User talk:UConnIPUser
Change of Storrs, Connecticut to Redirect
[edit]the merge Proposal was not accepted.Naraht (talk) 18:46, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Naraht, that is technically irrelevant because firstly, no one except @Aaron Liu actually responded to the merge proposal with any reply of substance - and secondly because, even in the absence of that proposal, WP:OVERLAP kicks in. There is nothing unique about the "Storrs" article.
- If you personally feel that the redirect should not be present, justify why your point overrides WP:OVERLAP. UConnIPUser (talk) 18:58, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- A discussion should be started to find consensus completely removed from the discussion about the hyphenated name. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:15, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
December 2024
[edit]
Your recent editing history at Storrs, Connecticut shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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; read about 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Very Busy) 19:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Yoshi, there is no edit war because the merge proposal is obviously supported by WP:OVERLAP.
- Also, you didn't place an equivalent warning message on Naraht's page, the editor who incorrectly reverted my edits. That makes you biased and makes the warning message invalid. If you feel that the warning isn't invalid, place one of equal value on his page too. UConnIPUser (talk) 19:25, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- You are being disruptive, and your behavior during the merge discussion was unprofessional too. I don't need to because his edit was correct as well. WP:OVERLAP follows the WP:BRD cycle. You were bold, I reverted, now it is time for you to DISCUSS. It clearly says do not revert again. I would suggest you watch yourself, because I have no problem taking you to WP:ANI if I have to. Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Very Busy) 19:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- "You are being disruptive, and your behavior during the merge discussion was unprofessional too."
- Cite this claim. I wasn't even able to comment in the merge discussion since another gang of editors closed it up.
- "I don't need to because his edit was correct as well."
- No. If you are saying that the act of me reverting was the disruptive part, since the redirect is not and could not be considered disruptive since it is justified, then the fact that he did just as much reverting means that he deserves an equal notice.
- If you don't do that you can't ever call yourself an editor in good standing. UConnIPUser (talk) 19:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- You are being disruptive, and your behavior during the merge discussion was unprofessional too. I don't need to because his edit was correct as well. WP:OVERLAP follows the WP:BRD cycle. You were bold, I reverted, now it is time for you to DISCUSS. It clearly says do not revert again. I would suggest you watch yourself, because I have no problem taking you to WP:ANI if I have to. Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Very Busy) 19:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
ANI notice
[edit]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Very Busy) 19:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
December 2024
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. – bradv 20:15, 14 December 2024 (UTC)- Bradv, you have no right to do this. I am trying to maintain TRUTHFUL information. It's not my fault nimrods keep coming in and reverting things. So UNDO this block NOW. UConnIPUser (talk) 20:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Administrators did not just fall off a turnip truck. Obvious sockpuppetry is obvious. Due to personal attacks on other editors, your talk page access has been revoked. Any appeals should be made from your original account. Cullen328 (talk) 20:22, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Blocked as a sockpuppet
[edit]
Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice:
{{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.