User talk:WeAreFamily1996
Your username
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. I saw that you edited or created Tonic (band), and I noticed that your username, "TonicWiki", may not comply with our username policy. Please note that you may not use a username that represents the name of a company, group, organization, product, or website. Examples of usernames that are not allowed include "XYZ Company", "MyWidgetsUSA.com", and "Foobar Museum of Art". However, you are permitted to use a username that contains such a name if it identifies you individually, such as "Sara Smith at XYZ Company", "Mark at WidgetsUSA", or "FoobarFan87".
Please also note that Wikipedia does not allow accounts to be shared by multiple people, and that you may not advocate for or promote any company, group, organization, product, or website, regardless of your username. Please also read our paid editing policy and our conflict of interest guideline. If you are a single individual and are willing to contribute to Wikipedia in an unbiased manner, please request a change of username, by completing this form, choosing a username that complies with our username policy. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. If you have any questions for me or would like further clarification, please feel free to reply to me either on this page or on my talk page. Sierrak28 (talk) 22:41, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
November 2024
[edit]
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Star Trek: Starfleet Academy (TV series), did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. You have added information without a reliable source and have been reverted. All information added to Wikipedia must be supported by a reliable source. adamstom97 (talk) 20:13, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Star Trek: Starfleet Academy (TV series), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 21:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- I am the reliable source WeAreFamily1996 (talk) 23:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- I am the reliable source WeAreFamily1996 (talk) 23:21, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- Not on Wikipedia - please read WP:OR.-- Ponyobons mots 23:23, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, I wanted to take a moment to try and explain the crux of this issue: anyone can say anything online. Wikipedia can be edited by everyone, so there must be a certain level of proof before something can be added onto an article. It's one of the reasons why original research can't be accepted as proof, whilst sources and claims must be verifiable.
- It doesn't matter whether you're right or not, you must provide a reliable source as proof before something can be changed - the same as any other editor. A person making a claim online just isn't going to cut it. I can't edit a famous movie stars page to say I'm their hairdresser because I say I am - for all you know I might be, but that's not enough to justify changing an encyclopedia that's used by millions of people every day. You need to read the linked pages above, as well as the COI page linked to by other editors, THEN request an unblock only if you fully understand, appreciate and can explain on your unblock request why your edits weren't acceptable on Wikipedia. Good luck! Blue-Sonnet (talk) 21:44, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- I am the reliable source WeAreFamily1996 (talk) 23:21, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Your recent editing history 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.-- Ponyobons mots 23:23, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. -- Alex_21 TALK 23:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Editing with a conflict of interest
[edit] Hello, WeAreFamily1996. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:
- avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
- propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template)—don't forget to give details of reliable sources supporting your suggestions;
- disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
- avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
- do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.
In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.
Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicizing, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.-- Ponyobons mots 23:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
[edit]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:WeAreFamily1996 reported by User:Soetermans (Result: ). Thank you. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 18:13, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
November 2024
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 18:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)- @Bbb23 As the blocking admin, you may be interested to know the editor has continued their edit-warring post-block [1][2]. Should I resubmit a report for this? -- Alex_21 TALK 01:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 02:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
WeAreFamily1996 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I am not engaged in any edit warring. I made a contribution that I know to be true. It doesnt have to be citable by an internet source to be true. I am simply making the contribution that I know to be true. This has never happened before, and Im not sure why this particular wiki entry has garnered so much attention as to block me from contributing factual info. The persons engaged in the edit war are the people who keep reverting my edit. I shouldn't be penalized for that, they should. WeAreFamily1996 (talk) 06:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Sounds like an edit war to me! Please read WP:DR and WP:GAB before making another unblock request. -- asilvering (talk) 06:56, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
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.
WeAreFamily1996 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Ive read the links. Im not sure I understand why my edits are what is considered to be warring. I havent changed anyone elses contributions. I am simply stating that what I am contributing is fact. Why am I being treated like I have done something that damages the integrity of the article? I do not want to violate TOS, but this seems somewhat egregious to me. Even after reading what you suggested, I dont believe that Ive done something wrong. Can you please explain to me why I am being treated as though I am edit waring, but the editors who are reverting my contributions are not?
Decline reason:
As you don't see how you were edit warring, we will have to leave the block in place. As to other editors, see WP:NOTTHEM. 331dot (talk) 20:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
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.
- As the person who reported you for edit-warring, it's incredible you still can't understand why. You were edit warring, because instead of using the talk page you continued to push for you preferred revision of the article and your own experiences are not reliable. What you wrote is not "fact". Maybe you should just move on? It looks like Wikipedia and you aren't suited for each other. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 19:52, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- And as the person who quoted relevant policies to you on the talk page, you do not conform with the requirements of WP:RS and WP:V. The statement
It doesnt have to be citable by an internet source to be true
is entirely incorrect when it comes to Wikipedia - you HAVE to provide an internet citable source. We don't know you. We don't know your reliability. I could say you're wrong and that I'm more factual than you - how is any of this/that provable? -- Alex_21 TALK 23:12, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
WeAreFamily1996 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Why is what I did warring but not the editors who kept reverting my original contribution. The fact is what I posted IS fact. You don't have to believe it, but it IS true. I made a contribution and was reported for warring because someone else reverted my contribution and its all my fault? Why isnt the editor who reverted my contribution not also considered to be warring? I can site 10000s of articles that do not have citable references in their articles. This doesnt make any sense to me at all. This is insanity. An entire website dedicated to user input doesnt trust the user and when I insist that Im right on the smallest of edits, I get banned from editing for warring and the editors that kept reverting my contribution are not at all in the wrong. I would have been happy to have discussed this via a talk page had I been contacted BEFORE the edit was reverted not AFTER. I did contact the other editors after reverting my own contribution back to what is factual information.I do not think I should be banned for only standing ground on a small edit. Anyone who does any minro internet research can find that this information is true.
Decline reason:
This is still a "I'm right, the other guy is wrong" accusation: WP:NOTTHEM. Such a request cannot be the basis for an unblock. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:07, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
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.
I did read the link and saw this: Assume others have assumed (and will assume) good faith towards you. The blocking administrator will have tried to assume good faith on your part, as did any administrator who had reviewed previous requests, and the administrator who will review your current request. There is not much need to remind administrators to assume good faith, or to accuse administrators of failure to do so.
I do not think the editors or admin who blocked assumed good faith towards me. Im not sure why. First it was reverted and then talked about. How is that good faith?
Given the above, it's clear the editor cannot (or refuses to) understand the importance of sourcing content, why they were reverted, and they show no contrition for their edits, despite being linked to the relevant policies of WP:RS and WP:V.
An entire website dedicated to user input
- User generated content is actually not allowed per WP:USERGEN. You don't get to add just whatever you want. I can insist you're wrong - what makes you more important?I would have been happy to have discussed this via a talk page had I been contacted BEFORE the edit was reverted not AFTER
- that's not how any of this works.Anyone who does any minro internet research can find that this information is true
- then provide the source proving the information is true. We're waiting.I do not think the editors or admin who blocked assumed good faith towards me. Im not sure why.
- this has been explained. That's what happens when your edit is forced multiple times and reverted by multiple editors, and you still continue.
-- Alex_21 TALK 03:51, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
Here is an announcment of this: https://filmmusicreporter.com/2024/12/02/jeff-russo-to-score-paramounts-star-trek-starfleet-academy/
WeAreFamily1996 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Notes:
- In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
- Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Perhaps I just didnt understand. If the idea is that any editor who reverts an edit that they dont think is factual is always deemed to be in the right and the poster who is just sayin that they are right is in the wrong, then I guess I was warring. Now that i get that, I will not engage in that again. [[User:WeAreFamily1996|WeAreFamily1996]] ([[User talk:WeAreFamily1996#top|talk]]) 23:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=Perhaps I just didnt understand. If the idea is that any editor who reverts an edit that they dont think is factual is always deemed to be in the right and the poster who is just sayin that they are right is in the wrong, then I guess I was warring. Now that i get that, I will not engage in that again. [[User:WeAreFamily1996|WeAreFamily1996]] ([[User talk:WeAreFamily1996#top|talk]]) 23:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=Perhaps I just didnt understand. If the idea is that any editor who reverts an edit that they dont think is factual is always deemed to be in the right and the poster who is just sayin that they are right is in the wrong, then I guess I was warring. Now that i get that, I will not engage in that again. [[User:WeAreFamily1996|WeAreFamily1996]] ([[User talk:WeAreFamily1996#top|talk]]) 23:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
@User:WeAreFamily1996, that is not the idea at all, you still don't understand. You've been linked to WP:RS, WP:V, WP:EW and WP:COI, and have failed to show an understanding of any of these policies, and instead want to portray the attacked victim here. -- Alex_21 TALK 00:29, 3 December 2024 (UTC)