~2026-27874-38
May 2026
edit
Hello, I'm Birthay boy. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, but you didn't provide a reliable source. On Wikipedia, it's important that article content be verifiable. If you'd like to resubmit your change with a citation, your edit is archived in the page history. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Birthay boy (talk • contribs) 13:45, 9 May 2026 (UTC)
- What article? ~2026-27874-38 (talk) 08:48, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
- On Rudolf Dassler page. Birthay boy (talk • contribs) 15:00, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
- Hi again. You are referring to the opening paragraph of the article, which does not require sources - as it is just the introduction. If you read down further in the article you will find the following well-sourced information that Adi Dassler joined the Nazi party in 1933 and was convicted as the second-highest level of Nazi (profiteer) by an American denazification panel after the war.
- Totally understand and agree with the need for good sources. But an introduction is just a summary. For example, in the introduction no one needs to source his birth certificate to prove that was really his name, or to add a source to verify he was really founded Adidas. ~2026-27874-38 (talk) 23:26, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, but we need secondary and reliable sources to say he was a Nazi. Without providing citations, judging by his membership on the party (and etcetera), would be an original research, you can see the 'no original research' rule in this wikilink. Birthay boy (talk • contribs) 18:57, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
- Totally agree about reliable and secondary sources. Those sources are provided in the article itself. This is just the introduction. ~2026-27874-38 (talk) 21:16, 18 May 2026 (UTC)
- Yes, but we need secondary and reliable sources to say he was a Nazi. Without providing citations, judging by his membership on the party (and etcetera), would be an original research, you can see the 'no original research' rule in this wikilink. Birthay boy (talk • contribs) 18:57, 16 May 2026 (UTC)
- On Rudolf Dassler page. Birthay boy (talk • contribs) 15:00, 14 May 2026 (UTC)
Hello, I'm VanFinda. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Tangata whenua, but you didn't provide a reliable source. On Wikipedia, it's important that article content be verifiable. If you'd like to resubmit your change with a citation, your edit is archived in the page history. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. vanfinda (talk) 11:17, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
- Hi Vanfinda. I was just in the process of adding the source when you reverted. If you had given me 30 seconds more, it wouldn't have been an issue. Sorry for the delay. ~2026-27874-38 (talk) 01:20, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Matt Leinart. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. tony 01:15, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
- Hi Tony. There is more than one football team named "California." It is therefore necessary to specify that it is the California "Golden Bears." Please do not presume bad faith. ~2026-27874-38 (talk) 01:18, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
- It's the
physically and morally superior
part. tony 01:19, 26 May 2026 (UTC)- Okay, then delete that part, ask for a source, or bring it to talk. Do not presume bad faith. ~2026-27874-38 (talk) 01:25, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
- If you have made the same change several times after being warned against it, other editors will presume bad faith. ... discospinster talk 01:26, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
- Okay, then delete that part, ask for a source, or bring it to talk. Do not presume bad faith. ~2026-27874-38 (talk) 01:25, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
- It's the
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Matt Leinart. ... discospinster talk 01:18, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
- There is no intended vandalism. Please read the edit before assuming bad faith. There is more than one football team named "California." It is therefore necessary to specify that it is the California "Golden Bears." Please do not presume bad faith. ~2026-27874-38 (talk) 01:19, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
- Then make that change only. ... discospinster talk 01:24, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
- Or you could delete that part, ask for a source, or bring it to talk. Do not presume bad faith. ~2026-27874-38 (talk) 01:26, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
- Then make that change only. ... discospinster talk 01:24, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
~2026-27874-38 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)
Request reason:
I was clarifying that it was the California "Golden Bears" - as there are more than one football team named "California." Discospinster raised an objection to other bits in a very small edit, so I added the "reliable source needed" tag, as per Wiki policy. I assumed in good faith that this would satisfy Discospinster's concerns. But Discospinster is assuming bad faith, rather than taking the issue to talk or making small modifications he feels may be necessary. She is simply vandalising on the mistaken presumption of vandalism, rather than actually reading the change that has been made. ~2026-27874-38 (talk) 01:35, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I've read the change. It's not the "California" or "Golden Bears" part; it's your insistence on "physically and morally superior". That's the vandalism.You were told that more than once; that you choose to ignore it is your own bad faith. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 03:10, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
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.
~2026-27874-38 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)
Request reason:
No one ever clarified the particular reason they were reverting the edit. As discospinster is fond of saying to others: "You have to indicate in the edit summary what you are doing, otherwise editors aren't going to know why you're changing the content." No one ever explained this in the edit summary. No one went to talk. They never indicated which aspect they thought was vandalism. They didn't follow any of the rules. The question as far as I am concerned was the valid distinction between "California" and "California Golden Bears"r
Decline reason:
Your first edit to the article was to insert a blatant opinion. This sort of "woofing" is common in sports articles, especially US sports, and is disruptive. You were told here what the problem was, yet you persisted in re-adding the editorial. You need to address the underlying edit in your unblock request. —C.Fred (talk) 10:29, 26 May 2026 (UTC)
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.