User talk:John Bois

Dan Quinn

Your statement was false. The NFL page is based on anonymous reporting. The rule is to wait until the new team announces it.--Rockchalk7 17 16:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where does the rule state that? John Bois (talk) 19:06, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPORTSTRANS Troutfarm27 ^(Talk) 19:06, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention it's a long standing consensus at the NFL Project. When NFL analysts report a transaction of any kind, it's usually when the contract was agreed to. It does not mean the contract has been signed. When a player joins a new team or a coach gets hired by another team they are not officially apart of the team until the contract is signed. When the team announces it, that means the contract was signed. When it comes to trades, almost the same exact thing applies except the trade isn't officially completed until the team announces it.--Rockchalk7 17 19:57, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, you also seem to not understand the difference between official press releases and journalist reporting. The NFL does not make press releases on transactions. Transactions reported by NFL.com or by NFL social media accounts are not press releases. They are articles, no different than an article about (for example) about a murder or the president signing a bill.--Rockchalk7 17 20:05, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPORTSTRANS is an essay on the topic, not a policy or guideline, but I would recommend reading it. The overall policies that come into play here are biographies of living persons and reliable sources. The short version is that an anonymous report of a sports transaction isn't considered reliable, especially because so many similar reports have been wrong in the past. The transaction really needs to be officially confirmed in some capacity.

Also, I'd suggest reading about usage of the minor edit flag. If you're changing the meaning of an article, even by one word, you should leave the minor edit flag unchecked. Please feel free to let me know if you have any questions. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2024 (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).

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

Request reason:

Caught by a colocation web host block but this host or IP is not a web host. My IP address is 192.168.1.167. Place any further information here. John Bois (talk) 07:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

That is the IP of your home network and not the one you use to connect to the internet. It should appear in the message you see on the screen when you attempt to edit, or you can use a tool like whatismyip dot com to determine it. We need to know this IP in order to look into this. 331dot (talk) 08:43, 9 April 2024 (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.

Welcome!

Hi John Bois! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! Raladic (talk) 21:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you!Just a quick question i am trying to warn the user Arberiunumk for vandlism with twinkle but i cant seem to find their user talk page to do so if you could help me out that would be amazing! John Bois (talk) 21:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can click on the username of anyone from the edit history page of an article and at the top will find the "Talk" page link for them.

On there then you can start a new topic, or as you mentioned with WP:Twinkle, you'd open the "TW" menu that should show up on the right side and then select "Warn" and then use the appropriate template from there. You can find more details on how to use Twinkle at the Wikipedia:Twinkle/doc documentation page. Raladic (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That’s the problem I’m having. I know for sure that I have the Twinkle extension enabled, but when I click on a user’s talk page, it just shows their name instead of their user talk page.

For example, I see “Raladic” (this is what I see, and there is no TW option) instead of “User talk: Raladic” (this is what I see when I go to my sandbox, which gives me the option to use Twinkle). John Bois (talk) 21:48, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the top left you should see “User Page” and to the right of it “Talk” which brings you to the users Talk page. Alternatively you can also just type it in your browser and change the name to the different user name. Raladic (talk) 22:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! If you could check out @Arberiunumk, I have issued him a second warning as he's already received a first one for his constant vandalism edits to the 'Illyrian invasion of Epirus' by another user. If you could reaffirm with him that what he is doing is vandalism, that would be great. John Bois (talk) 22:16, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your template warning there looks ok, it also appears some other users have warned them about edit warring prior to that as you can see in the talk page history.

Do note that WP:Vandalism has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia, so while sometimes, edits may be unconstructrice, they may not strictly be vandalism, so please be sure you read what we consider vandalism. Problematic edits may still run afoul of some of our other policies such as original research], so when you are reverting someone, please make sure you cite the correct reason for the reversion in your edit summary and select the appropriate warning template. Raladic (talk) 22:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I’m currently dealing with a issue some who is a vandalized a page is attacking my talk page, if you look he also gave me a fake warning for absolutely nothing if you could check that out and tell me how to get rid of it that would be well appreciated John Bois (talk) 02:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do not edit my comments on talk pages

It is considered disruptive to edit or remove comments on talk pages without a valid reason. Please be more careful. 107.116.165.18 (talk) 02:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What comment did I edit? John Bois (talk) 02:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Check your edit history.... WP:CIR 107.116.165.18 (talk) 02:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which page? John Bois (talk) 02:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I undid your changes on the page Nauvoo Expositor because you simply can't delete a entire section of a page because you don't like it. If you want to delete it go to the 'talk" part of the page and request the change with consensus from other editors. John Bois (talk) 02:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the talk page, and you removed my comment there. And then pretended I hadn't posted. Stop edit warring, and find the talk page. 107.116.165.18 (talk) 02:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please speak English on my page as I’m still confused about what a “edit warring” is I have not removed any comments of anyone’s talk pages. John Bois (talk) 02:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit [1] fits the IP's description. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:58, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring

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. 107.116.165.18 (talk) 02:35, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been told now by multiple that your not allowed to remove a section of article without consensus. John Bois (talk) 02:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Esit Warring Report

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. Thank you. 107.116.165.18 (talk) 03:02, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Realname policy

Please review WP:REALNAME. Note that Jon Bois is a famous person so by our username policy you should confirm that you are not him (granting the different spelling and, of course, assuming that it is not you). jps (talk) 12:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect to jps, I'd recommend ignoring the above advice, given that your namesake died in 1653, and is accordingly unlikely to be mistaken for a Wikipedia contributor. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I see that jps edited his post while I was replying. Jon, not John, as originally written. Given the different spellings, I'd personally say that such a confirmation was unnecessary, strictly speaking, but no harm in doing it anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... this was not meant to be a "gotcha" harassment. I genuinely did the double take upon seeing the name in the diff list and only realized the spelling was different after I checked the wikilink. jps (talk) 15:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My first time hearing of “Jon Bois.” Didn’t know I shared a name with someone popular. John Bois (talk) 18:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally, you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days, and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Levivich (talk) 00:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to confine your editing in the AI/IP topic area to straightforward edit requests only, thank you. Selfstudier (talk) 08:27, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to violate WP:ECR as you did here you will be blocked from editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:37, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t know that’s my bad John Bois (talk) 04:39, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]