User talk:Rockchalk717/Archives/2017/April

Unrestricted free agents
You claim "it's been done this way for years". As best I can tell, it's never been done this way. For the patriots specifically, the UFAs stayed on the roster until May 16th. Tarl N. ( discuss ) 03:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I've been editing these templates for a few years now (roughly about 5) and what I saw the beginning, UFA's get removed at the start of the new league. I can't speak for the Patriots page, but I know on the Chiefs one that's how its been done and from I understood from the editors that helped me then they are removed. If there is that much inconsistency we might need to go to the NFL project page and create a consensus on this with other project members.-- Rockchalk 717 03:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I suggest WT:NFL is the right place to take this. Many of those UFAs will stay with their teams, removing them now just makes extra work. And I've seen other editors appear to be taken aback by the removal. Tarl N.  ( discuss ) 04:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That's what I was talking about lol. But yeah it might be idea. If more people think UFA's should be included then I will add them back. It should be at some major point in the NFL calender. Doesn't matter if its new league year, draft, training camp, whatever that way it can be easier for editors going forward as well.-- Rockchalk 717 06:05, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

2017-18 Kansas State Wildcats men's basketball team
I get ya, the tone seemed like you were, just still getting used to this, trying new things and everything. No worries. User talk:DutchFreak89 —Preceding undated comment added 03:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also: Mz7 (talk) 16:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.

3RR violation
Are you claiming exemption from 3RR on Bo Burnham? If so, on what basis? El_C 08:07, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It may not be one of the reasons listed but yes. My reverts were done with intent of reverting to the pre-disputed version while me the IP discussed it. The IP continued to refuse my attempts at a consensus. Now the reverts have stopped so honestly I am considering withdrawing my request for an intervention on it.-- Rockchalk 717 11:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The reverts have stopped because I blocked the IP—now the question is whether you should be blocked, too. Again, in what way do you claim to have been exempt from 3RR. Please answer directly. El_C 15:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see why I should. And the reasons listed on the page your linking do not meet any of the reasons that fit this scenario. Yes I did technically break the 3 revert rule, however unlike the IP after I reverted their initial revert, I posted on their talkpage to discuss it and come to a consensus. That request went ignored. I requested in all my edit summaries to discuss it on the talkpage as well as warned against edit warring and to the discuss the issue with me before reverting again. The only I will admit that I did not do that I should have done, is informed the IP that while we discuss the issue the page should be left in the pre-disputed version. I have never had an issue with edit-warring before, never been blocked, overall I've been a good boy (not trying to be a smart ass I'm being serious) on Wikipedia with plenty of experience (11,000 edits over 6 years), I have enough experience I recently was approved for pending changes review permissions. A stern warning and a tip of how to avoid getting sucked into an edit war will suffice. I have learned from this experience and have realized what I have done wrong in this situation. So I just kindly and respectfully ask that you do not block me as I attempted to prevent what happened.-- Rockchalk 717 20:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * They're back but under the IP address 2600:387:8:9::b4 this time. 3rd different IP address and it is the same person because they make the same edit each time. So know its sockpuppetry. They say "it's normal that IP address changes in between edits" which is not how it works even I know that. These edits are being made from a cellphone and I know the IP address on my cellphone has never changed because its blocked, so that's not true at all.-- Rockchalk 717 22:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I requested an increase in protection since this was obvious sockpuppetry. Truthfully after the first time they changed their IP address, this is probably what I should have done instead of continuing to revert putting myself at risk for a 3 revert rule block.-- Rockchalk 717 22:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I can forgo the block and sanction you to 0RR for 72 hours for all content reverts on all articles (self-enforced, honour system). Next time, please don't break 3RR, unless you're clear on the exemption. I realise the IP started socking, but your violation was before that happened. El_C 23:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I have learned my lesson on this. If I see an article for the next 72 hours that needs reverted I will just leave it along unless its vandalism.-- Rockchalk 717 23:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC)