User talk:Jnimee

Suspicious activity from this account. Doesn't contribute for 5 years and wipes every bit of the 2018 F2 saga off of Santino Ferrucci's page. Doesn't seem to understand that you cannot just remove information that you don't like.

May 2021

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Santino Ferrucci, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. Notfrompedro (talk) 21:48, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Santino Ferrucci, you may be blocked from editing. Notfrompedro (talk) 22:01, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary, as you did at Santino Ferrucci. Notfrompedro (talk) 22:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Hi Jnimee!

Coupla things: First off, given the tone of your message, I guess you didn't bother to read Point 1 on my talk page. If you had, you'd have seen that bit about "Please be civil. Even if you came rushing here, mad as hell, to get something off your chest, remember that civility is a fundamental rule at Wikipedia. Who knows? You might even be right and get an apology out of me. Plus a 'Thank you', for being so reasonable about it." It's up there for a reason 'cos it kinda sets the tone for future communications. And right now, you done set the bar pretty low.

Second, the content you added is simply your interpretation of what the source you provided actually says. As I pointed out in my edit summary, "Nowhere does the reference provided back up the content [you] added." It does mention part of the information you provided in your first edit, the one I reverted, that bit about it being "... is located on the campus of the University of Illinois located in Champaign-Urbana IL, and was opened on March 2, 1963". So far, so good. It also points out that it "at one time was one of the only two-edge supported domes in the world" and that it is [currently] "third largest Illinois arena". But nowhere, as I mentioned, does it say anything about it being the "first multipurpose domed stadium in America" or it being "the first and largest domed stadium in North America from 1963 to 1965 until the opening of the Astrodome", which is what you claim the source states.

Oh, and we'll ignore that original edit, made by an IP user, who, for some reason, decided that a Wikipedia article should commence with the word "wrong" in big caps, followed by an exclamation mark and which, apart from that curiosity, was remarkably similar in content to your following edit.

On a personal note, I don't give two hoots whether anyone's hometown dome was the first of its kind, is the biggest or has more pigeons roosting in its roof. My only interest in this matter and that of any article I come across on Wikipedia is that it is reasonably accurate, at least according to the sources provided. If other sources appear to conflict with the existing information, fine, the new information gets to be included, always on the condition that it is fully and reliably referenced. Simple, really.

The bottom line is, please do not, as you have already done once, simply restore "your" version, as you have already done. That is the beginning of what is termed at Wikipedia "edit warring" and can lead to undesirable results to one of the parties involved and even, in some cases, to both parties. That is not a threat. It's a simple fact, and I, for one, don't really want to get blocked for being involved in something so insignificant.

The upshot of all this is that, rather than simply restoring contentious content, the best place for you to bring this issue up is on the article's talk page, where other editors can contribute to "solving" it. And who knows? Other editors might eventually consider "your" version to be the "correct" one or the "best" one, thereby proving me "wrong". Fine. So be it. But given the initial lack of civility in your message on my talk page, don't expect an apology from me. I'm no longer interested in debating the merits of your "case". Technopat (talk) 08:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, "my tone" is your interpretation. Nowhere did I use derogatory, inflammatory or profanity-laced language. So I'm sorry I WAS being civil. Have some common sense here. If one "Domed sports facility" was built in 1963. And another domed sports facility was built in 1965 how can the one built two years later, be the "first"? Just because the source I gave doesn't "Specifically" claim to be the first, the year it opened is self-explanatory as being first. That is not only physically true but literally true. Anyone with any level of intelligence would understand that. The fact that you replied with a dissertation trying to reveal how I was not civil, instead of a simple explanation not only demonstrates your ignorance to the facts but also demonstrates a level of dominance and control over an entity (wikipedia) that for all intense and purpose is a silly and a useless source for miss-informed information. Your response is exactly why wikipedia sucks. But given the initial level of hostility in your dissertation don't expect an apology from me. I'm no longer interested in debating the merits of your lack of intelligence. Jnimee (talk) 05:24, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]