This Groovers

July 2022

Hello, I'm Cosmic6811. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, 2021 Tampa Bay Buccaneers season, 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. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. -- Cosmic (talk) 22:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Arizona Coyotes, 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. BilCat (talk) 23:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at New York Jets, you may be blocked from editing. Meters (talk) 00:56, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at 2003–04 Nashville Predators season. Meters (talk) 00:58, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

And on multiple other articles about Predators' seasons. Meters (talk) 01:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

And on multiple other team articles. We don't need your opinions or comments about how bad or good various teams' seasons were. Meters (talk) 01:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I see you have been warned about this in the past, but edits like this and this are not appropriate. Wikipedia isn't sports journalism, and as such we can't refer to teams having a WP:PEACOCK "extremely appalling" and "horrid" season. You will be blocked if you don't stop. Nohomersryan (talk) 01:41, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry I described how the Pirates are doing as extremely appalling and horrid. It's just that I really love the Pirates, and I'm disappointed at how badly they've been doing. I am just trying to put a little emotional style into the article. I won't use adjectives that non-encyclopedic ever again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by This Groovers (talk • contribs) 01:53, August 3, 2022 (UTC)

And I've found multiple other recent unacceptable POV edits. What part of my final warning last week did you not understand? user:Nohomersryan has it right. You will be reported for a block if you continue this. If you hadn't already clearly stated that you would stop, I would have reported you now. And you will also be reported if you continue adding unsourced trivia. The lead is a place to summarize important information from the article. It is not a place to drop your scintillating unsourced tidbits. Meters (talk) 05:56, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

August 2022

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at 2002–03 Phoenix Coyotes season. Meters (talk) 05:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Please stop adding unsourced trivia. Meters (talk) 05:41, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for inability to play well with the others.

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 ~~~~}}.  Floquenbeam (talk) 19:26, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.

• Here are a few comments which I hope may be helpful to you if you do decide to request an unblock.

1. "Putting a little emotion" into an article is exactly the kind of thing referred to when you were told that it was a violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy to insert "commentary or your personal analysis into an article". There are many places where expressing opinions and emotions is appropriate, but Wikipedia seeks to present information in a neutral and dispassionate way. If you are to be unblocked you will need to take that fact on board, and make it clear to an administrator that you won't make the same mistake again.
2. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and works by different editors, with different opinions and points of view, working together cooperatively. Editors whose response to finding others do or say things that they don't agree with is to angrily insist on their own preference don't fit into that collaborative approach. Instead, it is necessary to be willing to discuss the matters on which there is disagreement in a friendly manner, with a view to trying to reach agreement. Again, you will need to make it clear to an administrator that you understand and accept that if you are to be unblocked.
3. Wikipedia does not tolerate personal attacks of any kind. Calling someone with whom you disagree an "asshole" is not acceptable, nor is making threats of violence, no matter how little you actually intend to carry such threats through.

• As I said, I hope those comments may be helpful to you if you do decide to request an unblock. Also, to have any reasonable chance of being unblocked, do take the advice above to read the guide to appealing blocks, as blocked editors who don't read it very often to make appeals which have little or no chance of being accepted. JBW (talk) 19:44, 4 August 2022 (UTC)