User talk:ByzantineIsRoman
ByzantineIsRoman, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi ByzantineIsRoman! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC) |
Subtle Vandalism on Michigan–Michigan State men's basketball rivalry
[edit]
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to engage in subtle vandalism by making unexplained changes to information, you may be blocked from editing.
B1GLAX2 (talk) 01:34, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to engage in subtle vandalism by making unexplained changes to information, you may be blocked from editing.
Please stop reverting without properly explaining your POV. The series began in 1909, not when Michigan State joined the Big Ten. Excluding information from before 1950 is not consistent with other rivalry articles that have games played in both conference and non-conference play. Thank you. B1GLAX2 (talk) 02:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for explaining your POV. For edits of this size, please use talk pages to discuss instead of simply reverting it, since it comes off as arbitrary. I understand your point that there are two eras to the series. In similar cases, results from both eras are included in the rivalry page. See Michigan–Michigan State football rivalry, which includes results when Michigan State was not in the Big Ten Conference, and Michigan–Ohio State football rivalry, as Ohio State and Michigan played 14 times before the two were in the same conference. Even though back then the series probably wouldn't be considered a true "rivalry" during the early years, the complete results are notable and provide context to the series. In terms of the name change, the Egg Bowl between Mississippi State and Ole Miss includes both results and information from when Mississippi State went by the name "Mississippi A&M" in the early 1900s. The most reasonable compromise to me would be restoring the original information and then add in a few sentences describing the differences between the two eras. What are your thoughts on this? B1GLAX2 (talk) 02:18, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- Let's move the conversation to the article's talk page so other users can chime in. B1GLAX2 (talk) 02:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
- : @ByzantineIsRoman: The compromise looks good, thank you for your cooperation and happy editing! Cheers B1GLAX2 (talk) 17:01, 14 March 2021 (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. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:54, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
March 2021
[edit]
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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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. Fences&Windows 23:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
December 2023
[edit]
Hello, ByzantineIsRoman, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia. Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who misuse multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please disclose these connections. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 20:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
- Absolute nonsense. I don’t know what you’re talking about ByzantineIsRoman (talk) 21:32, 3 December 2023 (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.