User talk:BoogieFreeman

Welcome![edit]

Hello, BoogieFreeman, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Thomas Tuchel. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Mattythewhite (talk) 21:22, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2019[edit]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at Talk:National Basketball Association, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. —Bagumba (talk) 08:35, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:34, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

Request reason:

I haven't been provided a clear reason or example as to why my editing privileges have been restricted. Any edits I have provided have been constructive, and I have generally conceded when in conflicts. This block is nonsensical.

Accept reason:

I will remove the block as I don't think it needs to continue. Please consider the concerns given here. 331dot (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ad Orientem: I think I know it, but could you clarify the reason for the block? Thanks 331dot (talk) 10:43, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 331dot. The block was in response to this report at AIV and this edit in particular. Also note their recent TP history. That said and in fairness, this is not a case of deliberate vandalism or NOTHERE behavior. So if you are inclined to unblock, I am happy to defer to your judgement. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:15, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No comment on the unblock request for the moment, but BoogieFreeman, please note: Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. —DoRD (talk) 12:51, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that you (BoogieFreeman) should ease up on the use of "minor edit". You also need to be better about providing sources for your claims and waiting for discussion to reach consensus (if there is one). I'd be willing to unblock early if you agree to do these things. 331dot (talk) 13:35, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression this this edit was constructive on the basis it just removed puffery, yet retained the core information already on the page. To be given a block for this seems misguided. But in terms of your above concerns, I am willing to concede on those. @331dot, @Ad Orientem — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoogieFreeman (talk • contribs) 16:10, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BoogieFreeman, as noted above, please don't forget to sign your posts. Also, your notifications above failed because a signature is required for pings to work. —DoRD (talk) 16:31, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ad Orientem: @DoRD: @331dot: They were reported for this edit. In the edit they removed content from the infobox with no edit summary and added unsourced content to a BLP, with the content they added also violating WP:NPOV/WP:WIKIVOICE. Considering all the talk page warnings that have been removed (including a lot for edit waring), I felt a couple days away from Wikipedia would help this user understand that what they are doing is wrong. Instead were just telling them to not user the minor edit box so much. StaticVapor message me! 18:21, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to accept the judgement of the other two admins you pinged, but I'm hoping that this discussion will help this matter. 331dot (talk) 19:35, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that concerns over various instances of problematic editing have been communicated effectively and at this point, I'm not seeing a compelling argument for re-blocking. I suggest we all move on with the hope that we won't need to revisit any of this in the future. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because the unblock discussion was already underway, I deferred and just mentioned the minor edits. Yes, 331dot agreed with me, but he also instructed BoogieFreeman to provide sourcing and to gain consensus, so I disagree that minor edits were the only area of discussion. —DoRD (talk) 19:51, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Respect to all three of you for the work you do and thanks for the responses. My worry is this will change nothing. In his responses it seems like Boogie is just bewildered that he was blocked, insisting he did no wrong. I do not have full knowledge of the past edit warring, since it is not in my topic area. This is why I have not taken this user to ANI a long time ago. We shall see if that short block helps this user, I just do not see a necessity in this user being warned again, before being reported for edit warring or unsourced edits/unexplained removals. Even then, a AIV report would probably be declined. StaticVapor message me! 20:02, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I just stumbled into this while reviewing unblock requests, so I have no other knowledge of what has been going on, but if the problematic behavior continues, I'll be willing to look into it. —DoRD (talk) 20:10, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, 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 notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. This is the only warning you're going to get from me. First, you're still engaging in the disruptive behavior that you've been blocked for previously. You are not addressing your changes on article talk pages as you must do if your changes are challenged and you are not providing proper sourcing for your edits. Second, you are still marking large changes as minor edits contrary to guidelines. —DoRD (talk) 14:31, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. 331dot (talk) 16:43, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I was in error to give you another chance. It's going to be hard for you to be unblocked now, especially after you changed my comments to say something that I did not say. 331dot (talk) 16:44, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry[edit]

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry per evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BoogieFreeman. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you believe that this block was in error, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. – bradv🍁 01:32, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]