User talk:Bears247

Hi Bears247! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Masumrezarock100 (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:10, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Bears247, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

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

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:25, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deandre Goolsby, a page you created, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is very short and provides little or no context.

You are welcome to contribute content that complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content, or remove the speedy deletion tag from the page. You can contest the deletion by clicking the "Contest this speedy deletion" button inside the speedy deletion tag. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. Johand199 ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 21:32, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Deandre Goolsby, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please follow the prompts on the Articles for Creation template atop the page. ... discospinster _talk 00:46, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've moved Draft:Garrett Fugate to draftspace per the above rationale. In general, XFL players are not inherently notable so you will need to provide enough reliable sources that show significant coverage of the players to warrant their own Wikipedia article. As you're still very new here, I'd suggest just sticking to editing existing articles and learn about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines along the way until you're ready to start creating articles on your own. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When editing football players pages, please leave currently out. The lead should just say “...is an American football (position) who is a free agent. I’m aware there’s multiple pages that say this, but that doesn’t necessarily make it right. There are thousands of players that are free agents and it’s hard to catch every single one, the best we can do, is just stop doing it to begin with. Thank you.--Rockchalk717 03:16, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Paradoctor Bears247 (talk) 20:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I just don’t see the issue with changing it. Seems like a lot of unnecessary work to change every free agents page away from “currently”. Bears247 (talk) 17:11, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody said doing the right thing is easy. Though for edits, it’s pretty simple, you just delete a single word. But it is easier just to have people stop doing it. I don’t necessarily seek out free agent pages, but when I come across one that has currently in the lead, I do go ahead and just edit it.--Rockchalk717 20:03, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then I can do that Bears247 (talk) 15:11, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome thank you.--Rockchalk717 18:27, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted because it's confusing for the reader when it says free agent in the intro sentence but has a team listed in the infobox. So please either update the whole thing or don't do only half. You are correct about the currently part.-- Yankees10 19:40, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks Bears247 (talk) 19:40, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure you remove the jersey numbers from the infoboxes of free agents too. It doesn't show up when their team is "free agent" but if someone changes their team to an NFL one, it will appear again and will likely be incorrect. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:59, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I will do that Bears247 (talk) 21:00, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And last one, please remove the "current roster" navboxes at the bottom of the pages as long as the players are no longer listed there. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:13, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How do I do that? Bears247 (talk) 21:15, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Towards the end of the article, there will be a template that looks like this: {{Atlanta Falcons roster navbox}}. If the player is no longer on that team, you can remove that text. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:16, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I will do that Bears247 (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What happened here? He became a free agent on March 18, and I can't find evidence that he has re-signed with the team. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I looked on the NFL.coms official team roster for the cardinals and he was still listed. I went ti many other rosters and saw him listed there as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bears247 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Cardinals transactions page says he became an unrestricted free agent on March 18, with no re-signing after that. In general, NFL.com rosters and team website rosters are not particularly reliable. If you see a page that says "free agent" or on an NFL team, please don't change it unless a transaction has been announced for that player switching teams, or obvious vandalism. When in doubt, please ask me or another user here. Thanks! Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright thanks for reaching out to me Bears247 (talk) 18:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Sulfurboy was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines for sports persons and athletes). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Fails WP:NGRIDIRON

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:DeAndre Goolsby and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:DeAndre Goolsby, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Sulfurboy (talk) 21:59, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Adrian Hubbard, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Los Angeles Wildcats (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) 07:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See #Reverts

If you're editing that a player is now a free agent, consider

1. Including a WP:Citation that the player is a free agrent ("cut")
2. Update the WP:Infobox
3. Update the WP:LEDE
4. Update the player article's "Team section" with same, dated info
5. Remove the relevant "Team roster navbox" (see "External links" section)

Cheers, UW Dawgs (talk) 18:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bears247. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Garrett Fugate".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 00:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bears247. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "DeAndre Goolsby".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:05, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 03:03, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Jayron Kearse, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. There has been no team announcement about Kearse and all sources indicate he is still on the Ravens roster and is not a free agent. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 19:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Jayron Kearse, you may be blocked from editing. You are ignoring talk page and WP:NFL consensus. Unless you can provide a source, stop changing the page to say he is a free agent. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 22:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For transactions like signings, releases, and trades, please include a reliable source along with the edits you make. This is unnecessary for UFAs when their contracts expire for the new league year, but for Jesse James' release today (here), please include a reference to his release. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ok thanks for letting me know. i’ll start doing that Bears247 (talk) 14:51, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm AllegedlyHuman. Your recent edit to the page Ryan Finley (American football) appears to have added premature information about a reported sports transaction, so it has been removed for now. The transaction is based on anonymous sources and/or awaiting an official announcement. If you believe the transaction has been completed, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 04:54, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert my edit here without explanation? As I've explained several times, a player does not need to formally announce their retirement for them to be considered a "former" player on Wikipedia. If it's been over a year since any reported interest from NFL teams, it's safe to assume they are no longer active. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:03, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We are currently having a discussion on Eagles page at the moment if you would like to check it out and express your thoughts I've been editing for quite a long time myself it's a topic I believe all editors should have a general rule for. Kingryan227 (Decrees • Acts) 22:56, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If a number is not listed on a team's website, you need to provide in your edit summary where you got the number from. Additionally, for Elijah McGuire, he cannot have 24 because Devon Key already is it and two players are only allowed to have the same number in the offseason and preseason.--Rockchalk717 04:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Robertjamal12. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Derrius Guice, 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. Robertjamal12 (talk) 21:00, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't call him a "former player". He was released and is not playing now, but he may play again. We don't know. Meters (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know. I was assuming that since he is facing a minimum of 2 years in prison that we could call him former. Bears247 (talk) 18:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Tim Tebow shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You have been reverted by two different users now. Please discuss on the talk page before making any edits. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 21:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. Ace Sanders is NOT talking to an NFL team about returning to the league. 2. Terell Owens is in the Hall of Fame, and you can only be in the Hall of Fame if you're retired. 3. Eric Berry is openly talking to teams about returning, by no means is he retired. I hope you accept Eric Berry is a free agent and NOT retired. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteelerFan1933 (talk • contribs) 23:31, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop changing roster status on players who have signed reserve/futures contracts to active. These players are not officially on the active roster until March 16.--Rockchalk717 01:08, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Eric Berry) for a period of 3 months for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

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 ~~~~}}.  ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:16, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have also been blocked from Tim Tebow for the same duration.—Bagumba (talk) 08:40, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:04, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked you from editing Bryan Scott (quarterback), and all three of your page blocks are for six months. You must stop edit warring. Cullen328 (talk) 21:22, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a certain amount of edits that are required to be an “edit war” because i have never been informed about this number. In the Eric Berry situation, I was in the right and attempted to communicate with the user who refused to answer me and repeatedly reverted my edits. Bears247 (talk) 00:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You were warned about edit warring and pointed to WP:BRD in January [1]. That message defines it as "repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree" and points out that "you can still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not violate the three-revert rule " Meters (talk) 01:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the entire policy Wikipedia:Edit warring, and read it several times if necessary until you fully understand it and can follow it. You are very close to an indefinite block from the entire encyclopedia, so please be careful. Cullen328 (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there's a pretty good chance you're already headed toward a block anyways. SteelerFan1933 (talk) 02:14, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i’d like to get some more clarification for what this block would be for? If your referring to my recent addition to the eric berry talk page, the whole purpose of a talk page is to discuss issues and try and resolve them… as for cluttering your talk page, i’m sorry and i will stop from adding anything else there for the future. I’ve been a productive and unproblematic editor on here for almost 3 years. This and my recent Tim Tebow issue are the only two times I have had any sort of conflict, both of which were relatively minor infractions Bears247 (talk) 02:17, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Minor Infractions? Sorry, it feels like violating the three-revert rule is probably not a minor infraction, especially if you do it twice, then threaten my talk page. You have seen many users including an admin come in and say you are probably wrong. I hope you get what I am trying to say. SteelerFan1933 (talk) 05:05, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Let it go, it's clear that Bears is trying to do better and is genuinely trying to contribute to Wikipedia, despite some outbursts. The user does, for the most part, contribute positively and hopefully will get better about things moving forward. I do see an effort, so give someone the benefit of the doubt and don't poke and prod them. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The three revert rule is something to remember and keep in mind when reverting a page multiple times. I came close to edit wars a few times, but luckily an admin pointed me in the right direction and helped me learn. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

appreciate this josh. And I did just see the user that changed berry from free agent to “retired”. This was not an alt account, and was not even cited correctly which I am very big on doing Bears247 (talk) 13:10, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok got it, I'll let it go. Sorry for the inconvenience. SteelerFan1933 (talk) 15:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your good. I hope we can move past the issue and work together in the proper way in the future, and that starts with me and the way i handle these disagreements Bears247 (talk) 19:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that your replies aren't following the typical threaded format that most discussions follow. I just wanted to mention and encourage you to use a colon (:) before your text to properly indent your responses to help make conversations easier to follow. See WP:Indentation for examples and more information. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I wasn’t sure about the correct way this should be done but I’ll start doing this in the future Bears247 (talk) 19:21, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aaahhh, you missed a great chance to test it with your reply, silly! Hey man im josh (talk) 12:04, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah we should probably let this guy go. Let's hope he starts indenting his replies. It is so easy and makes threads much clearer to understand. SteelerFan1933 (talk) 02:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Bears247. You are cordially invited to join WikiProject National Football League, a project dedicated to improving articles in relation to the National Football League. Please visit the project's talk page to see what areas/topics need help and to discuss any questions you may have. Thank you! Hey man im josh (talk) 12:06, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're pretty active with NFL related pages, why not join the WikiProject too? Hey man im josh (talk) 12:04, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Regarding your recent edit to Jabrill Peppers, where are you seeing this officially confirmed? Hey man im josh (talk) 19:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i saw it here https://www.patspulpit.com/platform/amp/new-england-patriots-social-media-video-podcasts/2022/3/30/23003663/jabrill-peppers-officially-signed-contract-patriots Bears247 (talk) 19:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yeah, okay, Peppers himself is a good source for it. I've been going off teams' social medias and websites and I'm surprised they haven't posted anything yet. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:13, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah when it comes to official signings the player themself is often the best source. Usually I wait to change it until its posted on the nfl.com transaction wire, but that doesnt update immediatley so it may be possible that I was a bit premature with this Peppers edit Bears247 (talk) 13:18, 1 April 2022 (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).

Bears247 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Im requesting to be unbanned on the Brian Scott (quarterback) page. I was involved in an edit war earlier, but I have learned and have improved. I will refrain from editing Scotts page if i do in fact get unbanned, until we sort things out through the talk page. If you decide to unban be feel free to be carefully monitoring my behavior and quick to re ban me if you see anything you don’t like. Bears247 (talk) 00:20, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This appeal refers to an earlier partial block that is now overridden by a new sitewide block. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:50, 7 April 2022 (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.

What type of edits do you intend to make to Bryan Scott (quarterback)? Considering you have yet to respond on the talk page there to my message, I am concerned that you will go right back to adding back the same material in a few days again, hoping that I've forgotten about it instead of discussing. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:18, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And why are you still making mass unsourced changes to articles ([2], [3], [4], [5]), despite our conversation a year ago here on your talk page? Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:21, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

sorry about the unsourced edits. It’s been a while since i’ve been told so thanks for the reminder. As for Scotts page, I’m still hoping to have the information displayed but I won’t do so until having a further discussion with either you, or on the page where other football editors can discuss. Bears247 (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two days ago you said an edit "was not even cited correctly which I am very big on doing". Are you just telling me what I want to hear so I'll go away? You are also still not indenting replies as another user pointed out to you two days ago. You've had almost a week to engage in discussion at the talk page, and instead posted an unblock for it, so it seems like this is your attempt to get out of discussing and make the changes you're "still hoping" to put back up. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’m well aware that you won’t just “forget” about scott’s page. If you want to monitor my behaviors closely by all means do so. And I misspoke on the I said. I didn’t mean i’m big on citing, more of having a consistent and correct format for all player pages Bears247 (talk) 19:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seemed like you meant you are big on citing, as you never said anything about having a consistent and correct format for all player pages. SteelerFan1933 (talk) 02:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thats my fault. Glad that im able to correct myself here and I hope that in the future we can avoid any type of confussion like this. Bears247 (talk) 13:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is still an unsourced change to an article. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:59, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And again, right after I posted this. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:31, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

just wanted to say something as a follow up since it’s been a few day. This time regarding my eric berry ban. The user who i was previously involved in an edit war has made progress with me and we have been able to have some civil discussion. i’d like to further continue this discussion with him, because while i still do believe i was in the right with berrys page, i’m not going to change it back until the 2 of us come to a consensus. As for Scott is there anything you can do about this? I genuinely am still learning despite having spent a few years on here, and all that I intend to do with editing is to improve the nfl information on wiki. Scott has never reached out to me in any form, because I know that you mentioned that has been an issue with other users in the past. Bears247 (talk) 15:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:37, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content.

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 ~~~~}}.  ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:49, 7 April 2022 (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).

Bears247 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Again, I am sorry that i did not cite my edits, but the issue i have with getting a ban for this, is that the information that i was adding was all correct and confirmed. I’ve been an active participant in cleaning up the nfl wiki community for a few years and have never had a problem with adding blatantly false or troll edits. all of what i add is correct, and the issue i’m aware is that i do not cite these edits. I do need to get better at this but right now i think a ban is much to far. if these edits are true, which they are, i don’t see why it is much of a problem if i fail to cite these edits, and if it is a big deal, another user can come by later to add or clean anything up that needs to be done. this ban was not web. regarding an edit war because i haven’t been involved with one since the previous eric berry ban. i’d like to request an unban on my account and i think you are being much to hard on me for this.

Decline reason:

This has been a consistent issue with your edits, and patience has run out. Your notion that "i don’t see why it is much of a problem if i fail to cite these edits, and if it is a big deal, another user can come by later to add or clean anything up that needs to be done" just dumps responsibility to "clean anything up that needs to be done" on another volunteer. You've been advised on what you need to do and have ignored or dismissed it. Acroterion (talk) 02:21, 8 April 2022 (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.

and i would just like to add that with my changed that i did with some defensive positions like outside linebacker to defensive end and vise versa, i was basing this from sources that state which type of defensive scheme those teams will be in for the upcoming season. typically pass rushers in a 4-3 are defensive ends (robert quinn for example), and 3-4 pass rushers are outside linebackers Bears247 (talk) 23:46, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i was banned for not citing my edits, although the edits were accurate. i submitted a ban appeal and i would just like to ask if you could review my request. i’ve been a productive editor in the community ever since i joined, and i just need to start citing my edits apparently. this ban really sucks because i’ve put a lot of time into editing and really just enjoy doing it. thanks Bears247 (talk) 02:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Bears247, I'll just add a few words, to try to get you to understand the importance of the problem here. You say your changes are correct, and they might well be. But how do we know you're not lying when you say that? We have had thousands of editors over the years introducing false content into articles and claiming it is correct. It is not acceptable to expect other people to come along later and do the research again to check sources. You have the sources at your fingertips when you add the content, and it is simply lazy and inconsiderate to not cite it when you make the edits. We don't care if you know the content is correct, we need readers to be able see it is correct. So you *must* cite your sources at the time you add the content. That is not negotiable. And you will not get yourself unblocked unless you fully accept that and commit 100% that you will source all material you introduce in the future, at the time you introduce it. I hope this helps you to make an acceptable unblock request and to get back to doing what you enjoy. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:05, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I see why that is an issue and I will be sure to do this in the future with every edit if i were to get unbanned. All of my edits have been in good faith and I will continue to contribute but i will start to cite my edits from here on. i mean it this time and i really don’t want to get banned again Bears247 (talk) 14:20, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good to me, but you'll need to post an unblock request the same way you did above, to bring it to the attention of admins to review. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:24, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bears247 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

As stated in my reply, I am going to make this change if i do in fact get unbanned. I will cite my edits so that other editors and readers know the accuracy of what they are reading. i’m sorry for not changing this as soon as i was asked to, but i now see the importance of it and would like to avoid any future or further bans. i hope that you can trust in me, as well as other users and their word on me, despite having previous disagreements. my edits are always productive and accurate, but i have just lacked the citing aspect of editing, and from here on that will not be an issue with me. thanks again, i really hope i can get unbanned. Bears247 (talk) 17:34, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Thank you. I'm restoring the original partial block from three pages and recommend not to appeal it for now. There are 6904950 other articles you can edit in the meantime, and you'll probably need to do so for a while as a kind of probation. It would otherwise be too difficult to justify an unblock. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Minor nitpick: When applying for an unblock in a project to create an encyclopedia, please take the time to properly capitalize the words. Regarding citations, please roughly describe how you will create citations (which button or code do you use?). It doesn't have to be in a complicated way; all I'd like to see is that you are not just promising but actually technically able to cite on Wikipedia. A tutorial can be found at WP:INTREF if you are unsure. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:00, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When citing on wiki I would use </ref> . Please correct me if i’m wrong about that or if there is a better way that you would do this. Bears247 (talk) 19:08, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

<ref>Reference text or link here</ref> is fine, no worries. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:29, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You could use the visual editor like I do, it makes editing so easy. SteelerFan1933 (talk) 14:02, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If possible, please find different areas than biographies about living people to contribute to. You can edit biographies about living people, but you have not been careful enough in doing so in the past, and you might fail to meet the standards if you immediately try again. The community is very careful about verifiability and neutrality in this topic area, as your edits can affect the described person's life and Wikipedia's reputation. Stay away from such articles for a while if possible. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:45, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

sorry to bother and i’m very thankful that you accepted my request, but nfl players are the only pages that i have any sort of experience in editing, and if i do cite my edits it shouldn’t be much of a problem, but i don’t want to edit any without approval to do so from you. Bears247 (talk) 19:58, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may freely edit any biography, no worries. But please be careful and please do consider having a look at the community portal and the Task Center for ideas. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:19, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bears247, please provide the sources used for the following contributions:

• [6]
• [7]

...before continuing to edit. Please also provide an explanation for the lack of inline references ("ref" tags, as we had discussed before) in these contributions, even if they turn out to be verifiable. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:35, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(I assume you saw the notification after continuing to edit, and then stopped because you saw this message. That's okay then; please answer before editing again, though.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:43, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn’t the Hodges edit be considered a format correction rather than something than would need cited? As for the Robinson edit I just forgot and will correct the mistake. Bears247 (talk) 19:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the Hodges edit lacks a citation for the addition of the number 6, or a citation for the number(s) in general. Despite continued editing in other articles after the above promise, the Robinson edit is still the "latest revision". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently adding unsourced or poorly sourced content.

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 ~~~~}}.  ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:33, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bears247 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I think you are very quick and unfair to block me in this instance. Was their a specific edit recently that caused this ban, if so i’d like to know what it is so I can have the opportunity to correct this. I’d you check my edit history since my last ban I have been much better about citing edits when necessary. If something is just a minor format fix or grammar corrections their is no need to cite. There may have been some instances where something should have been cited but I mistook it for something that did not, and I will always go back and correct this if you unban me and give me the change. I have never had an issue when it comes to providing quality edits, and I have been a contributer and helped a lot when it comes to cleaning up the nfl wiki so I would really appreciate and believe that this unban is justied. thank you. Bears247 (talk) 14:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Accept reason:

I will remove the block. 331dot (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about one specific edit, but for starters, you could provide the reference you've promised to provide at 19:56, 24 April 2022. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:12, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the first thing that I do if I am given back that privilege of editing. Bears247 (talk) 19:30, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I'd like to see the reference here on the page you can still edit, as a very first step of slowly approaching a point where making an unblock request is reasonable. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:09, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me the name of the specific page of the edit you are referencing? Bears247 (talk) 00:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

user:ToBeFree referenced the edit you made at 19:56, 24 April 2022, when you mentioned a specific page. How is it you can write That would be the first thing that I do if I am given back that privilege of editing. if you don't even know what that page is? We're discussing a comment you made, on this page Meters (talk) 01:21, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My point of that was I am going to and willing to change whatever it is that you are referring to. Bears247 (talk) 14:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bears247, I got that point. Now please do also get the following point: That's not going to happen.

You have added information to a Wikipedia article, the information has been challenged, it's not present in the citations I checked, and what I personally would like to know is which information source you have used. You, 2022-04-22T20:21:15 in the article about Josh Robinson (running back). When you edited the page, you used a source for adding the text "Zappers" and "Fan Controlled Football". Which? Where exactly did your information come from? Provide a link, provide a book title, provide something that can be used as a reference. Here, in reply to this message, on your talk page. Use a desktop computer if mobile editing makes this difficult, but stop evading the question. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:35, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

</ref>https://www.fcf.io/teams/zappers Bears247 (talk) 02:57, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. It may not seem so to you, but that's a huge step forward. Until now, all I had been staring at is the current reference for the material used in the article ([8]), a remnant of Special:Diff/1083100600. Whether the material was verifiable at that date, I can't say – the Internet Archive has immediately created a snapshot ([9]), but it appears to be broken/contentless on my screen.

While we need to exercise extreme caution when using such (primary) sources about living people, and while secondary sources are generally preferred, all I personally had been looking for is a fcf.io page that can be used to verify your statement. This has now been provided, and if it had already been provided in Special:Diff/1084148685, there would have been no need for a complaint. If it had been provided after the promise of 19:56, 24 April 2022, that would also have been okay to me, and probably most others. The verifiability policy is less strict in this regard than some people sometimes appear to think: Verifiability is required, citations are not always. When the statement is challenged, though, WP:BURDEN is the part of the verifiability policy that mandates a citation before re-adding the material, for example. That said, as the verifiability of all your unsourced contributions had been very recently questioned to the point of requiring two blocks, with an unblock request explicitly promising to cite future edits, I think it's safe to say: In the future, please provide such citations without specifically having to be asked for them, but at very least after having been asked for them, and at very very least when editing the article again, as you did in Special:Diff/1085429524 without providing a reference.

Your contributions so far all appear to be mobile web edits, as they're tagged as such in your contributions list. Again, it may be much easier to follow Wikipedia policies while editing using a desktop computer, if anyhow available. For example, providing a reference and having an overview over the whole article at the same time isn't something a mobile interface can provide in the way a large screen can. If you do use a large screen, you may like to try clicking the "Desktop" link at the bottom of any page.

There are four more points I'd like to request a citation or an explanation for.

• 2022-04-23T05:03:30, Devlin Hodges: Number 6. Says which reference?
• 2022-04-30T14:21:44, Martavis Bryant: Edmonton Elks. I do see the main idea of the edit was to challenge the unsourced replacement, but I hope you do have a reference for what is now your own addition to the Wikipedia article. This is a common issue with even many experienced users' edits, replacing unsourced information by challenged unsourced information, though, so you're in good company if you can't provide one.
• 2022-04-28T20:28:51, Jordan Lasley: Free agent. Verifiable how? This may be obvious to you, but I genuinely have no idea. The lack of teams at [10]? Is that both what it means and a reference for the statement? It's not a rhetorical question, I just don't know. I'd have expected something "directly supporting the statement" as described by WP:BURDEN.
• 2022-04-28T20:08:34, Trey Quinn: Active, verifiable how?

Thank you very much in advance. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:51, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to point out that the fully functional desktop site works just fine on contemporary mobile devices, so the excuse for poor edits made on mobile devices is without merit. I have edited on mobile devices using the desktop site for ten years without problems, because I follow all of the Policies and Guidelines. Cullen328 (talk) 06:04, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hodges </ref>https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/H/HodgDe00.htm

Bryant </ref>https://www.goelks.com/roster/

Lasley: Another user cited that he was released by his USFL team, so I just just changed the lead to match what is the agreed upon norm for freshly released players and referring to them as free agents.

Quinn </ref>https://www.denverbroncos.com/team/players-roster/

Bears247 (talk) 20:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm positively impressed (the second time), but I do have follow-up questions to help my understanding.

Regarding Bryant/Elks, does goelks.com/roster currently support the edit? Did it previously do and has now changed? I can't find the name in the list, but I may be overlooking it, and my browser's search didn't help me to find it.

Regarding "free agent", that word combination appears 15 times in discussions above on this talk page, mostly in complaints. The citation you're referring to appears to be [11], which is, well, perhaps as close to a WP:BLPSPS violation as possible without crossing the line in an undebatable way. I'm also unsure if the citation, if reliable, really directly supports the statement, as coming to the conclusion "free agent" may require additional information not strictly speaking present in the source. An unblock might be based on an agreement on binding conditions, and these could include (but are certainly not limited to) not touching the words "free agent" in an article again, if that's agreeable. It does seem to be a way to relieve a main concern others had about your contributions.

And speaking of concerns, I was concerned about your ability to actually provide references for the content added by you, but this is (again) diminishing. Having (again) proven your citation competence, Elks citation pending, the reviewing administrator now probably only needs to evaluate whether your promise to provide citations is credible. It certainly doesn't help that said promise has – correct me if this is incorrect – been broken since the last unblock, but you're currently communicating, responding to others' concerns, providing references and do not appear to be a hopeless case in this regard.

I wish you all the best, assuming that you'll be able to clarify the Bryant/Elks citation (perhaps by providing a better one if this isn't the right link) in response to this message. You may like to reword your unblock request to fit the situation I have now described, unless of course you disagree with the assessment, in which case you may still like to edit your unblock request for any reason. As long as it's still awaiting review, you may freely modify it; WP:GAB can be helpful for doing so. If it's declined in its current form, I'd say it's worth writing a new one from scratch below.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:53, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

pretty strange timing for Bryant to be released but I just saw a report confirming his release following the link i provided you. So yes that foster did change since we last talked. As for not touching “free agent” i have no prob lan doing that to start, but I would hope to over time eventually gain that ability back through good faith, and I do in fact promise to correctly cite any future edits that require so. Thanks for your willingness to talk this out and help sort everything out. Bears247 (talk) 23:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

one quick follow up question I have regarding citations of information being put into infoboxes such as status and “active”. where would we put this citation? I was able to provide a source regarding the Trey Quinn issue, put on the page itself i am still unsure of where I would put this reference Bears247 (talk) 23:33, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah okay, no worries then. I think I have found your citation at [12] now, and it did say "Bryant, Martavis" at 2022-04-26T00:27:22 (UTC). Perhaps that's even better: You can't have made this up today; you have provided exactly the reference you had used at that time.

Regarding the report you saw, you may like to be more specific – I guess you saw it on TV and can't really cite it for this reason, but saying that you saw it on TV would already be an improvement over "I just saw a report", which is unspecific in a way similar to the blocking reason. I'm not asking for this, though; this is just a general recommendation. It's rather irrelevant to the block.

For adding citations to infoboxes, you may need to edit the (wiki-)source code of the page. On desktop devices, this can be done from the visual editor by clicking the pencil icon at the top right of the editing box. When you're there, looking at the source code, you can just add the simple reference syntax <ref>https://example.com</ref> to any place including into infoboxes. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. And do you know how long it could be before my ban can hopefully get uplifted or are you able to do that yourself? Bears247 (talk) 23:50, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A volunteer will need to dig into the situation and look through the discussion in their free time, which may take a while to happen. CAT:RFU is relatively large, sadly. I would be able to unblock again, but I'd prefer to wait for an independent review since my previous unblock wasn't sustainable. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:37, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

still have received no word on my unblock request. There are multiple inaccurate edits of recent nfl transactions that I have spotted and would like to fix up and source, but I have been unable to do so. You yourself saw that I did in fact know how to do these citations and you mentioned that you would have the ability to do so yourself. Would that be possible since it has been a while abs their are a lot of pages that need cleaned up? Bears247 (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Me and another user had a good discussion on my most recent request and my actions were received and accepted as an appropriate unban. just resubmitting request to possibly speed up the process. thanks and hopefully this is the last time I will have to do this. Bears247 (talk) 01:38, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Resubmitting possibly delays the process, in case someone processes unblock requests from oldest to newest. You may like to simply edit the existing appeal, the blue box in the section above. Add anything you'd like to add, remove anything you'd like to remove. Keep it concise and understandable, focus on the following three magic unblock request points: 1) A short description of what behavior led to the block, 2) an explanation why the situation has changed, and why you can be trusted not to repeat what led to the block, 3) some examples for helpful future contributions that are currently prevented by the block. Anything else is almost always irrelevant. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:42, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would also suggest using this time to read WP:CITE. An unblocking admin may want to see evidence on this page that you know how to cite sources and format them properly on Wikipedia. Also, you are blocked, not banned. Matuko (talk) 03:08, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

would you recommend that I include these things here, or create an entirely new request consisting of those things? Bears247 (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"You may like to simply edit the existing appeal, the blue box in the section above." I personally think you should do, but it's your appeal, not mine. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:27, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hodges </ref>https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/H/HodgDe00.htm

Bryant </ref>https://www.goelks.com/roster/ Lasley: Another user cited that he was released by his USFL team, so I just just changed the lead to match what is the agreed upon norm for freshly released players and referring to them as free agents. Quinn </ref>https://www.denverbroncos.com/team/players-roster/

here are the citations for my unsourced edits on the new request. Bears247 (talk) 00:42, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was originally banned for making edits and not citing the edits. I understand how to and there was just some confusion that was cleared up through conversation on some of my recent talk pages. I showed that I do in fact know how to make the citations, and had a verbal approval, and am currently just awaiting an official unblock to my page. Sorry for the mistake, and thank you in advance. Bears247 (talk) 00:02, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are blocked, not banned(there is a difference between those words' meaning). ToBeFree I think that this is worth another chance, and can unblock if you are in agreement. 331dot (talk) 09:04, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am in 100% agreement. Bears247 (talk) 13:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was addressing ToBeFree, the blocking admin. 331dot (talk) 13:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my fault Bears247 (talk) 13:16, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

heh, your agreement with an unblock is pretty much assumed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:19, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perfectly fine with me, 331dot; thank you very much for having taken the time to dig through the case and for providing a third chance. I had reached a point where I personally didn't want to unblock anymore, but I don't object in any way to someone else doing so. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @331dot: Are the partial blocks on Bears247's account that were in place before each of the indef blocks now removed too or should those be reinstated? Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The site wide block was essentially an expansion of the partial, so I didn't see a need to restore it given the discussion here. 331dot (talk) 22:23, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Ryan Nall

added a link pointing to Fullback

Terrance Williams

added a link pointing to FCF

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League § Proposal: remove "is a free agent" from player article leads. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:10, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ryan Nall, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fullback.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Austin Proehl

added a link pointing to XFL

Brian Hill (American football)

added a link pointing to XFL

Cody Latimer

added a link pointing to XFL

K. D. Cannon

added a link pointing to XFL

Kalen Ballage

added a link pointing to XFL

Martavis Bryant

added a link pointing to XFL

Matt Elam

added a link pointing to XFL

Matt Jones (running back)

added a link pointing to XFL

Paul Dawson (American football)

added a link pointing to XFL

T. J. Green

added a link pointing to XFL

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While I am glad that you seem to have changed your ways former using one year of no activity to the two that I suggested you seem to have information about people having workouts yet not adding them to their page. If they haven't had anything listed on their page since 2020 but had a workout in 2022 I would put that in there so that they don't prematurely get updated. Kingryan227 (Decrees • Acts) 22:56, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for agreeing. I was repeatedly doing so with different players. Another user continued to revert my edits saying that they "are not relevant" and told me to stop. I will gladly add them back if youd like to see where im getting that ingormation Bears247 (talk) 22:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am also not coming back in 9 days to edit players who haven't had any news since January 18, 2021, I would be willing to put any sort of dollar amount on that they don't sign within the next 9 days. That is a little absurd but feel free to go back and fix it in 9 days. Kingryan227 (Decrees • Acts) 22:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also just saw some edit conflicts on some other pages while I agree with you football articles are not my typical pages that I work on I am usually a baseball guy so I am not going to dip my toes in the battles of the football articles I think that it woul dbe good to have the information in there but we seem to be out numbered. I think they would be useful for older articles such as George Iloka and other articles where something hasnt been listed in that long but like I said apparently we are in the minority. Kingryan227 (Decrees • Acts) 23:04, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Reuben Foster, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pittsburgh Maulers.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Bears247. Curious to hear your thoughts on The Spring League accolades being added to players' infoboxes? I've noticed you have made edits on players' pages that have played in these leagues (Ryan Willis). I brought up this topic - (here), but no one has responded. I feel as though any TSL awards/accomplishments should be added to these players' pages, as well-established + reliable sources have credited these players and their earned achievements on national television, as well as on the internet worldwide. I can provide examples as well if needed. Again, just want to give credit where credit is due. Thanks! Vitaminwaterzero0 (talk) 22:41, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Bears247. Just checking in on my comment above. Love to hear your thoughts. Thanks! Vitaminwaterzero0 (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Bears247 Really trying to find a solution to this! Please let me know if you have any thoughts. Vitaminwaterzero0 (talk) 20:07, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bears247

I just changed Mark Barron to a former player. After the fact I noticed in the revision history that in 2023 you reverted another editor for this. Funny thing, I've seen you around and went back tonight to check if you stated 'not 2 years yet', lol. Is this a particular situation? I'm not one to purposely step on toes, so I'll revert it if needed. Maybe the limit now is 3 years?

Regards Bringingthewood (talk) 02:57, 19 June 2023 (UTC) Well, that answers that question. My computer is screwed up, forgive me if you sent something and it didn't come over. If you don't respond, I'll assume it's three years before we note a player as former. Bringingthewood (talk) 07:53, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

sorry i took so long to reply. I never check my talk page. From my understanding and discussion with multiple other users it was changed from 1 year inactive to 2. Inactive meaning not on a team or no “serious interest”/workouts. So in the case of Kaepernick, Dareus, Yeldon, and Strong, these players all may not have been on a roster within the last 2 years, but they’ve all had workouts with teams in the last 2 years. Please let me know if you have any more questions or if i’m free to change these back. I won’t go and do it without approval. Bears247 (talk) 03:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Honestly, I always went with what I used to see you edit on a page. 'Not two years'. Simple. These other users should step forward, because workouts, serious or not, would need some detective work. Not active for three years should be good enough, and if their workouts materialize, we could always change it when they get signed again. Honestly, I think you had the correct way going a year ago, it's the users bringing up these silly workouts. You do have to admit the Kaepernick issue is comical. Something will have to get figured out. Hope you sent something over to Yankees10, he tried reaching out to you also. Thank you for the message, I do appreciate it. Bringingthewood (talk) 04:04, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. If you send a message to @Yankees10, that would be your best bet on approval for changing them back. Maybe a vote will be an option going forward, but please, I would not make any changes without contacting him first. To go back and forth without conversation only leads to problems. I'm not going to approve anything until he is involved with this. Here's hoping it all works out. Catch up with you soon. Bringingthewood (talk) 04:21, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the status of his page, I have opened a discussion at WT:NFL. Regardless of if the rule is actually 2 years or not, if any player was deserving of an exception, it's a player with only 3 team workouts in 6 years that hasn't played since the end of the 2016 season. Feel free to join. The discussion is to have the page say his career is over or reflect his status as being a free agent. Talk objections there before reverting the page again.--Rockchalk717 00:17, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! NFL Trade Rumors is not a WP:reliable source nor does it meet the External links policy. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  22:50, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a link to the guidelines saying that it has to be exactly two years since a workout for it to be former. And specifically where it says since a workout please. Yankees10 02:35, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for ignoring this.-- Yankees10 22:05, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again please provide me a link to the guidelines and I will not revert again.-- Yankees10 05:02, 27 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I left a response on your talk page regarding this issue Bears247 (talk) 02:53, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok but you still did not provide a link to either guidelines or discussion about this.-- Yankees10 04:15, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why specifically is his promotion not relevant? It's part of his career timeline that he was signed to the active roster. ParXivalRPT (talk) 00:43, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

he wasn’t signed to the active roster. just a standard elevation and will revert to the practice squad tomorrow. Bears247 (talk) 01:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, standard elevations aren't note-worthy, only if a player is fully activated? ParXivalRPT (talk) 02:21, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

only if a player is signed to the 53 man roster correct Bears247 (talk) 02:21, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What "one year consensus" are you making up that i've said? All i've asked numerous is for you to provide a simple link to a discussion that supports your two years consensus and I wouldn't be reverting. You've ignored my requests and will ignore this too. You're either too lazy to find it (likely) or just simply made it up (extremely likely). Yankees10 23:22, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that the vast majority of your edits have been edit warring to push a narrative that only you appear to support, with no real tangible additions elsewhere. As such, consider this a final warning to cease these medium-term edit wars (which they still are even if they go longer than 24 hours), and continuation of such will be just cause for an indefinite block. Wizardman 15:25, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

I'm sorry, but your latest two edits were exactly what I gave you a final warning about earlier. You've been told by a multitude of people to stop, yet you have refused to listen. As a result, due to persistent edit warring and disruption, combined with a refusal to explain yourself, you're blocked. Wizardman 17:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what I was banned for in reverting “former” to “free agent” players. However these most recent examples that you pointed out in Jared Cook and Cody Parkey were not edit wars and were a single edit made my random users. I will not do it again if i means for me getting unbanned. Overall I am a productive contributor to the NFL Wiki community and see this ban as unwarranted even though I was warned, since the last 2 were made my an anonymous user and not even sourced. Please consider and take a look at my edit history and that I am an overall positive contributor to the community.

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).

Bears247 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Your reason here Bears247 (talk) 21:28, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 10:32, 24 December 2023 (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 user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Bears247 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I understand that I have been blocked for my recent edits on Cody Parkey and Jared Cook pages. I reverted an edit changing them back to free agent from former after being warned multiple times. I would change my behavior if unblocked, and leave this issue alone in the future. Overall I am a positive contributor to the NFL Wiki community and will continue to be, without conflict if unblocked. Please consider and take a look at my production in my edits. I feel that this ban is no longer warranted because I understand my mistakes, and the repercussions that can come with not listening to the warnings. If there is any unanswered questions or things i did not address in this request please let me know so I can clarify more. Thanks Bears247 (talk) 4:01 pm, 7 January 2024, last Sunday (5 days ago) (UTC−5)

Accept reason:

Unblocking after discussing with blocking admin with WP:1RR restriction and WP:BRD request. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:41, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4 (UTC)

@Wizardman: Hey, long time no see. Does this request adequately address?-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: Sorry for the delay; I'm not against an unblock if you're considering it so long as the editor remembers that this is a collaborative encyclopedia. The block wasn't one I was happy about doing as the edits weren't outright bad, but I do think the wake up call was needed. Wizardman 00:22, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think a WP:1RR restriction for six months will serve as a reminder. @Bears247:, please remember to discuss your intended edits, particularly if you are reverted and gain agreement for them. Welcome back. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 00:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been banned by community consensus per this discussion Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 00:16, 3 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).

Bears247 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I’ve taken some time away from editing as i’ve been banned, and I will completely ignore the free agent vs former debate and refrain from making any edits relating to that subject if i were to get unbanned. I couldn’t help but notice an extremely large amount of NFL players whose contracts expired are still listed with their previous team and was wanting to go through and correct these. As well as just overall incorrect ways to call players free agents being added by newer users. I know i have had my incidents in the past but i like to consider myself at least somewhat experienced in the NFL wiki community and i’d like to be able to correct the mistakes there if given a chance. again going to completely leave alone the original topic that got me banned in the first place. it has been over a month since i’ve been blocked so i feel this is an appropriate time to request this, especially with all of the errors out there on these players pages. let me know any possible concerns you have and i’d be happy to adress them. thanks. Bears247 (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per below. — Daniel Case (talk) 10:36, 30 March 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.

Frankly, I think there's no chance the community would look favourably on this unban request at this time. You were banned by the community just last month. Frankly, I think you are going to need a non-trivial number of constructive, problem-free edits on another wiki somewhere. Perhaps, five hundred or so non-trivial edits over at least three months. If you persist with your appeal now, I think the most likely event is that the community decides to prohibit you from making any more appeals for a year or two. --Yamla (talk) 20:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]