User talk:Javisvis94

February 2025

Hi Javisvis94! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of 2024 Kansas City Chiefs season several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:2024 Kansas City Chiefs season, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 22:46, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’d be happy to discuss abouth the matter but I won’t for I know that with all the evidence shown, you still will edit the page following a fake narrative. Javisvis94 (talk) 00:17, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to revert the other editors edits, you will be blocked. See WP:EDITWAR. Whether or not you are correct doesn't justify repeated reversions. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 00:20, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So it is OK for the other editors to edit the page giving fake information but it not OK when I edit the page justifying why. Wow, what a genius. Javisvis94 (talk) 00:33, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can try to engage with the editor directly with a discussion on the article talk page or their user talk page. If they actively don't want to discuss, then report them to the WP:EWN. Note that I also warned the editor for edit warring too. Wikipedia is not a battleground; there is no excuse for edit warring. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 00:41, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And I won’t for as I said, whoever edited the page will continue to change it in favour of a fake narrative, also by your interest I assume you support this fake narrative. Javisvis94 (talk) 00:51, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ASPERSIONS. Not being the bigger person and reverting once more may result in a block. You've been warned enough for edit warring. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 00:58, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t care, if I have to edit again I will and if I get blocked I will just create a new profile and that’s it. Javisvis94 (talk) 01:54, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Javisvis94. Thank you. Tarlby ^{(t) (c)} 02:59, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Javisvis94, can you come and respond to the discussion at WP:ANI? Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:06, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No thank you, not interested. Javisvis94 (talk) 03:24, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No thank you besides I don’t see you do the same with the people that have written fake information and you have done this only with me that has been deleting that fake information eventhough I’ve had evidence that back up my edits. Javisvis94 (talk) 03:27, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please think about the size of Wikipedia and how many times disagreements may have occurred. It's huge. Lots of people try to return and return, but Wikipedia is still here. No one has ever been able been successful in a quest to edit war their preferred text into an article. If other people are wrong, we would appreciate you using the talk page of the article to explain what the problem is. You will be blocked if edit warring persists. Johnuniq (talk) 03:44, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is not disagreement, it’s a fact and I edit the page according to facts, contrary to the other dude that only edits the page based on fake narratives. And as I said, if I get blocked I will simply create another account and keep editing the page to remove fake information.

And yet I find it funny that YOU only talk to me and not the other guy so I assume you support that fake narrative. Javisvis94 (talk) 04:44, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we are coming to talk to you as a result of the complaint filed at ANI and you refuse to go participate in that discussion so, right now, you seem like the problematic editor. Wikipedia is a collaborative editing project and we all work together. Being obstinate and argumentative means that it is likely that a block is coming your way eventually. But you don't seem to mind that prospect at all. So, no more warnings here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:41, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh so I, the person who’s editing the page to avoid fake information, am the problematic editor and not those who write down the fake info. That’s so logical. I don’t care about your warnings if what you were seeking was for me to stop editing the page so you could continue following a fake narrative. Javisvis94 (talk) 07:40, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia operates on verifiability, not truth. If you cannot verify through reliable sources, the fact something is The Truth doesn't matter. And even if you do, if you are disruptive and get blocked, simply create[ing] another account and keep[ing] editing the page is called block evasion and will result in another block. I'd strongly suggest you care about your warnings. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:09, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Traduction: the truth only matters when it benefits me Javisvis94 (talk) 05:43, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On Wikipedia, "The Truth" only matters when it can be verified through reliable sources. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:13, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

February 2025

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you believe that 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 ~~~~}}. voorts (talk/contributions) 05:49, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]