User talk:Edday1051

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hello, Edday1051 and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:00, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous

NFL signings[edit]

For players that sign with new teams don't forget to add the new teams player category, thanks.--Yankees10 17:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roster cuts[edit]

If a player appeared in games for the team last year, then the infobox should say 2012 not 2013.--Yankees10 18:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Yankees, yeah I wasn't sure what to do with that. Has there been a consensus among the editors about that? My opinion is that with players that get cut during the new league year(start of free agency which begins usually around mid March), I think we should include the new league year in the career history. The reasoning is that they are technically with the team for that year once the new league year starts. Edday1051 (talk) 18:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if theres ever really been a discussion and consensus but it's just been the way its done for the last five years or so. --Yankees10 19:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I posted on this topic in the talk page for the NFL wikiproject and didn't get any responses. Not sure man, I still think we should include the current year in the career history. Edday1051 (talk) 19:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My problem with that is that it is misleading. For example if a player plays on a team since 2008 and is a final cut in 2013, it would look like the player appeared in a game for the team that season. There is no indication like the ":*Offseason and/or practice squad member only" that the player did not appear in a game.--Yankees10 19:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
yeah you're right. It definitely can be misleading, though I think it should be noted that the player was with the team, since "technically" he was a member of that team during the new league year. I have no idea how to do that without making the career history section too clunky for players that have been active for a team in prior years, but then cut during the offseason or preseason of the new league year. Edday1051 (talk) 19:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think its just better to leave it in the body of the article so that the infobox doesn't get cluttered.--Yankees10 20:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Despite it being possibly misleading, I think it would be incorrect to not include the new league year, as it would technically indicate the player's contract ended the year before, which is not the case for players that return and are cut during the new league year's offseason or preseason. The best solution is to either make some sort of notation for it or scrap it all together and do what the MLB player pages do, which is to only include a team in the career history if and only they appear on the active roster for that particular team and year. Edday1051 (talk) 01:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't mind it being like the MLB player infoboxes. I never was a fan of putting teams they didn't play in games with in the infobox anyway. Thats something we'd definitly have to discuss on WP:NFL though.--Yankees10 04:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you still adding 2013?--Yankees10 22:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

when did we come to an agreement on that? I made it clear that my position/opinion on it was that it is technically wrong not to include it. Re-read my last comment above. Edday1051 (talk) 01:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But the way you're doing it goes against the way its been done for years. Shouldn't you wait for a discussion that supports you're way before continuing?--Yankees10 01:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I posted about this topic in the nfl wikiproject talk page a while ago and got exactly zero responses, so I just moved forward and did what I thought was right. If we are to include teams in the career history for all players(inactive, offseason, active, preseason, etc), then it should be noted as such for players who get cut during the new league year. There should be a distinction between a player who's contract runs out and hits free agency and a player that returns to the team and gets cut sometime between the start of the new league year and the regular season Edday1051 (talk) 03:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the non-response, unfortunately a lot of the old-time heavy NFL editors (Chrisjnelson, Giants27, Pats1, Eagles247) don't edit much anymore, so there are fewer responses. I definitely would have responded if I would have noticed. Anyways now that there seems to be a discussion taking place, I suggest you not make any of these changes. At least thats what i'm going to do.--Yankees10 03:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anthony Jennings, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Senior year. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 2016[edit]

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. 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 may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 21:14, 31 August 2016 (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).

Edday1051 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was not aware you could not have multiple accounts. I've made edits using three different accounts for years and I've never had this issue or accusation of "sock puppetry". I'm sure I've run across that term at some point, but have not understood the meaning of that term until today. Considering the accounts would all have been logged under the same IP address for several years now, why is it just now that I've been banned for "sock puppetry?" I've never had any issues using multiple accounts before and never even thought for a moment that there was anything wrong with that. I've used the secondary accounts for the exact purpose of dealing with the "contentious" edits, which I did not want to handle with my main account(Edday1051). I have made several "troll" edits in the past, which were years ago. The recent "edit wars" were all made in good faith. You can go through each edit and revert I've made and you can see they were made in good faith. The recent incident, in which I made the edit of adding David Carr's draft legacy to the intro is now currently present, with the wording slightly tweaked, in the latest version of that article, further proving that those edits and reverts were made in good faith. If the accusation is that I used a separate account to make contentious edits or being in violation of the "Good hand" and "bad hand" accounts rule, I'm 100% guilty as charged and I will accept the block. I'm 100% guilty of "edit warring," but I do want to note that I've never engaged in "edit warring" for fun. It has always been in good faith and related to the content of the article. That said, I do want to make clear that I've never used multiple accounts in a dispute to create the illusion of support from multiple users on my side of the argument, which according to Wikipedia:Sock puppetry is one of the main reasons for sock puppetry. You can go through any dispute that I've gotten into on any talk page and you can see I've never done anything like that. The last time I edited the David Carr article with my main account was years ago. All of the recent edits on that article were made with the secondary account. I'm 100% certain that I've never commented on a dispute with more than one account at the same time. You can go through my edit history and it will show 99.9% of my edits have been constructive and made in good faith. Edday1051 (talk) 00:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

So, from above - you admit (even using the term) that you've engaged in edit warring. You admit to using your multiple accounts to engage in "troll edits" (your words), and while apparently edit warring wasn't fun for you - you appear to believe it was somehow allowed. Ignorance of the rules is not an excuse. You may want to read the Guide to unblock requests. SQLQuery me! 03:50, 1 September 2016 (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 blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Edday1051 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #16449 was submitted on Sep 01, 2016 01:44:40. This review is now closed.


--UTRSBot (talk) 01:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016[edit]

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).

Edday1051 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I've taken the time to read up on Wikipedia:Sock puppetry and several other wiki articles pertaining to the rules about editing. I am fully aware of my actions that have led up to this block. I admittedly was never to keen on reading up on wikipedia rules and have in the past showed complete lack of interest in them. I was falsely under the presumption that as long as my edits were made in "good faith," that it would be okay. Regarding the sock puppetry, as I've stated in my first appeal, it was never my intention to deceive anyone into thinking I was multiple people. I have never used multiple accounts in a scenario where one account would back up another account in a dispute or discussion. I used a secondary account for the "contentious" edits, which I am now aware is against the rules. I do not intend on using multiple accounts for this purpose again. The edit warring is a rule that I was aware of and blatantly disregarded. These were situations where I felt an edit was made in good faith by me and was removed for no good reason. I let my frustration take over and it would end up in multiple reverts. I won't rehash all the minute details of the David Carr situation, but the original edit by me that started the recent incident was the addition of David Carr's "draft bust legacy" to the intro, which I felt was appropriate and relevant enough to include in the intro. It was consistently removed and that led to a revert war. That information is now included in the intro of the current version of that article, showing my edits were made in good faith. That said, I am fully aware that getting into those "edit wars" are unacceptable under any circumstances and I don't intend on engaging in that behavior again. I will make sure to use the talk page to discuss any disputes that arise before making any further edits of that article. This block relates almost entirely to the David Carr article and I plan on avoiding that article like the plague in the future. I ask that my edit history is taken into consideration. The vast majority of which has been constructive. The vast majority of my edits pertain to transaction information for NFL player articles. Most of which are well sourced and are not something that may cause controversy or disputes. I have made some longer edits such as those made for Shawn Oakman, Roger Lewis (American football), J. W. Walsh, and a few others that are well sourced and as far as I can tell, have never caused any disputes. I want to reiterate that I am fully aware of what I did wrong that led to this block and I intend on not engaging in that behavior again Edday1051 (talk) 13:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

At this stage I am declining your unblock request. Only a CU can overturn a CU block and so far Bbb23 has declined to comment further. The Wikipedia:Standard offer may apply here. If you can wait a few months, without socking, then come back with another request, it may be looked on favourably. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:46, 11 October 2016 (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.

Based on your history before being blocked and after the block, I would not agree to your being unblocked. After the block, your unblock request was remarkably self-absorbed on its face. Even assuming you were unaware of policy, common sense should tell you that having one account to make "nice" edits and one to make "contentious" edits can't possibly be permissible. There's a reason for the old adage that ignorance of the law is no excuse, and that is because most violations of rules are obvious. Without waiting for a response to your unblock request, you appealed to UTRS. Both your unblock request and your UTRS appeal were denied. You then created another account. After I blocked that account, you made another lengthy unblock request at that Talk page in which one of the things you said was "I assumed maybe I'm free to make a new account and start new." This was supposedly based on your notion that because the autoblock on your IP disappeared, you could do what you want.
I suggest you wait at least six months (the "standard" offer) before requesting an unblock. I'm not making any promises as to what will happen if and when you do that, but trying to get unblocked on this record in fewer than six months is more likely to hurt you than help you.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the response and giving me an opportunity to explain myself. I do not think it's fair that I get essentially banned for 6 months with no guarantee that I'll ever get my editing privileges back based on essentially an incident that is based on one article. This pretty much entirely stems from the David Carr article, which again, the edit that I proposed that started this whole thing off is now present in the current version of the article. This shows that those edits were made in good faith and these were not some "trolling" incident. If this were a case of me constantly vandalizing various articles over and over again with complete nonsense, which is what I see in other cases like this in which a long block is handed out, then a long block would be appropriate. Also take into consideration my edit history outside of the David Carr article, the vast majority of which are constructive edits that have never caused any disputes. As for a "self-absorbed" vibe to my first appeal, that's entirely caused by my frustration of getting blocked and I apologize for the tone in which that appeal was made. I should have waited a few days to cool off before making that appeal. As you can see with my second appeal, I'm much more level headed about the situation and I am regretful of what took place. If you consider the edit history of the David Carr article in which my edits were consistently reverted over and over again, I hope you could understand my frustration over it. Again, I'm absolutely aware that those multiple reverts are inappropriate under any circumstance and I am regretful of it and I intend on never engaging in that behavior again. Edday1051 (talk) 15:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@L235:, you just blocked an innocent user. 50.29.199.144 has absolutely zero connection to me. Did you checkuser the accounts? I've looked up that IP and it is located in a different state. It appears you haven't bothered to checkuser the accounts and have requested a block on very thin edit history evidence. Considering there's only a handful of users that edit the same NFL and college football pages I've edited, you could probably draw a connection from me to just about any of those same users editing the same pages I have. You should request a checkuser and it will clearly show we are not the same user. I have been up front about my use of multiple accounts. You can look at my unblock requests. user:Edday1051, user:Manning954, user:Bassman1010, and user:budden30 are the only accounts I've ever edited with. You can check the edit histories and you'll see 99% are good faith edits and I've never used multiple accounts to "back up" the other account in a dispute. user:budden30 was the account I created after an IP block lapse and I wasn't aware I was not allowed to create another account. You can check the edit history and you can see that all I used that account for was to explain my side of the story on user:UW Dawgs talk page, who continues to falsely accuse other users of being my sockpuppets. He has already falsely accused user:Diddykong1130 of being a sockpuppet and now he has accused and gotten 50.29.199.144 blocked. I've refrained from adding further comments until an admin made their judgment, but now I have no choice but to make a comment as an innocent user has been falsely accused and blocked. Edday1051 (talk) 00:37, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, user:50.29.199.144 has been editing since December of last year. I had a checkuser done on my IP a month ago. Wouldn't user:50.29.199.144 have come up on that checkuser evidence? With all due respect, it's pretty irresponsible to request a block on such little edit history evidence. @Bbb23:, can you take a look at this and clear user:50.29.199.144. I feel pretty bad about getting these innocent users dragged into this mess. Edday1051 (talk) 00:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:GeneralizationsAreBad, User:Ivanvector, User:Vanjagenije: can one of you admins review the block regarding user:50.29.199.144. This user has been suspected of being my sockpuppet and has been blocked. I've already attempted to alert User:Bbb23 and User:L235. Bbb23 is the admin that checkusered my account and blocked the 4 accounts(and the ONLY accounts that I've ever created and edited with) that I've already copped to using multiple accounts as you can see in my earlier statements I've made above. He should be aware of my IP and my location and should be able to compare that to the location of user:50.29.199.144. Bbb23 has yet to respond and so has User:L235, who is the one that requested the block.
So let's go over a few things here. I had 3 active accounts(user:Edday1051, user:Manning954, user:Bassman1010), which I never hid or abused in the manner of trying to make it look like I was multiple people or to create some illusion of consensus. The edit histories will show that and by the fact that I used all three accounts on the same computer and same IP. user:budden30 was created after the fact and the reasoning is above in my earlier statments. I never tried to mask that by using proxies or whatever other tools that can hide your IP. But if the accusation of user:50.29.199.144 being my sockpuppet were true, then it would mean that I used three active accounts to edit and made no attempt to mask their IPs to make it look like different users, but for this one account(user:50.29.199.144), I used a proxy to make it look like this account was from another state? How does that make any sense? I made zero effort to hide the IPs for the three active accounts, but for this one other account, I went through the trouble of editing through a proxy??? Makes absolutely zero sense. Secondly, before that scenario could be true, it would have to be determined that 50.29.199.144 is in fact an IP associated with a proxy...correct?....since that IP does not match my IP and the locations are in different states? I'm no expert on IP addresses and proxies, but from what I've read about checkuser, it can be determined by a checkuser whether or not an IP is connected to a proxy, which is why I am requesting a checkuser. So if it is determined that it is a proxy, then that is evidence against me and I would be more understanding of the suspected sockpuppetry and I would happily attempt to provide additional evidence to prove that user:50.29.199.144 and I are not the same user. Instead, no checkuser was requsted or completed, and no attempt at a discussion was made before or after the block on user:50.29.199.144 was requested. If it turns out 50.29.199.144 is NOT an IP associated with a proxy, then for User:50.29.199.144 to be my sockpuppet, I would have to drive to and break into his house and make edits through his IP. I guess it isn't impossible considering the shortest time span between one of his/her edits and mine is 15 hours. Not impossible, but still completely absurd. This absurd scenario would have to be true considering User:50.29.199.144 has been editing since December of last year and we've made edits in the same time frame. This is not an account that was created after I was blocked. I could be wrong, but this is likely why User:Diddykong1130 was determined to be unrelated, even without a checkuser as the checkuser on my main account was conducted a month ago and Diddykong1130 has edited for much longer than that and in the same time frame as my active accounts. The "behavioral evidence" is way more damning in regards to Diddykong1130, but all that is required to see the lack of connection is what I just stated in the previous sentence and/or a checkuser to confirm that. What I don't understand is why the same thing wasn't done for User:50.29.199.144. If the same standard of proof/"behaviorial evidence" that was used to find User:50.29.199.144 guilty was used on Diddykong1130, then Diddykong1130 would surely be blocked right now and so would a number of other users who have edited the same pages I have. Diddykong has made an edit 26 minutes within of my edits and has made several edits within just a few hours. That should be more than enough to convict him of being my sockpuppet.
As for the actual evidence presented. This assertion made by User:UW Dawgs that Shawn Oakman and Jasper Brinkley are "obscure" NFL free agents is just plain wrong. They may be obscure to those that follow football casually or not at all, but for those of us that follow football closely, particularly those like me and presumably user:50.29.199.144 who take time out of our lives to edit NFL articles on wikipedia, they are not at all obscure. Up until he was arrested on a sexual assault charge, Oakman was slated to go in the first 3-4 rounds of the 2016 NFL Draft and was once considered to be a potential top pick. Even for casual observers, you likely have heard about Oakman from the meme. Jasper Brinkley is an 8 year veteran who has started 39 games in the last four years for 3 different teams. These two players are not D-II undrafted free agents who not even the most hardcore football fans have ever heard about. Oakman was a big time college football player and Brinkley is an 8 year NFL veteran. Secondly, that edit was made two weeks after the NFL Draft in which Oakman went undrafted. I made some significant edits to his page to reflect that. That edit was not done out of the blue. As to why User:50.29.199.144 made an edit three days after mine? Coincidence? He/she had the same thought two weeks after the draft of "whatever happened to that Oakman guy...did he get drafted?" I mean there are a million different reasons how that could of happened. As for Jasper Brinkley, the two edits were made A MONTH APART. Let me repeat: A MONTH APART. My edit was on April 18 and the next edit by User:50.29.199.144 was on May 20. How in the world is that evidence of us being the same user? April 18 was when OTAs(official team activities) began and May 24 was the start of NFL minicamps. These edits were not made when the "player not in the midst of a news event/cycle" as UW Dawgs claims. The Kyle Love edits look like the smoking gun, if not for the fact they were made THREE MONTHS APART. I mean jesus christ..........I updated his uniform number in September and User:50.29.199.144 edited his position from "nose tackle" to "defensive tackle" and several other edits in the body of the article THREE MONTHS LATER in December. Well that's the smoking gun. Lock him up and and throw away the key. Sorry for my sarcasm, but come on man. That is ridiculous. There are probably dozens of editors who have made those same exact edits updating NFL infoboxes...updating teams, jersey numbers, positions, height and weight, statistics, etc. I've written close to a novella here, but if you have any questions for me or require any additional information, I'll happily answer them. Edday1051 (talk) 23:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see your comments, Edday; I might have missed your earlier ones when I was testing adjustments to my ping notifications. I haven't reviewed them yet, but I want to note that CheckUsers will ordinarily not connect named accounts to IP addresses. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:14, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
whats up Kevin. Good to finally hear back from you. I'm not really understanding why you can't connect named accounts to IP addresses. Were trying to connect me(edday1051) to this IP(50.29.199.144). Feel free to correct my naivety, but isn't this as simple as looking at the location of the IP and comparing it to my IP and location? You said in the investigation page that it is a static IP, that it doesn't change, so there isn't much risk of implicating other users right? And looking at the edit history of that IP address, it looks like its the same person editing the same type of articles(mostly NFL pages) since December of last year. Edday1051 (talk) 23:40, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Edday1051. I'm not entirely sure why you've pinged me to this request, I am not an administrator and to my knowledge I have not previously interacted with your case, so please consider my remarks to be general comments. Users with CheckUser permissions are generally forbidden from publicly revealing a named account's IP address. Of the users you alerted above, only Bbb23 has that access, but I suspect that if he is able to view your IP address, he is not able to comment on it one way or the other. The link between your account and the IP's edits was made based on the similarities in behaviour between the two, not on technical evidence. And if 50.29.199.144 has indeed been blocked in error (it does happen) then it is up to that user to launch an appeal - there's nothing you can do from here. You should worry about your own account, not some random IP that you assert isn't you. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:03, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
hey Ivan. My bad, I thought you were an admin. I saw your name on the sockpuppet investigations page and though you were an admin. The IP users block does concern me as they are saying it is my sockpuppet. They are saying that IP user is me, so that reflects badly on me. That doesn't look too good in my unblock appeal. And as for User talk:50.29.199.144, he has filed an appeal and an admin finds the behavior evidence is convincing and denied the appeal. Look at what 50.29.199.144 writes underneath. The poor guy/girl is just willing to accept the block, even though he or she is innocent. Then he thinks it's just a one month ban. I don't think he realizes that the admins will treat him as my sockpuppet, so unless I get unblocked, he's only going to get banned again if he comes back after the month long ban. So I pretty much have no choice but to fight this myself. Edday1051 (talk) 00:25, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm not an admin and wasn't involved in the actual case itself, (besides archiving it). However, I concur with Ivanvector and Bbb23 that a) technical evidence (CU) can't be used to disclose whether the IP was yours or not b) At least 3-4 users saw the behavioral evidence as sufficiently compelling to block. So I'm afraid I can neither evaluate the technical evidence nor review the unblock request, sorry. Regards, GABgab 02:10, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:L235 and to other admins who are allowed to review this: On second look at the Shawn Oakman differences, I missed the part where User:50.29.199.144 actually removes "Oakman went undrafted in the 2016 NFL Draft," which I added three days earlier. I have to admit, that actually does look pretty bad on the surface. But beneath the surface, that edit doesn't make sense in the hypothetical situation in which User:50.29.199.144 and I are the same user. Why would I(edday1051) remove that three days later and why would I do that with a different account. That's pretty much the main reason I made the edit on May 13. That edit was to update the page to reflect the fact that Oakman went undrafted in the 2016 NFL draft, evidenced by the fact that I updated the infobox from the college infobox to the NFL infobox, which adds the "undrafted: 2016" to the infobox, as well as updating the intro and "Professional career" section to reflect his undrafted status. Why would I remove that piece of information from the professional career section three days later? As you can see from the edit I made on July 22, I added it back along with additional information. It makes zero sense for me to remove that information when that was the entire purpose of the edit I made on May 13. Why did User:50.29.199.144 remove that information? I have no idea and you will have to ask him/her. I will even admit myself, these edits do look pretty suspicious on the surface, but isn't this exactly why checkuser was created? These borderline situations where the technical evidence would remove any doubt? I'm still not understanding why checkuser cannot be used in this situation to connect a user to an IP address. Anyone can look up the location of 50.29.199.144. Now isn't it just a matter of pulling up the checkuser information on my account and comparing the two?
On my second look at the edit differences for Jasper Brinkley and Kyle Love, I'm even more baffled today at how those differences were used as evidence to suggest User:50.29.199.144 and I are the same user. Regarding Jasper Brinkley, I added news regarding him re-signing with the New York Giants on April 18. MORE THAN A MONTH later on May 20, User:50.29.199.144 makes an edit that changed Brinkley's position in the infobox from "linebacker" to "outside linebacker." In what alternate reality is this evidence of sockpuppetry? The Kyle Love differences are even more ridiculous. On September 17, I updated his uniform number. MORE THAN THREE MONTHS LATER, User:50.29.199.144 changed the position of Love in the infobox from "nose tackle" to "defensive tackle." There has to be dozens of editors who have made these same exact changes to player infoboxes. These are not peculiar edits only done by me or User:50.29.199.144 and any other user that makes these types of edits must be a sockpuppet. Completely absurd. As I've said before, I'm open to answering any questions and providing any additional information. Edday1051 (talk) 03:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was so focused on the edit difference evidence, I completely looked over the evidence where User:50.29.199.144 logs in and resumes editing after a month long absence only 8 hours after my unblock request. I have to say, that is strong evidence and I get it now. It was baffling to me anyone can look at the edit difference evidence and find that adequate enough to find sockpuppetry. But yeah, the block is totally understandable if you look at the aforementioned evidence of the IP user logging after a month long absence. I totally get it now and I don't blame anyone for confirming sockpuppetry based on that. I can only respond to that in two ways:

1) it's simply a crazy coincidence

2) it doesn't make much sense in the context of the situation. That evidence is presented by User:UW Dawgs as in User:50.29.199.144 logging in merely hours after my unblock request was DENIED on September 4, which is not true. The unblock request I submitted on September 4 was not denied, and is still in review to this day. I had looked over various articles pertaining to Wikipedia rules and policies before submitting that unblock request on September 4, particularly articles pertaining to sockpuppetry, after the first unblock request on August 31 had been denied. As you can read in the September 4 unblock request, I genuinely was remorseful about my actions and vowed to not abuse multiple accounts again. I was really hopeful about that block request being accepted. That request was NOT denied and remained in review. Why would I jeopardize that by logging in with another account through a proxy(which I explain at length several paragraphs above, me editing with a proxy makes no sense at all) later that day while my unblock request was still in review and which at the time, I thought had a pretty good chance of being accepted? Doesn't add up. It seems at this point, no amount of evidence and reasoning I present will sway anyone, which is why I ask the admins to look at the checkuser technical evidence if the reasoning I present is not enough. Edday1051 (talk) 03:31, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@MSGJ: How exactly am I deserving of an indefinite ban? As I've already stated a number of times. My use of multiple accounts were never for the reason to create an illusion of consensus or to vandalize pages. Look at the edit histories, 99% are good faith edits. I never attempted to hide my multiple accounts. I wasn't even aware you could not have multiple accounts. I edited with multiple accounts on the same computer, same IP...showing that there was nothing nefarious about my use of multiple accounts. I've looked over other sockpuppet cases and they using multiple proxies and doing all types of stuff to hide their multiple accounts. I have never engaged in anything like that. I never denied my use of multiple accounts(except for the last accusation involving user:50.29.199.144) because that is not connected to me. I've copped to the accounts that I've created and are connected to me, but that user is not me. If I was some master vandal who wanted to vandalize various pages, wouldn't I have attempted to hide my IP for the secondary accounts? But apparently I've used a proxy to edit with user:50.29.199.144, while not using a proxy or making any attempt to hide the IPs of the 3 other active accounts I was editing with. Does that make any sense at all? I have stated multiple times that I actively edited with user:Edday1051, user:Manning954, user:Bassman1010, and user:budden30. The first three were active accounts that I edited with. I copped to that as soon as they were revealed to be connected to me. I never denied it or fought it because those were in fact my accounts. I created budden30 after the IP lapse to explain my situation. That is all I did with that account. Those are the ONLY accounts I've ever created on wikipedia. user:50.29.199.144 is not connected to me. We are not the same user. Again, check the checkuser/technical data. User:Bbb23 knows that can't be connected me. He conducted the checkuser on my account and knows my geographical location. He can look up the IP users location and he can see that we are not connected. But he has simply ignored this whole discussion. He has never attempted to engage in a discussion discussing this matter. It's clear none of the reviewers have checked the technical data as you would see there's no connection.
I'm guilty as charged for using multiple accounts, but considering I did not use them to persistently vandalize or to draw some illusion of consensus in a debate, how is that I have received an indefinite block? Additionally, I did edit war as well, but that was entirely related to the David Carr dispute, which was all done in good faith. Proof of that is that the edit I suggested in the first place is now the current version of the article. You either include both the Super Bowl and bust information, or you discard both from the intro. This was not a case of me just having fun vandalizing that article. I've done some reading of the block article, and it states that blocking isn't a "punishment," it is simply to prevent further disruption. Considering this whole case is based on the disruption of the David Carr article, which again I want to emphasize was done in good faith and has since been settled, what evidence is there that I am still a threat to disrupt wikipedia? You want to block me for several weeks or months, as much as I would think that is excessive as well, I would have been fine with that, but an indefinite block is beyond excessive and unnecessary. Edday1051 (talk) 01:19, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your endless repetition is disruptive. I have therefore revoked talk page access. You may appeal through WP:UTRS.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:51, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Edday1051 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #16713 was submitted on Oct 13, 2016 00:25:58. This review is now closed.


--UTRSBot (talk) 00:25, 13 October 2016 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Edday1051 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #16719 was submitted on Oct 14, 2016 12:50:56. This review is now closed.


--UTRSBot (talk) 12:50, 14 October 2016 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Edday1051 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #16738 was submitted on Oct 17, 2016 10:29:00. This review is now closed.


--UTRSBot (talk) 10:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Edday1051 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #16746 was submitted on Oct 17, 2016 22:16:49. This review is now closed.


--UTRSBot (talk) 22:16, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Edday1051. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Edday1051 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #17965 was submitted on Apr 05, 2017 13:26:03. This review is now closed.


--UTRSBot (talk) 13:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request 12 April 2017[edit]

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).

Edday1051 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I would like to request an unblock of my account per standard offer. I understand what led to my block, which includes use of multiple accounts and edit warring, and do not intend on engaging in this behavior going forward. Edday1051 (talk) 22:29, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No reply in 7 days. Procedural decline. Re-open this request when you are able to participate in the conversation. SQLQuery me! 05:01, 20 April 2017 (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.

 Non-admin comment Since you did not thoroughly read the guide to appealing blocks, how do you intend to contribute to the encyclopedia if you are unblocked? Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 01:18, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Bbb23: since this is your CU block, do you want to weigh in here? Otherwise I'm about to pass this on to WP:AN. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:16, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector: any updates on my unblock request? Edday1051 (talk) 20:14, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Edday1051 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

re-opening unblock request. There was no response from User:Bbb23 who is the mod that banned me and it doesn't appear User:Ivanvector has proceeded in advancing my unblock request...and now User:SQL has declined the last unblock request on procedural grounds and says I should re-open the unblock request when I am able to participate in the conversation. I'm not sure what that means. Edday1051 (talk) 09:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Procedural decline; this block is now up for review at the administrators' noticeboard per the standard offer. Closing the template to remove it from the list of active requests. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See below. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Apologies for losing track of this. I can only guess that SQL was looking for your reply to Boomer Vial's loaded question above, or else they were confused because I hadn't followed up. Either way, I will post your request at the administrators' noticeboard in a few minutes. There will be a community discussion; if you would like to add anything please leave a note on this page. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:01, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector: Thanks for forwarding this to the admin board. As for Boomer Vial's question, I don't intend on creating and using multiple accounts for abusive purposes and I can avoid edit warring by discussing any issues on the talk page instead of engaging in edit warring. I don't have as much free time as I used to have so I probably won't be making any long edits and will mostly be making smaller uncontroversial edits regarding infoboxes and transactional information, which is what most of my edits had previously consisted of. I see that user:50.29.199.144 has been brought up on the noticeboard discussion and for the millionth time, I want to emphatically state that I have no connection to that user or that IP. I've written at length about this issue regarding that IP user being my sockpuppet above on this talk page. Any additional questions or details that are needed, I will happily answer them. Edday1051 (talk) 20:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: Any updates? Edday1051 (talk) 04:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@UW Dawgs: wow dude, are you still on my case six months later? Nice job falsely accusing multiple innocent users of being my sockpuppets. Well done getting that IP user banned. How much time did you waste on that? I've already addressed the edit warring and the use of multiple accounts that got me banned. I've been banned from editing indefinitely and have stated that I'm well aware of the reasons why it happened and "intend" on not doing it again. Definition of intend: have (a course of action) as one's purpose or objective; plan. What is wrong with saying I "intend" on not doing the things that caused me to be banned? You are so obsessed with me that you will stretch anything to make me look bad. As for that comment directed at Crash underride, I could see how that can be perceived as a "threat," but did I claim to be a moderator that has the power to ban him? That is an emphatic no. I simply said that because it is the truth, since I was banned for the very exact reason. I never claimed that I was a mod that was going to ban him, but that if he keeps reverting a perfectly fine edit, then he will get banned. It's something I shouldn't have written, but it's not as nefarious as you are making it out to be. Secondly, if you read the rest of that comment, am I being unreasonable?
That is essentially the gist of the edit warring. I hate to rehash the David Carr saga that led to my ban that happened half a year ago, but multiple users including crash underride were reverting my edits that were really not even controversial. I have to emphasize the fact that my original edit that triggered this "controversy" is now present on the current page right now. Go through the edit history of David Carr's page. I've added that edit in multiple times that were present for weeks and months, but then somebody would remove it, but nobody had an issue with other users reverting or removing my edit, but once I start editing or reverting edits, it gets treated like the end of the world. Why is it that nobody told those users to discuss it on the talk page before removing or reverting my edits? I have admittedly been hostile with users that revert my edits and have stated multiple times that I intend on not edit warring and discussing issues that arise on the talk page. And seriously, @UW Dawgs:, get off my case man. Life is too short to holding some weird grudge against me. I get it that you have some weird obsession me and it would fill you with joy for me to be banned forever, but you don't think an indefinite ban and no editing for six months is enough of a punishment? Especially considering the circumstances in which I did not use multiple accounts for consensus reasons and edit warring that involved an edit that is now currently present on the latest version of the article in question? Go read all of the things I've written on this talk page. I've addressed all of these issues that you bring up many times over. Edday1051 (talk) 05:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: Any updates? Edday1051 (talk) 22:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the nature of this situation there is some consultation involved. It is proceeding slowly, but I haven't forgotten about this. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 23:40, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector: thanks for the update Edday1051 (talk) 10:42, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have unblocked you per this community discussion. I apologize again for the length of time it took to get all the boxes ticked on this. If you have any questions about this please ask here, I and several other users are watching this page. Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

May 2017[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm UW Dawgs. I noticed that you made a change to an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.

Specifically, none of your recent edits use citations and many/most are directly contradicted via existing links to official player profile pages within the "External links" section. Please familiarize yourself with our policy of WP:V. UW Dawgs (talk) 04:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Please do not add or change content, as you did at Elite 11, 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. UW Dawgs (talk) 03:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Elite 11. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. UW Dawgs (talk) 02:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia. UW Dawgs (talk) 02:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC) whoa....you are threatening me dude. Pretty sure that is against wikipedia rules. Didn't you accuse me of doing the same thing to that crashunderide guy? In good faith, I added a bunch of citations, but I didn't have time to finish. I will get to it. Relax bud. From the verifiability page, it says "In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step." Edday1051 (talk) 03:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of unsourced content contradicting existing sources[edit]

  • You changed the weight of this player from 191# to 205# without providing a source, while the existing profile link (see External links) states 191#.
  • You changed the weight of this player from 220# to 225#, while the existing infobox link states 220#.
  • You changed the weight of this player from 211# to 200#, while existing profile link is 404 and per archive previously stated 211#.
  • You added an academic major which is not supported elsewhere in the article body and the existing profile link states "has not declared a major."
  • You changed the weight of this player to 200#, while the existing profile link states 195#.
  • You changed the weight of this player to 230#, while both the existing infobox and profile links state 235#.
  • You changed the weight of this player to from 195# to 191#, while the existing profile link states 195#.

This issue was raised at 04:18, 22 May 2017 on your Talk page as currently shown above ("Specifically, none of your recent edits use citations and many/most are directly contradicted via existing links to official player profile pages within the "External links" section. Please familiarize yourself with our policy of WP:V."). Please stop this pattern in your edits. UW Dawgs (talk) 10:55, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:UW Dawgs hmmmmm, why did Yankees10 restore my edits?......oh right, because my edits were accurate and the bio link for each of those pages you mentioned were outdated. I will be updating the ones that were not updated by Yankees10 shortly. I will admit I should have updated those bio pages and I would have if I had known they were outdated. It appears you didn't know they were outdated either since you reverted my edit based on the outdated bio pages. I should have checked them and will do so going forward, but that doesn't take away the fact that those were accurate edits and you were also in the wrong by not realizing the bio pages listed were outdated and also not giving me an opportunity to provide the updated source, which you could have easily found by going directly to the current player pages. This is all moot since you and I know that this has nothing to do with whether the information was accurate or sourced properly. This is about your weird little obsession with me. It is your life mission to get me blocked again, evident by your little petty attempt to report me for vandalism yesterday lol and your multiple false accusations of sockpuppetry, one of which you actually got blocked. Do you feel good about yourself that you got an innocent user blocked? Seriously, get off my back and get on with your life. Edday1051 (talk) 19:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017[edit]

Please do not restore unsourced content as you did here. Doing so is against our core policies of WP:V and WP:PROVEIT.

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia. UW Dawgs (talk) 14:13, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Edday1051, I know there's two sides to this dispute, but I must point out that you are required to provide an inline citation to a reliable source when you add or change content about living persons, and it is recommended by policy that inaccurate or unverifiable information about living persons be removed immediately without waiting for discussion. You open yourself to having your edits reverted when you do not provide sources. I see that you've asked for your edit to be restored while you look for a source or for when you have time to add the source later, but Wikipedia does not work like that: if your material is contested, the burden is on you to provide the source for your content. If you are consulting one of an article's external links for information when you are making your changes, it is perfectly acceptable to simply add a link beside your content enclosed by "ref" tags, so that other readers and editors can verify your information. Of course it's better to use one of the {{cite}} templates, but if you are short on time a bare link meets the requirements, and you can fix that later (or someone else will, eventually). There's also automated tools for this, but I'm not familiar with their use.
Please do not make any more edits which add or restore unsourced content, even if you intend to add the source later. And please do not refer to other editors as "vandals" when they are editing in good faith. Any questions, please ask. Thanks. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector: I'm well aware that citations are required and necessary, but this dispute has very little to do with verifiability. The key here is "if your material is contested." I've asked User:UW Dawgs if he finds any of my edits objectionable. He hasn't pointed out a single objection to any part of my edits. I have in good faith added 42 citations and still he feels the need to revert my edits whenever possible. He has consistently removed uncontroversial edits, even when a source is provided, as evident by the last revert, where I posted the source in the external links, as I could not think of an adequate place to put an inline citation for the yearly crop of players. Considering our history, this is nothing but provocation on his part. This guy apparently feels slighted for something I did to him, which is odd, considering I'm the one that got banned. Even after I got banned, he falsely accused multiple people of being my sockpuppets and even got that IP user banned. Then I get unblocked and he's been hounding me ever since. Part of the reason I got banned was due to edit warring and not talking it out on the talk page. UW Dawgs goes directly to reverting my good faith edits and he doesn't even get a warning? How about just letting me know that the page would benefit from inline citations and giving me an opportunity to add citations, which is exactly what the verifiability page suggests, especially for uncontroversial edits. Edday1051 (talk) 10:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Experiences survey[edit]

Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Edday1051. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

inclusion of first intial as differentiation[edit]

This edit removed the differentiating first initial from Template:Arizona State Sun Devils quarterback navbox with an edit summary of "neither QB has initial on their jersey".

We use last names (alone) to conserve space, but include abbreviated first names when a last name is shared. This context allows a reader to directly access the "Jo. Smith" vs "Ji. Smith" article with confidence, rather than having to guess from two identical link names such as "Smith."

Therefore your edit to our consensus was reverted with an edit summary of "rvt for distinct link names per norms."

You again inserted your preference with an edit summary of "you are still stalking me lol. What norms? Neither had their initial on their jersey."

Using "jersey name" is not an encyclopedic standard. It also sounds like WP:OR which is prohibited by policy. It might have interesting implications for He Hate Me and Template:Las Vegas Outlaws roster (XFL).

With little effort, you can see "F. Last" in action within any number of sport and league contexts:

I am posting the above due to the apparent gap between both edit summaries and WP:NOR, with both edits also making wiki less usable to readers. Thank you, UW Dawgs (talk) 02:36, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@UW Dawgs: jesus, how long did it take you to write that up? I would go and find the dozens of navboxes that do not differentiate with an initial for those that have the same last name, but I have a life and have other things to do with my time. Putting the initials is far from the "norm" as you claim it is. Secondly, if "confusion" is such a concern, put the entire first name in the navboxes. Plenty of navboxes use full names and space is not much of an issue, since they are collapsible. You are assuming people are idiots. The idea that someone would not be able to differentiate two players with the same last name who played decades apart is absurd. I mean what is there like 2 or 3 individuals at most in a single navbox with the same last name? If you are to use only their last name, you should use their own preferred way of presenting their last name, which would be evident by the one they used on their jersey. Using an initial to identify themselves is a very personal thing, which is evident by the fact that a number of players with common last names don't even use an initial on their jersey or use other prefixes or suffixes to identify themselves on their jerseys or on their listed name in their player bios. But, this is all moot. We know what this is actually about. I'm just glad you are still obsessed with me and I have a guardian angel to look over all my edits. I thought you had forgotten about me. I'm just happy I have a permanent residence inside your head. Edday1051 (talk) 02:33, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@UW Dawgs: And who is Corkythehornetfan? He's one of your wiki internet friends that you went crying to?Edday1051 (talk) 02:39, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018[edit]

Information icon Please do not add or change content, as you did at John Matuszak, 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. DonIago (talk) 15:47, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changing Infobox in NFL players articles[edit]

Why are you changing the Infobox high school field format in all of the NFL players articles ?. The way you are doing it is not part o the standard Wipedia notation.Tecmo (talk) 13:20, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

hey, changing per consensus. Check the discussion here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League Edday1051 (talk) 13:22, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League page where the standard has changed.Tecmo (talk) 00:29, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

it was there at the top of the page when I posted it. It has since been archived. Here it is: high school format consensus. The earlier discussions are posted above that. Edday1051 (talk) 00:33, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Tecmo: How many pages did you change? Just Dallas Cowboys players or did you change other player pages on other teams as well? Edday1051 (talk) 00:43, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just some pages of Dallas Cowboys players, but where is it mentioned that it is the new Standard ?Tecmo (talk) 23:14, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Tecmo: the results are right there. The "nba style" was the consensus, therefore that was the agreement to change the standard. Accordingly, the nfl biography template page has been updated to reflect the new standard high school format: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_NFL_biography. - Edday1051 (talk) 13:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Frank Herron, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Centerville, Illinois (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Edday1051. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Edday1051&oldid=1142983248"