd encourage you to cite specifically to WP:NONAME (or a better shortcut name if there is one) in edit summaries for these types of edits, for two reasons: first, it'll tell other editors like me the purpose of the edit and save us time in reviewing the edits (particularly for celebrity BLPs, which are closely watched), and second, it'll spread the word and perhaps more editors will come on board with not naming celebrity's children in articles as a general practice. I also boldly added "such as the minor children of celebrities" to that section of the essay (we'll see if that sticks or gets reverted). Thanks by the way for taking the time to make these edits. Levivich  20:30, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Ohhhh that’s what the formatting is for the Wikipedia-prefixed pages. Thank you for that. It wasn’t something I could find out by viewing the source code. Though I guess it should’ve been obvious. And I appreciate the encouragement and support!--Fradio71 (talk) 20:36, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I mostly reverted your edit to LeBron James regarding his children. Their names are well-publicized, and not a one-time leak or a scouring of public records. I do agree in privcy of minors, so am confused why you added their birth months when only their birth year was previously shown. It's even more trivial than the birth year, and just invites an editor to add the "missing" day, which would become more of a privacy concern. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 08:16, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Well-publicized does not equal notable. You can't let what you think other people are going to do force you to go against manual of style. Nothing wrong with months and years--Fradio71 (talk) 08:46, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * There is nothing inherently wrong with having their names in this case. Inclusion is subject to consensus per the guideline Biographies_of_living_persons. Bold edits are welcome; at this point, please get consensus to change their long-standing inclusion in this article. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 09:05, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Longevity of their presence is not a reason to keep their names in the article. Just because a serial burglar hasnt been caught yet doesnt mean that when he is caught he doesn't have to face consequences. "There is nothing inherently wrong with having their names in this case". Well then explain, what is this case? Why is it these people youre objecting to having changed, out of all the ones that have been affected so far? Not even Chelsea Clinton and Ivanka Trump's kids were immune!--Fradio71 (talk) 09:11, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * In the edit summary of your latest revert you wrote I don’t need consensus, I have policy backing. However, WP:MINORS that you are citing is an essay. The top of WP:MINORS reads: This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. On the other hand, WP:BLPNAME (Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Privacy_of_names) is a policy.—Bagumba (talk) 09:24, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * But why them? Out of all the names, especially because most of the ones I have removed have been properly sourced with replacements when necessary, why must it be the James kids whose hill you're willing to die on per se?--Fradio71 (talk) 09:30, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Because it's on my watchlist and I noticed it. WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST does not make it an automatic precendent. It is not against WP:BLP policy. They seemed to me to be standard for well-publicized children, and the essay you cited was not persuasive to me. Consensus can change at James's article, but you will have to get support for that.—Bagumba (talk) 09:47, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


 * In addition to what Bagumba stated, see Talk:Megan Fox/Archive 3, which points to an RfC on children's names. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Fradio71, I hope you don't mind if I take up some space on your talk page for this discussion. Let's see if I can persuade you. Separating BLPs from BDPs, adult children from minor children, independently-notable children from non-independently-notable children, and focusing only on the not-independently-notable minor living children of notable living persons ("NONNOTEBLPKIDS"?)...
 * The policy WP:BLPNAME, which applies to a broader category than just NONNOTEBLPKIDS, says: "The names of any immediate, former, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject" (bold added).
 * Looking at Lebron James:
 * {| class="wikitable"
 * Looking at Lebron James:
 * {| class="wikitable"
 * {| class="wikitable"

! Relevant ! Not relevant
 * Name
 * Where he grew up
 * How he learned to play basketball
 * Teams he played for
 * Championships won
 * Awards won
 * Hat size
 * What kind of car he drives
 * His favorite TV show
 * Foods he doesn't like to eat
 * Name of his 5th-grade teacher
 * Where he took his last vacation
 * }
 * ...and considering where on that table the following items should be placed:
 * The fact that he has kids
 * The number of kids
 * The approximate ages of the kids (toddlers, teenagers, etc.)
 * The birth year of the kids
 * The birth month of the kids
 * The birth day of the kids
 * The kids' names
 * ...I can see how #1-#3 are relevant to a complete understanding of Lebron James, but I don't see how #4-#7 add to that understanding in any meaningful way. Balance that against the privacy interests of minor children (who have no say), and the general policy of keeping trivia out, I think #1-#3 go in the left column (relevant), and #4-#7 go in the right column. Would you agree or disagree and why? Thanks for your thoughts. Levivich  18:25, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I pointed to Talk:Brian Austin Green. Did you look at that case? Anyway, if the children's names have been widely publicized, there is certainly no need to remove those names from Wikipedia. I'm iffy on lesser known children. More than once I have removed a child's name in this case at the Bridget Regan article because the child is non-notable and is not widely talked about in sources. That's two reasons I gave for excluding the name. If Fradio71 or others want all children's names to stay out of articles unless the children pass the WP:Notable guideline, or even if Fradio71 or others want to enforce cases like my Bridget Regan edit, they should take the matter to the WP:BLP talk page, the WP:BLP noticeboard and/or WP:Village pump (policy). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree on the venues suggested.—Bagumba (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I was wondering if you might have a minute to give your opinion on my Lebron James post and table above regarding identifying minor children in BLPs. I'm thinking of raising the issue at Talk:BLP or BLPN as suggested, but I'm not sure which is better, or whether it's worth it. Your feedback would be appreciated if you have the time. Thanks. Levivich  22:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The kids' names
 * ...I can see how #1-#3 are relevant to a complete understanding of Lebron James, but I don't see how #4-#7 add to that understanding in any meaningful way. Balance that against the privacy interests of minor children (who have no say), and the general policy of keeping trivia out, I think #1-#3 go in the left column (relevant), and #4-#7 go in the right column. Would you agree or disagree and why? Thanks for your thoughts. Levivich  18:25, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I pointed to Talk:Brian Austin Green. Did you look at that case? Anyway, if the children's names have been widely publicized, there is certainly no need to remove those names from Wikipedia. I'm iffy on lesser known children. More than once I have removed a child's name in this case at the Bridget Regan article because the child is non-notable and is not widely talked about in sources. That's two reasons I gave for excluding the name. If Fradio71 or others want all children's names to stay out of articles unless the children pass the WP:Notable guideline, or even if Fradio71 or others want to enforce cases like my Bridget Regan edit, they should take the matter to the WP:BLP talk page, the WP:BLP noticeboard and/or WP:Village pump (policy). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree on the venues suggested.—Bagumba (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I was wondering if you might have a minute to give your opinion on my Lebron James post and table above regarding identifying minor children in BLPs. I'm thinking of raising the issue at Talk:BLP or BLPN as suggested, but I'm not sure which is better, or whether it's worth it. Your feedback would be appreciated if you have the time. Thanks. Levivich  22:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I was wondering if you might have a minute to give your opinion on my Lebron James post and table above regarding identifying minor children in BLPs. I'm thinking of raising the issue at Talk:BLP or BLPN as suggested, but I'm not sure which is better, or whether it's worth it. Your feedback would be appreciated if you have the time. Thanks. Levivich  22:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Third Opinion
Re your removal of this request, the Third Opinion instructions say: "If you are a party to a dispute and another party has requested an opinion it is improper for you to remove or modify the request, even if the request does not meet the requirements for a third opinion or because you do not want a Third Opinion. If you feel that the request does not meet the requirements for a third opinion and should be removed, post a request on the Third Opinion talk page to be evaluated by an uninvolved volunteer." The request has been restored. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 23:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * While I do understand the rule, which I didn't know of when I did the reversion and will not revert again, it is worth pointing out that in the discussion that he was never seeking my opinion, he was seeking to ignore the facts i presented. It's not right to seek a third opinion if the second isn't even being factored--Fradio71 (talk) 23:16, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editing
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for disruptive editing and personal attacks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. 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:. Per a complaint at the edit warring noticeboard about a dispute on the Super Bowl LIII halftime show. EdJohnston (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Excuse me? Your tone is pretty unacceptable from someone who's supposed to not only be neutral, but actually done an in-depth review

Meanwhile, the person who reported me is doing exactly what you're accusing me of doing: Removing information from reliable sources because their credibility is called into question. If Twitter wasn't a reliable source, there wouldn't be the citation template using it. Celebrities use it to announce births of children. At least when I removed a passage with CBS News, it was because the cited content was misleading. But this? I warned that his repott was in bad faith and I was brushed off. An injustice has been carried--Fradio71 (talk) 21:14, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * why is the onus on me to admit guilt? Why is the fact that I've explained that I wasn't being disruptive in the first place not considered? I've made over 2000 constructive edits, yet I'm being painted as disruptive because the disruptive user complained first? Your reasons for declining my unblock request implies that administrators are infallible and can do no wrong. The last four paragraphs I have written shows that admins have made mistakes that can easy be corrected. The point that I'm trying to get across is that the block was a mistake. I'm a good user and will continue to be, and I would like to be unblocked so I can prove that--Fradio71 (talk) 01:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * First, complaining that someone else hasn't been blocked does nothing to address your own block. Second, if you've made 2000 constructive edits to Wikipedia, you should know by now that reverting someone's request for mediation will get you blocked.  If you haven't figured that out yet, maybe you should start reading through our policies and guidelines to get a firmer understanding of Wikipedia's decorum – for example, examples of disruptive editing and our definition of tendentious editing.  Third, I don't care whether you admit guilt.  Per policy, blocks are preventative, not punitive.  This means that all you need to do is assure an administrator that you're not going to edit war or remove other people's good-faith attempts at mediation.  If you don't want to do that, fine.  Just wait out the block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:13, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Again, you're assuming I'm the one acting in bad faith solely because I'm the person who was reported and blocked. I explain every aspect of why this block was wrong and all you're doing is making excuses for power abuse and neglect. Second of all, I'm not complaining about anything. I'm demonstrating that the user who reported me did so in bad faith, and by upholding this block, you're making the situation worse. You are invoking double jeopardy on the reverted edit on WP:3O. I already apologized for it. Where does it say administrators can condescend to users who are just trying to be unblocked? Telling me I have to say I won't continue being disruptive implies I ever was in the first place. Which as I explained and demonstrated, I wasn't. This block wasn't "preventative", it was obstructive. You let the real disruptive editor loose without repercussions, despite him being a disruptive edit warrer, just because he reported the person who was trting to stop the disruption. All I want is to be spoken to in the same way you speak to your fellow administrators. At this point it is impossible to see the unblocking process as fair if the blocked user is seen as lowly scum by the people in power who deem the blocked user unworthy of putting forward why the block is a mistake and shouldn't have happened in the first place. It is incredibly frustrating. Every point I brought forward today is valid reasobing according to the policies you stated I never read, (which by the way is more of a personal attack than anything I ever stated to Wally). I have never once damaged or disrupted this wiki, and I promise I never will.--Fradio71 (talk) 02:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , you only proved my point further. You framed your editing of another user's comment (which breaks the rules) as a "friendly suggestion", when in reality you were dismissing my comments as something of little value. You're likely to not get any repercussions because of it. However, Wally framed everything I said in the conversation we had as "disruptive" or a "personal attack", as if I was acting in malice. I was blocked solely based on the complaint. His words were taken at face value without question and I was blocked for 48 hours. I have every right to fight in the face of injustice, and my words don't and and shouldn't be dismissed just because I dared to speak out in passion. Yet clearly they have been, and that only adds to the fact that the admins have become insistent they can do no wrong. They and now you're insisting I do the self-reflection when they won't even give a second thought on how they're handling things--Fradio71 (talk) 03:29, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It really was meant in a friendly-suggestion way (and also to not leave a permanent message on your talk page, so as to try and make it a somewhat more private message, but that ship has now sailed). My apologies if it upset you further. I was hoping my edit would get you to see that you are currently not communicating effectively. I guess you missed the irony: I edited another user's comment (which breaks the rules) and self-reverted; you were blocked for deleting another user's comment, and for reverting others ("edit warring").
 * I am insisting you do the self-reflection, because you're still viewing this in a "you-vs-them" way, and it's not that, it's "you-vs-the-rules". I don't think you'll hear this right now, but maybe you will later: you weren't blocked because of the complaint. You were blocked because of the diffs. I counted 8 reverts in one day, plus you reverted a 3OP post. Of course you're going to get blocked for that, that's really over the line! The only thing the admin had to do was verify that those diffs were legit. After that, it doesn't matter that you didn't know that you can't delete other people's talk page posts–you've been here long enough to know to read the policy documents. It doesn't matter whether you were edit warring to combat disruptive editing–that's not a valid reason to edit war. It doesn't matter what the other editor(s) in the edit war were or were not doing–that's not a valid reason to edit war, either. It doesn't matter if you were the only one acting good faith or bad faith, if your edit was accurate or inaccurate, if it was NPOV or not, if it was grammatically correct or not, none of that matters. It's not like "don't edit war against someone acting in good faith" is the rule. It's not "don't edit war against a non-disruptive editor". The rule is, don't edit war, period. The rule is 3RR, not 8RR. It's BRD, nor BRRRRRRR. You've heard all this stuff before. There is no excuse for edit warring. You did edit war, even if you thought it was the right thing to do, you in fact did perform those edits, the diffs prove it. That's all that matters. Until you show the admin that you understand that you cannot edit war, even if the other guy is acting in bad faith, even to stop vandalism, even on a BLP, even if you didn't read the policies, even if it's the second Tuesday of the month in a leap year, etc. etc., they won't do anything. You're complaining, passionately, and you can kind of do that all you want within reason, but they won't unblock you because the point is to not let someone who doesn't understand the rules edit the encyclopedia, and you're not showing that you understand the rule about edit warring. That's all the admin will care about: that you can stay in your lane if they let you drive.
 * To put it in very simple terms: you were blocked for pressing the undo button too many times, and pressing it on the wrong kind of edit (another editor's talk page post). It doesn't matter why you did it. And saying you didn't know the rules about the undo button makes it worse, not better; you're supposed to read the rules before you press the button. If you want an admin to lift the restriction, the only way to do it is to demonstrate that you know how to properly press the undo button. Saying that they should understand why you pressed the button too many times demonstrates the opposite: that you don't know the rules because you think there is some good reason to press the undo button that many times. There isn't. Read the rules. Show them you understand the rules. Or if you don't want to, wait out the restriction. Levivich  03:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I did not say I didn't know the rules of the undo button. I already apologized for using it in the 3O page in the previously posted warning. But clearly that's not the issue. It's the misuse of the block button by the admins. The out of whack priorities regarding the usage of the unblock template. I laid out every reason why I shouldn't have been blocked in the first place, and yet the entire argument that has been given was "You did one small bad thing but this other guy made you look worse and we like that. Considering you broke the rules in order to make a point but have the seniority to get away with it, maybe you're not the person who should be lecturing me that the condescension and abuse is okay.--Fradio71 (talk) 04:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't have seniority; we have basically the same number of edits and account age. You're ignore WP:3RR. I don't mean to lecture you at all, I'm just trying to get you to see that you broke 3RR, which is a valid reason to be blocked, and, if you want to be unblocked, at least part of it is demonstrating that you understand 3RR and that you won't break it again. Arguing that you shouldn't have been blocked in the first place, when you did, in fact, break 3RR, is a waste of your time. Levivich  05:00, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I was taught by other Wikipedia editors that it doesnt violate 3RR if you're reverting disruptive edits, which I was. Unless youre trying to say that Wally has an exception because he was the "good" little boy who reported me in bad faith. But then I'd have to repeat myself again which means you weren't listening. How are any unblock requests supposed to be taken seriously if nobody bothers to actually read them?--Fradio71 (talk) 05:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * So there's the part of 3RR that lists "Exemptions", WP:3RRNO. Which of those exemptions says "disruptive"? (Hint: none.) Also, it says: If you are claiming an exemption, make sure there is a clearly visible edit summary or separate section of the talk page that explains the exemption. When in doubt, do not revert. Instead, engage in dispute resolution and, in particular, ask for help at relevant noticeboards such as the Edit war and 3RR noticeboard. Every time you say that you did things right, you show that you don't understand how things are supposed to be done, you show that you didn't RTFM. (And it doesn't matter if you learned it from other editors; we write TFM so we can RTFM and refer to it in times like these.) Levivich  05:19, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This is just wrong, for a reason that its takes some people a while to understand: "If Twitter wasn't a reliable source, there wouldn't be the citation template using it.". There's no such thing as a source that is always reliable for everything, and many sources are reliable enough for a very specific kind of thing, not for anything else at all. Twitter and other social media posts are reliable only for certain WP:PRIMARY exceptions, usually only WP:ABOUTSELF matters that are not controversial or dubious in any way, and for providing an additional citation (to the original post) of a direct quotation that has also been reported in the news or some other WP:SECONDARY source.  You cannot otherwise use random opinion posts of people on Twitter, Facebook, etc., to try to source something on Wikipedia; they are categorically unreliable sources because they're just self-published blather (WP:SPS). PS: I don't have any interaction history with you, but I've read some of the material above, below, at ANEW, etc., and I'm detecting a clear pattern here.  You're under the spell of the Dunning–Kruger effect, specifically the version of it that causes people with a  of knowledge, experience, and understanding ("knows just enough to get into trouble", as the saying goes) to spout off as if they're experts and to treat others who actually do have expertise as if they are wrong, crazy, or lying.  It's a common and usually temporary delusion; you get over it easily: a) stop being a know-it-all about things you really don't know much about like WP policy and its interpretation, b) listen more (a lot more), and c) actually learn the material.  The third of these takes time; the first two are something to start doing right now, or your editorial history here is going to be very short.  This kind of behavior is what we call a WP:CIR problem; while that's labeled an essay, it's considered by the community to be actionable (i.e., if you exhibit a serious collaborative-editing competency problem you can simply be long-term blocked, or banned from the site).  This isn't any kind of threat (I'm not an admin, and I don't take people to the "drama boards" unless I think the matter is very severe), but it's a firm prediction based on experience, and an easy way to avoid that outcome. Give that your block history also involves civility matters, I strongly recommend a perusal of WP:HOTHEADS; following the advice in it can keep you out of a lot of trouble, and make your editing involvement much more pleasant for everyone, yourself included.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Liqunaei (talk) 07:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Bumblebee
I've some followup suggestions, maybe we can find a local consensus. -- 109.77.237.77 (talk) 01:00, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I can't come over to the page until Saturday, but I guess I'd go with option 1 until Hasbro makes a more public clarification--Fradio71 (talk) 02:51, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

About my revert
Sorry about that I mistakenly reverted the comment. Sincerely,    Masum Reza ☎  03:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

'Rowspans' and WP:ACCESS
Fradio71, you've now been reverted several times for improper use of 'rowspan' in Filmography tables. (Note that WP:FILMOGRAPHY itself says that in regards to Filmography tables that "They allow for sortability and accessibility for the vision impaired.", so it's right there in the guideline.) There have already been multiple previous discussion at my Talk page about this – start with here and here (see also: Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial/Internal guidelines) – so you may want to refer to these. If you have any other questions, ask... But, in general, you probably want to stay away from attempts to use 'rowspan' until you fully understand this issue. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:12, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Failure to engage in discussion on Loughlin Talk Page
Please engage in the issues at the article Lori Loughlin. I have explained why the information about her daughter being on the trustee's yacht is appropriate. But you are neglecting to engage the debate on the Talk Page: Talk:Lori Loughlin.Dogru144 (talk) 00:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey, maybe your argument would have more weight if you didn't misrepresent what was going on twice. First, you claimed I didn't properly explain anything. Now you're claiming I "failed" to engage in a just-begun talk page discussion when in fact it cannot be considered a failure to engage, but by the time you even posted this, I did reply. Seems to me you're arguing in bad faith--Fradio71 (talk) 00:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have engaged the discussion on the Talk Page. This page is there for discussion of disputes. Yet, I did not see you engage in the debate at hand. As to my edits, I am allowed my reverts to the original edits, as per Wikipedia rules. (These themselves are exemptions from the revert rules.) I notice that you removed the notice I placed on your page about the three edits. Per the protocols, I have reported your edits to the Administrators' noticeboard. Thank you.Dogru144 (talk) 01:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Dogru144: "I am allowed my reverts to the original edits, as per Wikipedia rules. (These themselves are exemptions from the revert rules.)", you said--this is not correct. Drmies (talk) 01:08, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello,, please see: "The following reverts are exempt from the edit-warring policy:   Reverting your own actions ("self-reverting")."Dogru144 (talk) 01:13, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Dogru144, reverting to the original edits is not self-reverting. You were not self-reverting. That you may have been reverting to the status quo (I don't know that you were) doesn't exempt you from 3R. Please stop commenting, now, on this editor's talk page, since they're blocked. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

March 2019
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week 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:. Drmies (talk) 01:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC) Please review my comment on the noticeboard and see that the user who reported me made no good-faith attempt to actually resolve the dispute, and he's now blatantly misinterpreting rules to justify his actions--Fradio71 (talk) 01:15, 15 March 2019 (UTC) Fradio - this is the 4th time you've been blocked for edit warring. Every time you get such a block, the hair trigger gets lighter. The next time will probably be a looong block. When you run into a situation where someone has added something inappropriate to an article, when they edit war, you need to not edit war yourself - there are other means of seeking help for the problem (for biographies of living people, WP:BLP/N is one such place). Edit warring, justified or not, will result in a block, as happened here. As for the other party, his edit has not been restored (at least, yet). Sometimes the best thing you can do is walk away and let someone else deal with a mess. At this point, you really do not have many options beyond walking away for a week. An appeal is unlikely to succeed. <b style="color:green">Tarl N.</b> ( discuss ) 02:00, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I did. It doesn't matter. Edit warring is edit warring even if you're right. Drmies (talk) 01:26, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * So because he was faster to write the report that makes him right? You have chosen to block me, despite him being the one getting the warning, and he's going to get away with edit warring because now, I can't report him, and no one else will--Fradio71 (talk) 01:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Huh. You reverted FIVE TIMES. They reverted three times. Maybe they should be blocked for edit warring, but your behavior was worse, and you certainly broke the 3R line--like, blatantly. So blatantly that I have absolutely no idea why you are even contesting this. Drmies (talk) 02:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I did everything I could to try to stop the edit war . I approached the user who reported me on four different talk pages, but ignored me and instead went for underhanded discipline. Unwarranted discipline at that. I was doing what any good Wikipedia contributor would do.My first block for edit warring was under a separate set of rules I didn't even know existed at the time. And thay was proven in the discussion. But they kept it on because apparently I "needed to learn a lesson" and arbitration "couldn't meet in time". That telegraphs that the rules don't matter. Every time I try to report someone for edit warring, every time I try to talk it out, I get blocked. Every appeal I ever made was rejected because I was told I had to make the appeal about me and there was no possible way that the block was too harah or misplaced completely. Now you're telling me an appeal is unlikely to succeed. Then whats the point of the feature if it's never going to be useful for me? Every block will use my block history to justify upholding the block completely. Length and all. No shot of getting it commuted. The last three have told me that. My appeals were never given a real shot after the first. Context never seems to matter. You give yourselves plenty of time yo punish, and talk down to the people you've disciplined, fairly or not. In my experience, an equal-ground conversation was never given to me in blocks 2-4. Editing Wikipedia is what I do while watching TV and Netflix/Amazon Prime, during lull time in my game apps. I dont drive. Telling me to "go do something else" is not productive or constructive, no matter how many times you say it. Bottom line: The admins are abusing their power by not only increasing my block time, but calling appeals worthless--Fradio71 (talk) 02:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a very simple solution to your problem: Never, ever, ever edit war again. Never. Use dispute resolution procedures instead. This guarantees that you will never again be blocked for edit warring, which is a bright line blockable offense, even if you are right. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  03:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I'm not an admin. Just someone who interacted with you a while back, so your talk page was still on my watchlist. And I didn't say that appeals were worthless, just unlikely to work in this case - you were edit warring, have a history of it, and aren't acknowledging that your behaviour was a problem. The problem is that edit warring, for any reason, is so disruptive to the encyclopedia that the policy is that it must be stopped, period. I just wanted to suggest to you that you learn what other options you had. In the meantime suggest reading the WP:DR pages which Cullen (who is an admin) pointed you to. Regards, <b style="color:green">Tarl N.</b> ( discuss ) 04:59, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It's frustrating that context is so selectively looked at. My edit history comes into play, but not the fact that no real effort at conflict resolution was made by the person who reported me, despite it being a default aspect of the report form. His link wasn't looked into, it was taken at its word. That should have invalidated the entire report. Sometimes, it's not the blocked person's behavior that's the problem, but the procedure taken to justify blocking the user. And that has yet to be acknowledged at any of my blocks. The relentlessness and the harshness, and the simultaneous carelessness by which each case had been handled. I have been repeatedly told that just because I'm right, that I shouldnt be blocked, they would block me anyway because of a bad faith report--Fradio71 (talk) 05:35, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This is now your fourth block for edit warring, and you still seem completely oblivious as to why you were blocked. It's very clear that you are either unable or unwilling to admit fault, learn and abide by our behavioral standards, or adjust your behavior in response to temporary blocks. As such, I have removed the one week expiry from your block. If you wish to continue editing, please read the guide to appealing blocks and submit a compliant unblock request. ~Swarm~   {talk}  22:18, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
 * [Courtesy ping:  ~Swarm~   {talk}  22:25, 16 March 2019 (UTC)]
 * Hey doesnt such an act prove my point that there's no point to me learning a lesson if the people punishing me are just punishing me for punishment's sake? A week to indefinite is incredibly harsh, and you know it. You conflating stubbornness with incompetence is backhanded and libelous. I am willing to learn. In fact I have learned from my mistakes. But you are putting me at an unfair advantage by framing me as stubborn just because I've studied how I've been treated by people with higher power than me. How do you expect someone to be rehabilitated if no one is willing to listen to them? That you think it's okay to hurl insults like "oblivious" or "unable" and "unwilling to learn", just because I ask to be treated as a respected equal on this site and for some self-reflection from the admins to not let their fragile egos guide their decisions and talk to their users without talking down to them. I have been very calm in all this, but you took further steps to spite me instead, claiming I was out of line for daring to suggest that there are faults in the system. That says more about you than it does me. From my very first block, which was more the fault of Wikipedia's mobile UI than myself, it seems the blocks on me are always "to prove a point", like admins have to be some dominant, infallible force, and yet, when I make the point that "admins can make mistakes too" I'm deemed "incompetent", like I'm wrong by default and nothing will convince anyone otherwise. I shouldn't have to do extra work to be unblocked when reasonably I never should've been blocked in the first place--Fradio71 (talk) 23:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Fradio71, you do need to take a step back. You will obviously eventually have to file an appeal, or else walk away from Wikipedia. Some points to consider when you do file: Think about it for a while, read the WP:DR pages earlier mentioned. Other pages to read, WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:HIGHMAINT (which doesn't describe you, but there are a couple of relevant paragraphs), WP:BAIT and WP:DEADHORSE. For humor, WP:WINWAR. Good luck, <b style="color:green">Tarl N.</b> ( discuss ) 01:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You have been blocked multiple times for edit warring. It doesn't really matter what your reasons were, you were edit warring and that is absolutely intolerable. You need to acknowledge you understand that, and that you will never edit war again. Contrary to Swarm's conclusion, I had the impression you were starting to understand that, but you never stated it - instead you did some more railing at the injustice of the system.
 * Understand what options are available when you think there is an edit that absolutely cannot stand (such as BLP violations). When you file your appeal, describe the options you will use on such occasions. Note, edit warring is never one of those options. Feel free to ping me for assistance if you are uncertain how the options could work. Note that the result may not always be to your liking.
 * Read WP:WAR. For your case, I would suggest you not depend on the exemptions in the WP:3RRNO paragraph. Be aware of them, but don't claim them - instead, find one of the other ways of dealing with the situation (see the WP:AVOIDEDITWAR paragraph).
 * Railing about the administrators, to administrators, is an exercise in futility.
 * Asking to be treated as an equal is also futile. Simply accept that Wikipedia, like all human organizations, does have a hierarchy, and you aren't at the top (and neither am I). The admins are the equivalent of cops on the beat - they deal with behavioural problems. Edit warring is one of the major such problems.
 * If there are problems with the system (and there are, legions of them), lambasting the admins who blocked you isn't helpful. That discussion belongs elsewhere. What an admin reviewing your block will want to see is that you understand why you were blocked, and you have determined to fix that problem in yourself.
 * Thank you for illustrating my point. The system is broken. I have thought about my actions as clearly stated, but the reversions were in good faith. My first block came minutes after I was warned not to edit war. I was off on one of my projects when it happened, away from the page where I edit warred. If it doesn't matter whether I'm right, why doesn't it matter whether administrators are wrong. Administrators aren't supposed to be cops if they're handing out blocks. Cops shoot black kids for wearing hoodies. Or they shoot autistic people instead of having the empathy to help them. Criticism of administration shouldn't be a futile gesture. Asking administrators for self-reflection shouldn't be a futile gesture, let alone blockable. Blue Lives Matter is a movement that undercuts the civil rights of black people as fought for by Black Lives Matter, because the cops couldn't handle being held accountable for such horrific abuses they had done. So many people arrested just for being black by white people just because they felt intimidated. Those white people framing innocent black people as criminals, just like when Dogru claimed that I had a "failure to engage". Any blocks for such is what's absolutely intolerable. It doesn't matter how many policies I read if theyre broken enough to be abused by those in power. I was literally told an appeal would never succeed. And that gave them a free pass to block me indefinitely because I spoke out on the ludicrousness of the assertion. It has become abundantly clear that I have no behavioral problems, according to WP:COMMONSENSE. I have been abused too many times not to stand up against such abuses. I deserve a fair chance, and it's clear I never got one. You want to talk about bait? How about Dogru claiming I never went to the talkpage when I had, and using that to justify reverting me, and yet he got away with it because he got his report in quicker?--Fradio71 (talk) 01:43, 17 March 2019 (UTC)


 * User:Swarm, given the overwhelming ... what is it? incompetence? blindness? And then this, "Cops shoot black kids for wearing hoodies"? I'm not a cop, and I wear my BLM shirts with pride; that's pretty insulting. So yes, the user seems to be past redemption, and I wonder if we shouldn't yank TPA for these asinine comments. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? "Cops shoot black kids for wearing hoodies" is exactly what happened to Trayvon Martin. Thats not asinine, that is fact. Youd be taking away my privileges for speaking the truth just because you called it asinine. That would obly demonstrate my point furyher--Fradio71 (talk) 02:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Trayvon Martin wasn't shot by a cop, you fool. And that attempt to smear administrators here by making that comparison is revolting., again, you were right. Drmies (talk) 02:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If you have to describe what I'm saying in ways that are completely inaccurate, maybe I am not the problem. My comparison is completely valid and in no way a smear. You trying to smear me in such a way is far worse than anytging I've done. I'm just trying to win back my editing privileges and these exaggerated reactions seem to only want to hurt me, not help me--Fradio71 (talk) 02:14, 17 March 2019 (UTC)--Fradio71 (talk) 02:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * A kinder, gentler me thinks reduce to 2 weeks and remove TPA, and hope for the best.—Bagumba (talk)
 * I'll take it, but with time served (49 hours) considered, even though I'd prefer it be reverted back to the original one week (with time served). Please, that's all I ask. I shouldn't be punished for expressing grievances in the system. I just want to be able to edit again--Fradio71 (talk) 02:19, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , if this person compares administrators to cops shooting black men with hoodies, and themselves to a black man with a hoodie cause...they speak the truth? and can't even get their Trayvon Martin facts straight which is completely disrespectful, and they're here haggling with you over what I think is the nicest offer ever made on Wikipedia, a user who is now blaming the system after getting blocked for reverting FIVE TIMES, after having been blocked four times already for edit warring, then I don't think they deserve your kindness. Fradio71, you're going to insult me and then claim I'm not helping you--nice try. This isn't therapy. You could have read the policy after your first block. Drmies (talk) 02:26, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * EXCUSE ME? I'm not the one who introduced the cop metaphor, and to ignore the injustices of police brutality when making such a metaphor is probably more insulting than scapegoating me for acknowledging it. If I can't blame a system that ignores the intent of the reversions and the bad-faith context in which the user was reported, labeling his actions as something malicious regardless of intent and letting the bad-faith reporter go free. I'm willing to work to improve myself wherever I can, but you are displaying the same unwillingness to improve and that you used to justify making mu block indefinite. The cases in the edit warring noticeboard need to be researched beyond the surface. You're saying all criticism is bad and the system is infallible when simply that is not the case. Throwing me to the wolves because I made a comparison you disagree with and calling me "beyond help" shows a true lack of character. We are a community. People in communities help each other. People in communities don't tell people within them to not criticize community leaders even when it's clearly warranted (and acknowledged earlier in the thread). I'm willing to work with you, but not if you weren't really looking to work with me in the first place. I'm willing to show I can grow, but I'd need to be guaranteed ability to edit again in order to do so--Fradio71 (talk) 02:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I'm the one who brought up the cop metaphor, for which I apologize. For me, "cop on the beat" means the people who stop bullies from beating up homeless people. Or, as a more recent call I made to the police, those you call when you find a friend dead on the floor of his home. If it meant something else for you, my apologies. Either way, I don't seem to have helped, so I'll step back. <b style="color:green">Tarl N.</b> ( discuss ) 02:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think cops are both good and bad just as non-cops are both good and bad. The thing about Wikipedia, for editors, is it is not a matter having one's way—although we all want to have our way—but it is a matter of expressing ourselves well, and doing it in the fewest possible words. (Just my two cents on this interesting conversation.) Bus stop (talk) 03:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And I get that. And cops aren't infallible. They don't even give out sentences for that matter. But even judges look into the cases more than "This guy dropped a few links in my lap, I see the guy has his name on it, and I recognize the name from his record, he must be bad. Put him away in the harshest way. But when it's found that say, the names were doctored (not the case here, but just used as an example of manipulation) and the accuser got to the court house by making it so the accused crashed his car on the way to filing his own, more detailed and accredited report, the judge can't just go "Doesn't matter, your name is on here." There's always more to a story, but it's disregarded, and then, because the accused explained why he couldn't submit his, his detainment is lengthened just for cruelty's sake. And then he says he has to get home to his family and the detainment is immoral, so he's told "Well now we can't feed you". It's basically what's going on here.--Fradio71 (talk) 03:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * One must be circumspect. I think most experienced editors are cautious. You are correct that "judges" don't look into all the facts, especially for minor offenses. You don't want to give "ammunition" to those who would use it against you. Therefore with every thing you do you have to think about how it may be used against you, especially how it can be misconstrued to portray you negatively. I think that means being simple and restrained in your statements and your arguments—both on Talk pages and in edit summaries. Bus stop (talk) 03:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

<div class="user-block" style="background:#ffe0e0; border:1px solid #886644; padding:0.5em; margin:0.5em auto; min-height: 40px"> 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] • [ • change block settings • [ unblock] • [ checkuser] ([ log]))

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice. —Bagumba (talk) 04:11, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Your block period has been reduced to 2 weeks, effective now. Consider it a WP:LASTCHANCE. Drmies, I know, will recover just fine.—Bagumba (talk) 04:15, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Since you emailed expressing unhappiness still with the current terms, I've reverted my 2 week change. Feel free to "negotiate", as you requested, terms more to your liking. Mea culpa to, who I jumped the gun on to extend to you what called "the nicest offer ever made on Wikipedia". Talk page acceess remains revoked. You can follow the instructions above if you wish to contact uninvolved administrators. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 07:47, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

--UTRSBot (talk) 02:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC) --UTRSBot (talk) 06:44, 19 March 2019 (UTC) --UTRSBot (talk) 15:49, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

No need to submit more unblock requests, it just takes time for admins to get through the queue. It will probably be a day or two before you get a response. I saw one request by another user which had been sitting around for over a week. <b style="color:green">Tarl N.</b> ( discuss ) 15:59, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Tarl_N., the above unblock requests are all sequential and the bot that marks them as closed is not working for some reason. There's actually only one open. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, got it. From this end, it looked like Fradio71 was leaning on the "unblock" button, and I didn't want that itself to be a problem for him. Regards, <b style="color:green">Tarl N.</b> ( discuss ) 16:34, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Fradio71: I got your email. The main thing I can say is that any admin reviewing your case is going to be looking primarily at this talk page (and by the way, will also look at the page history itself, so as to not be misled by later alterations), since it documents the circumstances surrounding your block. Prior history is considerably less relevant - people change, so admins deal with the "here and now" of people.
 * There are two things they are going to be looking at: That you understand the behaviour that got you blocked (edit warring) is simply unacceptable, and that you won't do it again. No matter what provocation. The other thing is the attitude towards the administrators, in particular, berating them for doing their jobs. That suggests that you think the problems are elsewhere, not your own. The only thing they are to consider on an unblock request is whether you will be a problem if they unblock you, so they need an assurance of change of attitude. I'd suggest reading the community description in WP:What_Wikipedia_is_not before railing about the system being broken. Regards, <b style="color:green">Tarl N.</b> ( discuss ) 17:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)