User talk:Panaajack

August 2012[edit]

Hello, I'm Eeekster. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Jarrett Lee seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Eeekster (talk) 23:09, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Jordan Jefferson‎ shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
You've broken 3RR on this article using this account and your self-admitted IP 98.67.206.214. Self revert or you will be blocked. Meters (talk) 06:38, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Jordan Jefferson. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. MikeWazowski (talk) 23:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adding them now

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jarrett Lee. 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.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
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; 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. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Courcelles 17:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is also a checkuserblock, and now indefinite, because of your use of Curiousgeorgetown (talk · contribs) and various IP's in this edit war. Courcelles 17:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find it disturbing that Wiki editors are choosing a POV rather than reviewing an article and slecting that which is well sourced, and grammatically correct. Your most recent revert contains the line "He came in late in the the third quarter after most of the starters had left the game and was 5 of 12". Clearly not correct, but it espouses the view that you are now pushing, so correct grammar means nothing. I will endeavor to find someone who has higher authority and ask if they approve of reverts that continue to grammar errors after REPEATED attempts at correcting them!

Hello, I'm ShortyRob. You are correct that there is a redundant “the” in the NPOV version. However, your argument that you repeatedly reverted to your POV version because of your concern about "grammar errors" rings exceptionally hollow for at least three reasons.

First, I made specific and repeated requests to you to correct errors if they existed: “please correct spelling/grammar issues, but do not push POV” and “Correct error if it exists, but stop POV push.” You could have quite simply deleted the redundant “the” that you discovered.

Second, the POV version to which you continued to revert contained multiple grammar errors:

In the subsection “2008 season”:

"Junior Ryan Perrilloux"; the word “junior” should not be capitalized; and
in the same sentence, you have a coordinating conjunction (but), but there is no subject of the second clause.

In the subsection “2010 season”:

you have an improper comma before the preposition "with" in the sentence, "LSU finished 107th in the nation in passing, with Lee not being afforded any opportunities to start."
the entire sentence is poorly worded; and
in the last sentence of the subsection, you again have a coordinating conjunction (and), but there is no subject of the second clause.

In the subsection “2011 season”:

commas are overused in the sentence, “Lee responded well to the pressure, despite having only one week of practice, and multiple drops by his receivers against Oregon, who played for the BCS championship the previous year.”;
commas are overused in the sentence, “Lee continued to start, and win, for several more games after the other QB was reinstated.”; and
you misconjugated the verb “come” in the sentence, “This caused heated exchanges from some fans and media, with the sharpest public criticism came from Bobby Hebert in a post game question where he demanded to know why Miles did not put Lee into the game.”

In the subsection “Professional career,” commas are overused in the sentence, “Lee was 3/3 for 43 yards, on the final 9-play 53-yard drive, that allowed the Chargers to kick the game winning field goal with :04 left on the clock.”

Third, the POV version to which you continued to revert contained multiple, basic, factual errors:

Example 1: “Jarrett attended Louisiana State University where he was twice the starting quarterback, 2008 and 2011.” Lee was not the starting quarterback twice. He started 18 games. He was not even the starting quarterback for just two years. He started games in three years: 2008, 2009, and 2011.

Example 2: Lee is not “Succeeded by Zach Mettenberger.” If you intend to show Lee’s predecessor and successor by seasons, then Flynn is the predecessor for 2007, and Mettenberger is the successor for 2012. However, you have Andrew Hatch as the predecessor. Andrew Hatch did not start any games in 2007. Therefore, if Andew Hatch preceded Lee because Hatch started the first three games of 2008, then Jordan Jefferson succeeded Lee because he started the last five games of 2011.

I will leave the Jordan Jefferson article for another day except to say that your POV version for Jordan Jefferson contains numerous spelling/grammar errors and fundamental factual errors.ShortyRob (talk) 21:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]