User talk:Capriaf

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2022

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Freddie Freeman. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. BilCat (talk) 02:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

October 2023

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Whitey Herzog. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted it to what was there for months before Yankees10 removed it. I reverted HIS wrongful edit. Mine is not the reverted one. So why don’t you cut it out and accept it. It was up there for Brian Cashman and Brian Abraham amongst others so leave it. Not a hard concept to be consistent Capriaf (talk) 02:32, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Whitey Herzog) for a period of 3 months for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 02:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Have it your way. I offered you a way ahead, yet you continued on the path you started on months ago, editing against consensus: Yankees10 was not the only one to revert you. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I put it in the talk page. Yankees10 has been the main one reverting it and it was left there for months. I have done exactly by the book on this. I put it in the talk page without objection until you today. I was willing to be constructive. You only said “wrong”. I pointed out Brian Cashman and Brian Abraham having it up as well as the 1969 World Series page tagging Whitey Herzog. I have been reliant on a consistent set. Capriaf (talk) 02:41, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I request that my block be lifted as I was reverting Yankee10’s edit. I put my view in the talk page and no one commented until today. I relied on other authorities as the basis for my edit. No objections were made. Therefore, I believe my block is unfair. Capriaf (talk) 02:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Instructions for appealing your block are included in the block notice above. If you do not follow the instructions, your block will not be reviewed. General Ization ^Talk 02:48, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

I reverted Yankee10's edit. I put in the talk page that Whitey Herzog's 1969 WS ring should go in the infobox and for months it was uncontested. I was accused of being uncooperative when my last post in the the talk page does not include profanity, all caps, etc. It gives a concise reason as to why it should be included in there. I was editing Whitey Herzog from my phone. I felt it was easier to appeal from my desktop and did not realize I wasn't logged in on my computer, so I own my last unsigned comment on the talk page as a post-block comment, not realizing I was logged out. I believe my block was unfair as in the past I cited Brian Cashman and Brian Abraham's infoboxes and no one refuted that. In the past I have also cited the 1969 World Series page tagging Whitey Herzog as a high ranking official with the 1969 Mets. After my reversion, I was simply told I was wrong with no explanation and in the talk page told "uncooperative" despite no one objecting to my comments in the talk page.

Decline reason:

Well, there's no requirement that other people object to your comment, and frankly that last edit gives a reader the impression that you do not consider the matter open to discussion and your mind is made up. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:24, 3 October 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

I disagree with your impression of my last comment. I wrote “you just disagree”. It wasn’t a bulldozing type comment. No one gave me an explanation last night as to why Whitey Herzog doesn’t get his 1969 WS ring in his info box despite me citing other pages with it when they were in similar roles. As for the no objection, there was no disagreement in the talk page for months. Wikipedia made a big deal to me in the past about the need for consensus. It feels like the goal post is being moved and I want some consistency. Executives like Brian Cashman and others have World Series rings in their info box but Whitey Herzog doesn’t? No one has given an explanation. I once again, ask that I be unblocked.

Decline reason:

Clear violation of WP:EW on Whitey Herzog. You are very lucky the block is narrowly scoped to a single article. Yamla (talk) 11:25, 3 October 2023 (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).

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

Request reason:

Once again, I ask for reconsideration. I went through the talk page policy. I reverted Yankees10's edit and I have been falsely accused of not being cooperative. I have been engaging in a discussion. I also do not get why I am lucky this issue is narrowed to one article. The edit war issue relates to only one article, which is Whitey Herzog. Again, no one offered any actual explanation as to why my edit was wrong, whereas I pointed out why I made my edit and no one refuted even the validity of my basis. I ask it be reconsidered. No one I edit warred with commented on the talk page to even comment as to why they thought I was wrong. It was several months of no comments contesting the matter. Not once in the Whitey Herzog talk page did someone say "hey you're wrong and this is why...". Please reconsider.

Decline reason:

None of this is relevant. You were unambiguously edit warring on that article. There are only a small number of reasons that edit warring is overlooked; "lack of discussion on the talk page" is not one of them. It's a huge encyclopedia; there's plenty you can still do here. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 19:42, 3 October 2023 (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.

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]