User talk:Stuffedturkey

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Stuffedturkey, 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:

You may also want to take 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 Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

The Gap and archive.is[edit]

Archive.is does what it says on the label. It archives stuff and is a standard remedy against link rot. We even have bots replacing dead links with links to archive.is. Also please read WP:BRD which describes the consensus on how to solve a content dispute. Thirdly do not remove sourced material. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 23:09, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also please read WP:OWN. You do not make the rules. Please keep that in mind. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 23:11, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2017[edit]

Hello, I'm NewEnglandYankee. I noticed that you recently removed content from Gap Inc. without adequately 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; the removed content has been restored. 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. Thanks. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 23:19, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Gap Inc., 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. If you want your deletions to be accepted, I strongly suggest that you discuss the matter on the article's talk page. As matters stand, it's already quite likely that an admin will come along and block you for edit warring. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 23:23, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Gap Inc. shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 your being blocked from editing—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Kleuske (talk) 23:24, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was about to leave the same warning. You made an edit. It was undone. Either discuss it or leave it alone. Meters (talk) 23:26, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://whatistheexcel.com/wooobooru/_images/720346b8eea04641b40e95342c4d5738/6987%20-%20Halloween_Havoc%20scott_hall%20spooky_fingers%20wcw.png Stuffedturkey (talk) 23:26, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Gap Inc.. Seriously, if you want this information gone, you're choosing the worst possible way to make that happen. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 23:30, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What are the rules about acting like an admin when you aren't one? Stuffedturkey (talk) 23:31, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, if you thought this was a real issue you would move for protection of the page. But you know full well that this information is not up to the standard of what this site tries to present itself as. Me? I just don't really know how to so it's just as easy for me to press that undo button for all the people trying to waterdown the validity of encyclopedic style knowledge. Stuffedturkey (talk) 23:33, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Notice[edit]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Kleuske (talk) 23:40, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, what's the rules for personal harassment of fellow users and fear tactics to dissuade engaging in the editing process? Digital tar and feathering? Sounds right. Stuffedturkey (talk) 23:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR
WP:BRD Kleuske (talk) 23:44, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going to make this clear before I just make another account to continue setting standards for what people consider to be a factual repository of knowledge, just because you disagree with someone doesn't make you right or wrong. You engaged in exactly the same behaviors I did: you saw some content on a page, didn't like it, and changed it. And if you can't realize that then I suppose there is a reason why people like me are constantly trying to undo the terrible things people like you do. Stuffedturkey (talk) 23:52, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. In order to make a sensible contribution, you are expected, nay, required to discuss objections instead of engaging in editwars. If you are unwilling or unable to do so, perhaps you should find another hobby.

Some more reading materials that may be helpful: WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Kleuske (talk) 00:05, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

All anyone ever asked of you is that, having been reverted, you take the matter to the article's talk page and discuss it. If you'd done that, I might have supported your position; negative information probably merits a higher level of sourcing. As it is, you've poisoned the well against yourself. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 00:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What's that thing when someone has fetished pedantry to the point of it interfering with execution of purpose? If someone had tried to tell you that OKC bombing was about to happen but because you don't accept tips outside of your official 1-800-TIPLINE you ignored it would you feel justified in doing so because you had clearly written an article on your esoteric web page explaining how you wish to be informed of potentially horrific plans about to unfold? Not to mention you are taking the stance that yours is a superior position simply because it came after mine. This is just base misunderstanding of logic or a blatant attempt to manipulate. You decide which. Either way, know full well that you have actively engaged in letting a casual claim of rape and just horrific act of FORCING abortions on people stand which flimsy evidence. The greatest consequence of which would be to potentially undermine future well documented claims of such tragedies because this poorly cited example was allowed to be paraded as fact. You should feel slightly disgusted with yourself in such a way that I hope it will remind you to think if your actions are in support of humanity or support of arbitrary rules and regulations. Stuffedturkey (talk) 00:28, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We don't actually have a WP:HYPERBOLE article, but by the looks of it, we should. The OKC bombing,false rape claims and humanity are still not an excuse for editwarring on Wikipedia. Kleuske (talk) 02:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

August 2017[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Gap Inc.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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. ‑ Iridescent 23:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 02:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You were blocked for edit warring by Iridescent, and when you come back you do the same thing all over again, the only thing you've been doing here. Drmies (talk) 02:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]