User talk:207.144.23.222

October 2021

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Cocoanut Grove fire have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Cocoanut Grove fire was changed by 207.144.23.222 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.962337 on 2021-10-21T19:25:36+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 19:25, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

Hello, I'm Pickersgill-Cunliffe. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Michigan Wolverines, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Michigan Wolverines. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The edits I made were factual and the scandal has been proven by the NCAA. 207.144.23.222 (talk) 13:13, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please stop. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Michigan Wolverines, you may be blocked from editing. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at 2023 NCAA Division I FBS football season. glman (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

shhhh 207.144.23.222 (talk) 20:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring.

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 review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I posted factual information and then you just got mad because I said "shhhh". 207.144.23.222 (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. glman (talk) 17:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months for edit warring.

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 review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:36, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How was my edit vandalism? The edit was factual and a source was listed showing the scandal and how it was currently being investigated. 207.144.23.222 (talk) 14:01, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to cite source (WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:OR and avoid POV edits WP:NPOV. glman (talk) 15:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The edit wasn't a POV edit, the information was a fact and stated the team was under investigation. Wanting that information removed would be a POV edit since it is removing facts. I used the source that was listed in another Wiki article as well so how is it good for one page but not another? 207.144.23.222 (talk) 12:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add an asterisk to a national championship is POV. glman (talk) 14:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't explain the removal that I was referring too. I stated a fact with a reference and it was removed. That is the one I am asking about. 207.144.23.222 (talk) 15:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which edit are you referring to? glman (talk) 15:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 2023 College Football National Championship was won while Michigan and Head Coach Jim Harbaugh were under investigation for illegal scouting and stealing opposing teams signs.

This statement was made under "Other Championships" referring to the most recent one with a source. This one was removed and I was blocked. I'm asking why this factual statement was removed. 207.144.23.222 (talk) 15:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any edit with that wording. Your last edit added an asterisk to the 2023 championship and included "they were accused of, and had significant evidence against, illegally stealing signs". This ("significant evidence against" and "illegally") is not supported by the source you cited. Other edits also supported your block, an edit soon before that included "The 2023 National Championship was not earned, and will have an asterisk by it for eternity. It was truly a sad day for college football fans and opposing teams having to witness cheaters benefit from their illegal activity." which is textbook POV editing. glman (talk) 15:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Michigan_Wolverines&diff=prev&oldid=1198982063

My last edit was January 25 and after that edit was when I got blocked for 2 or 3 months when my last edit was what I just posted in the previous comment. 207.144.23.222 (talk) 15:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in that edit on Jan. 25, you added information that was not included in the source WP:RS and was not WP:NPOV. This, due to your previous WP:NPOV editing, resulted in another block. Hopefully, when you return you can contribute positively to the mission of Wikipedia! glman (talk) 16:50, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I now completely understand why wiki was never allowed to be used as a source when writing papers in school, it is edited based on opinion of a few that spend their time here checking edits and I see that now. 207.144.23.222 (talk) 16:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You inserted your opinion ("illegally"), rather than relying on a WP:RS. I'm glad you understand that and why it's an issue now. Have a great day! glman (talk) 17:05, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The NCAA presented the University of Michigan with new evidence this week, including that a Michigan booster may have at least partially funded Connor Stalions’ advanced scouting operation and an assistant coach allegedly participated in the destruction of evidence on a computer after the scandal broke"

"The developments comes from a nearly month-long scandal involving Stalions. Officially a “recruiting analyst,” he is alleged by the NCAA of sending friends to the games of future Michigan opponents in an effort to film the sideline play signals. While stealing signs is not prohibited by the NCAA, and is a common practice via game film, television footage or during a game, advanced scouting is prohibited."

"However, the investigation is ongoing and remains in its early phases. It is possible the NCAA could uncover new information, including the knowledge of other staffers or assistant coaches on the Wolverines' staff."

Direct quotes from my source supporting my factual comment stating the championship was won while they were under investigation for illegal scouting. The first comment supports my statement that the NCAA had previously found evidence of cheating. I inserted facts and supported it with a source. If you would take the time to read my source you'd see that. 207.144.23.222 (talk) 17:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does "illegal" appear anywhere in the source? Additionally, adding an asterisk to the 2023 championship, as you previously were told not to do, violates WP:NPOV. Have a great day! glman (talk) 17:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are being investigated for advanced scouting which is prohibited, which means they are being investigated for scouting that goes against the NCAA rules. If the scouting goes against the NCAA rules and is not sanctioned by official rules that would then make the scouting illegal. The source may not have used the exact term "illegal" but I didn't use an exact quote so I didn't quote the source word for word, but saying the advanced scouting would be prohibited is saying the scouting would be illegal to NCAA bylaws. I don't have to quote a source word for word when using it as a source. A source just means that is where the information came from and is what I am referencing. Now if i used "" and was quoting my source then I would of had to use the exact terminology. 207.144.23.222 (talk) 17:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Violating NCAA rules is not illegal, as NCAA rules are not laws. Again, your previous NPOV editing on the same article and topic play into your block. If you had edited other pages or asked for the page to be edited on the talk page, things may be different. You are welcome to appeal your block, information can be found here: WP:GAPB. glman (talk) 18:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The term illegal has a definition that doesn't pertain to the law, but sports or a game. If you look up illegal on Merriam Webster you'll find the definition "not sanctioned by official rules (as of a game), you'll also find the term prohibited listed as a synonym and the term prohibited is listed in the article I used as a source. So essentially my post was edited by you because you thought the term "illegal" only pertained to laws and didn't understand how it was being used in this sense pertaining to sports.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/illegal

Here is the link to show you the defintion of illegal and how it has other uses other than just describing laws. 207.144.23.222 (talk) 18:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to appeal your block - WP:GAPB. glman (talk) 19:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Waste of time. The wiki editors stick together. 207.144.23.222 (talk) 20:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

207.144.23.222 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was recently blocked due to my statement and source i used as a reference being misinterpreted. The definition of certain words was not known by the editors that blocked me and thought that illegal only pertained to the law so the editor thought my statement was an opinion, when it was actually factual. My source supported my statement and on my talk page I have had a discussion with Glman in depth about this and have provided additional sources that support my appeal.

Decline reason:

You are blocked for edit warring, not for the content of your edits. You'll need to address that and only that in any future unblock request. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 19:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

207.144.23.222 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I understood that I was threatened to be blocked for edit warring so I corrected my edit to be factaul and made sure my post was unbiased. In my warnings about being blocked the said I had failed to provide a source for my edit so I made sure on my next edit to provide a source. I was originally undoing an edit and was warned about that and was told why my original edit was removed. I understood their reasoning for removal and then adjusted my edit to meet the requirements of providing facts and providing a source that supported my statement instead of just undoing an edit over and over again. I made sure to follow the suggestions made and made a factual statement that did not contain an opinion.

Decline reason:

That's still edit-warring. To claim you weren't edit warring, you'd need to show you weren't reintroducing the same content or alternatively, there was a firm consensus for your edit on the article talk page. You have done neither of these things. Yamla (talk) 20:34, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Blanking

You are not permitted to remove or edit declined unblock requests for your currently active block. Please do not do so again. --Yamla (talk) 20:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.