User talk:DyslexicNerd 01

Tyrol Basin ‎

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style, as you did in Tyrol Basin, disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:15, 24 August 2022 (UTC) ‎[reply]

Hi DyslexicNerd 01. The changes that I made to the article Tyrol Basin were done to bring the article's content more in line with Wikipedia's Manual of Style. The reason's given for the changes were given in the edit summaries I left when making the edits. However, since you seem to be fairly new to Wikipedia editing, you might not have noticed or understood those reasons. If you've got any questions about the changes that were made, feel free to ask them at Talk:Tyrol Basin and I or someone else will try to explain things. Please do undo the changes again because the older version of the article is definitely not an improvement Wikipedia-wise and doing so might be seen being contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, DyslexicNerd 01. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Tyrol Basin, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Aoidh (talk) 23:16, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

August 2022

Hi DyslexicNerd 01! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Tyrol Basin several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Tyrol Basin, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Aoidh (talk) 23:20, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, you have already violated a rule on Wikipedia called WP:3RR, which states that you cannot make more than three reversions on a page within a 24-hour period. You have not been reported for this because you were not aware of this rule, but if you continue to hit "undo", especially without discussing the content, you will be reported and likely blocked from editing for a given length of time. - Aoidh (talk) 23:25, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As long as people stop greifing the page then I will stop undoing the page. The information provided is accurate and from a third party source who has no affiliations with the company or any employees. All rules are being followed. DyslexicNerd 01 (talk) 23:27, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promotional material, while "accurate", is not within the scope of what belongs on a Wikipedia article. It is inaccurate to say that all rules are being followed, as once reverted, you should be discussing and getting consensus for the material rather than edit-warring to try to keep the material in the article. - Aoidh (talk) 23:29, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then there are a lot more pages you need to take a look at. This is all informative and non promotional. I am not trying to sell a product, it is all information on the company and the service they provide. Look at any other ski resort page. DyslexicNerd 01 (talk) 23:30, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits added ticket pricing and talked about "huge discounts" and how cheap the prices were; that content is very promotional and problematic and was reverted for that reason. If you feel other articles have issues then you are welcome to address them on the talk pages of those other articles, but what I'm focused on with these edits is this article, not any other articles. - Aoidh (talk) 23:49, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then why don't you solve that edit instead of deleting the whole page and grefing it. You are doing more harm than good DyslexicNerd 01 (talk) 23:51, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did "solve that edit", by removing everything that was problematic. The pricing and "huge discounts" were just a particularly egregious example of what was wrong with the changes, that doesn't mean they were the only issue with the changes. Fixing these issues causes no "harm" to the article. - Aoidh (talk) 23:58, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SO explain what rules including a trail list causes. Many other resort pages feature this type of list DyslexicNerd 01 (talk) 23:59, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Aoidh (talk) 23:34, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thats just rude. Shame on you. DyslexicNerd 01 (talk) 23:34, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You were told what would happen if you continued to revert. It was neither rude, nor does my house have shame on it for having done what I said I would do. It helps to slow down and discuss, rather than hitting undo when someone disagrees with your edits. - Aoidh (talk) 23:38, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I followed the rules. I chose the langue very carefully to abide by the rules. I have never had issues with other pages and this language just this page and that is outrageous. If your going to enforce like this make it uniform otherwise It looks like targeting. DyslexicNerd 01 (talk) 23:41, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What rule are you suggesting you followed? Also, when you say I have never had issues with other pages I'm not sure what you're talking about, because you've never edited any other articles on this account. Are you referring to an account you had before this one? - Aoidh (talk) 23:53, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Correct I have a different account. I use this one after I forgot the old pass word. I used to edit dozens of pages and never ran into any problems with using similar language. DyslexicNerd 01 (talk) 23:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing Tyrol Basin for edit warring to restore blatantly promotional 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 ~~~~}}. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:35, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You've blown past 3 reverts and are clearly intent on restoring the inappropriate promotional material to the article. If you believe that verbiage such as "After July 1st is over the pass goes back to its regular summer price of $499.99 Thousands of people take this deal making it one of the most popular in all of the Midwest. No other resort offers prices near this great deal!" belongs in a Wikipedia article, you're very wrong. The article talk page is still available for you to discuss changes to the article, but if the disruption spreads the block will be changed to site wide.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:35, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

DyslexicNerd 01 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Information was accurate and followed every rule. No reason was given for ban

Notes:

In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=Information was accurate and followed every rule. No reason was given for ban |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=Information was accurate and followed every rule. No reason was given for ban |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=Information was accurate and followed every rule. No reason was given for ban |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

DyslexicNerd 01 (talk) 23:37, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]