User talk:Fiesta bowl

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Welcome!

Hello, Fiesta bowl, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! BTW, Thanks for the citation :). Burner0718 JibbaJabba! 18:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Stop

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ohio State Buckeyes football. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Reilly's piece is not an article it is an opinion piece. Baegis (talk) 22:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2003 Fiesta Bowl. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Baegis (talk) 22:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

when somebody at ESPN labels something as one of the "greatest ever"

guess what??

thats an opinion also......who's opinion? somebody who works at ESPN

thats no different than RR writing an "opinion piece" for SI

[edit] Warning

Again, please stop edit warring. If you continue, then you will be blocked. Sean William @ 22:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


SERIOUSLY


if you want this to be a factual site......then lets the fucking facts stand

like i said......go back and re-watch that play and you will see thats EXACTLY how it happened....making what was said FACTUAL

cant dispute the facts

[edit] THEN LET THE FUCKING FACTS STAND

because you seem to have a problem with that concept

if this is expected to be a factual site.....then why not let the facts be put out there??

[edit] Please take a minute

Please take a minute and compose yourself before you continue to attack the editors on this project. Getting angry, yelling and dropping f-bombs are not the way things work around here. If you find that you are unable to work without resorting to such measures, perhaps you could find another way to spend your time. Baegis (talk) 22:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

You might be better advised to discuss your edits in a civil matter with the editors you are in a conflict with, rather than resort to attacks and swearing. Please discuss the changes you wish to make on the article's talk page, and sign your comments with ~~~~. Thank you. scetoaux (talk) (My contributions.) 22:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


there is really nothing to discuss........ive seen this too many times to know exactly what happened

theres only one way it can be seen.....the way it actually happened

[edit] IM COMPOSED

the problem is that you have a fact based site and people have a problem with facts

Taking a look at your contributions to Ohio State Buckeyes football, it appears that your edits simply violate Wikipedia's standard for adherence to a neutral point of view. Please consider that your edits are motivated by reasons other than the wish to spread knowledge. scetoaux (talk) (My contributions.) 22:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


WELL YOU SEE.......whats funny about that is that my edit was in response to something about ESPN calling it one of the greatest games ever

they are both merely one sided opinions

so if one of them is fine......they both should be.......either that......or they both have to go

you cant have it both ways


and please tell me how the hell you know what my edits are motivated by??

if you can tell me that.......ill take the lottery numbers for tonight while you are at it

It's the presentation of your ideas. It is clear that the spot about ESPN is sourcing directly from a trusted authority in college football. However, it is presented as an opinion of the organization. You presented your point of view in the article in a factual manner, which is why this counts as a violation of our neutral point of view policy, and why the spot about ESPN does not. scetoaux (talk) (My contributions.) 22:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
(e/c):ESPN is one of the worldwide leaders in sports reporting. Their declaration, whether you agree with it or not, about calling the game in question one of the greatest games ever can be referenced to ESPN. It is not a single person's opinion, but ESPN's opinion. The Rick Reilly piece is simply one man's opinion piece published in Sports Illustrated. While SI is also a world leader in sports reporting, the Reilly article is an opinion piece and really not much more notable than any other sports writer's opinion. Baegis (talk) 22:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)


so SI and their writers are no longer considered leaders in sports??

secondly......for all anybody knows.....they could have asked one person at espn for their opinion on the game and used it as a blanket statement respresenting the entire network

the truth is.......you dont have any idea how many ESPN employees said that......because ESPN is merely a network made up of various sports writers/reporters......so anything said there is also the opinion of an ESPN employee

therefore......without further proof to that.......you have to assume it was only one

1 at ESPN = 1 at SI.......who are both sports reporting leaders

infact......SI predates ESPN by a number of years

It doesn't matter which one is older. The fact that ESPN did NOT list a writer as the one bestowing the title upon the game is a clear statement that the honorific is from the network as a whole. The SI piece is from a single man, hence it has his picture and name below the title. The burden of proof is on you to prove the ESPN piece is from a single writer. Stop disrupting the encyclopedia. Baegis (talk) 23:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS

that he was identified by SI and ESPN chose not to ID the writer who's opinion they were using

no matter how badly you want to be right......you wont be

ESPN.....is not a person.....its a network of writers/reporters....not a single person

when they do their shows......like "top 10 reasons" and the rest of them......all that is.......is the opinion of the shows writer......but ESPN still produces the show

so again using the ESPN currtain to hide behind isnt relevant unless you can ID how many people at ESPN share the same opinion......and you better hope its more than one......if not.....your claim about ESPN is completely invalid

call ESPN in bristol, CT and start taking polls of all their employees

let me know who says what

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Ohio State Buckeyes football. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Icestorm815 • Talk 23:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sockpuppets

Please do not create any further sockpuppet accounts while you are blocked. I will be extending your block to a week for your inappropriate actions. Icestorm815 • Talk 02:08, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

what the hell is a sock puppet??

secondly did it ever cross your mind that i have other friends whp also agree with waht im trying to get across here and have decided to also get involved??

if you are accusing me of doing things such as that........i would suggest providing me proof before you start making accusations

Even if you have "friends" making the edits for you, it's still breaking the rules. Meatpuppeting is no better than socking. Baegis (talk) 21:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


what i mean is that as a fan group we are tight........and that the case was also picked up by various others.......as i had picked it up from somebody else.......check the edits and you can probably tell based on the various different IPs........but i guess logic isnt something you guys understand at all

see how that works??

again........im not sure which of you idiots came to the conclusion that i had created another account........but i would suggest showing me some sort of proof to that

if not......i expect my account to be re-instated as of today.......which it was originally going to to be

If you would show a bit of contrition and admit that you were at fault and broke the rules, perhaps you could petition for your block to be overturned. However, threatening the people on this project won't get you too far. Baegis (talk) 21:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

first of all.......im not going to admit to something i didnt fucking do

secondly.........ive been accused of doing something.......my you......yet you cannot provide proof of that........maybe you should man up and admit that YOU were wrong in jumping to conclusions about me......and do the right thing

third........while you are digging up proof of what you have accused me of doing......maybe you can show me where i "threatened" anybody......because nothing i said was a "threat" to anybody

i didnt think you would have a response for that

[edit] OH AND HERES SOMETHING ELSE FOR YOU

so the opinion of one writer from SI counts as "opinion" but the "opinion" of some kid who wrote a piece for a texas tech newpaper is suddenly a "fact"

how exactly does that make any sense??

oh thats right.......it doesnt

[edit] Block Reasoning

The Nationalchamps has been block and your account's block was extended on the basis of sockpuppetry. I have reached this basis by the similar edits here:[1] [2] The Nationalchamps account was created only 2 hours after your account was blocked and had a very similar editing pattern. If you wish for another administrator to evaluate the decision, I suggest you place a request on your talk page by using the {{unblock|your reason here}} template. A word of caution, I would suggest you refrain from any trolling on your talk page, as this could result in a talk page protection or an additional block for disruptive editing. Cheers, Icestorm815 • Talk 22:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


did it ever occur to you that somebody simply had to just click "undo" in order to get the same edit result??

has it crossed your mind that quite possibly there could be more than one person in this world that would think of doing that??

so what about all the edits today taht are similar??

was i responsible for those too? despite the different IPs??

here.......ill save you the time........NO.....i wasnt

im shocked you havent blamed me for those too

there really is no talking logic with some of you idiots is there??

you get these delusional ideas.....and thats it.......thats the way it has to be because thats the idea you had during a dungeons and dragons game

ill say this one more time for you.......<redacted>

[edit] Protected

I have protected this user talk page due to incessant personal attacks. If you wish to contest this block, please e-mail unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org and an independent administrator will review your case. FCYTravis (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Indefinite Block

This user has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because of sockpuppetry abuse, point of view pushing, and repeated personal attacks.
(see: block log • contributions • page moves • current autoblocks)