| Revision as of 19:06, 2 September 2012 editBlethering Scot (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers68,059 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 23:25, 19 May 2020 edit undoSporkBot (talk | contribs)Bots1,244,917 editsm Remove template per TFD outcome | ||
| (698 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{bots|deny=DPL bot}} | |||
| <div style="background:white; border:2px DarkOrchid solid; padding:12px;"> | |||
| <big>'''Welcome!'''</big> | |||
| '''Do not add any forms of warnings to this page unless they are fully justified and are done after the engaging of discussions. Do not jump to adding warnings, and do not add warnings in the first instance, as they are counterproductive, and do not go anywhere near being able to resolve any issues at hand. Warnings are a last resort and not a first resort.''' | |||
| Hello, {{BASEPAGENAME}}, and ] Thank you for ]{{#if:|, especially those to the ] article|{{#if:|, especially those to the ] article|}}}}. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| I hope you enjoy editing here and being a ]! Please ] on talk pages using four tildes <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>, which will automatically produce your name and the date. | |||
| '''When making comments on this talk page please be aware of the use of the pronoun <u>SHE</u>, when making comments.''' | |||
| If you need help, check out ], ask me on {{#if:|]|my talk page}}, or place <code><nowiki>{{helpme}}</nowiki></code> on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! | |||
| Please do not remove or edit parts of this talk page as per ]. Drawing particular attention to the following:<blockquote>''Never'' edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning....Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection.</blockquote> | |||
| {{#if:||] (]) 17:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)}}</div>{{#if:| | |||
| {{{ps}}}|}}<!-- This message was generated using Template:Welcome! --> | |||
| {{NoAutosign}} | |||
| <!-- it is a real shame I have to put this but it has come to the point where users feel warnings are a first resort and not a last resort. --> | |||
| == Welcome to Misplaced Pages: check out the Teahouse! == | |||
| {{Talk header}} | |||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Teahouse/Invitation|sign=] (]) 18:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 1024K | |||
| |counter = 1 | |||
| |minthreadsleft = 2 | |||
| |minthreadstoarchive = 1 | |||
| |algo = old(360d) | |||
| |archive = User talk:Sport and politics/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| }} | |||
| The following editors are not welcome to comment on this talk page. Any comments left by the following editors will be closed without hesitation, and not responded to. This is formal notification of an avoidance of deliberate interaction with the individual users listed below. | |||
| == Challenge/Ramsdens Cup. == | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| *] | |||
| == Only warning == | |||
| Why are you changing the Ramsdens Cup to Challenge Cup. That is the name of the competition at the moment and all last seasons and this seasons articles link to that, equally the previous year linked to ALBA Cup. I don't want to blindly revert all your edits but is against the consensus at the moment so you need to discuss something like this.] ] 23:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="boilerplate metadata vfd tfd-closed" style="background-color: #e3f9df; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> | |||
| :''The following discussion is archived and relates to ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> | |||
| Hi, Sport and politics. As you've stopped responding at AN/I, I'm just notifying you here that you've been formally issued a ''final and only'' warning via AN/I: '''All of Sport and politics comments and communications are to be in compliance with Misplaced Pages's civility policies and at all times - failure to do this ''will'' result in being blocked.''' Said warning was issued by {{u|Oshwah}}, and endorsed by {{u|Canterbury Tail}}, {{u|NeilN}}, and {{u|Swarm|myself}}. Please see the AN/I thread for the full comments. Regards, ] ] 08:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| A guy said it was in over thirty articles using this name so he pointed out the scale of the problem. Its not right to use a sponsored name for one trophy and not the other trophies the Scottish Cup is not called the William Hill Cup which its current sponsored name. Also the ] which is England's equivalent is not called the Johnstone's Paint trophy. Lets get some consistency going here.] (]) 23:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::England is irrelevant. Its a name of the trophy, William Hill Scottish Cup or Scottish Communities League Cup. However the Challenge Cup is the ] or ] no mention of the word challenge which defines it as different to the ]. Its far more than 30 articles, at least 60 or more and its wikilinked to the challenge cup so there is nothing wrong with the way its done at the moment. And if you look at england season articles they do state Johnstone's Paint trophy but are wikilinked to the main cup. Stop and discuss it because I'm going to have to be bold and revert until you have discussed on the main page.] ] 23:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Also a search for Challenge Cup will mainly come up with stats or wiki articles. Alba or Ramsdens cup is the notable and common name for this competition. Where as the common name for the William Hill Scottish Cup is still the Scottish Cup.] ] 23:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| <s>:It seems any cabal of vested interests can group together and act like the mafia. Individuals making up nonsense and then going round making up their own rules. I firmly reject this "Only warning" Bullshit. I shall be looking at ways to appeal this pile of dog poo. I firmly stand by the comments which I made. and the other user was wholly sexist when quoting the dictionary, and being as ignorant as one can be. the apology was not sicncere, and i never asked for one. | |||
| You appear to be missing the principle, Ramsden's is not the name on the cup, the competition has had many different sponsors. If it was actually called the Ramsdne's cup and the main article was called the Ramsden's cup, it should be called so, its not though its called the Scottish Challenge cup,. Your argument lacks logical merit. ] (]) 23:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| </s> | |||
| :''The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> No further edits should be made to this section.''</div> | |||
| Could you also please make all your comments in one go to stop edit conflicts.] (]) 23:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::No I'm not missing the point. You changed ]. And no I'm not missing the point there is a big difference between the Scottish Cup and the Ramsdens Cup, there is absolutely nothing wrong in the linking the article and piping the sponsors name or in this case the ]. And just so you know there is no requirement to edit in one go and you can edit using as many small edits as you wish, and as there was a clear reason for me doing so there isn't a problem there.] ] 23:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| I have removed the comments which appear to have caused the issues below. I apologise for making those comments, they are not made out of anything other than frustration, upset and disappointment. All I have ever wanted to do here is improve and write articles, it does though seem that I get to meet users who do so n an aggressive way, and have lots of other users who act just as aggressively around them. Maybe it is ,e, maybe it is them, maybe it is both of us. I just want to leave and com back later, It is likely to be months and potentially years. I may never come back, but All i want to do is walk away do some soul searching and potentially comeback at some future point. I am not in a great place myself, and in the future being on here could be something can have in my life. I would like to learn more when I come back, but now all I want to do is leave voluntarily. ] (]) 14:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| {{ping|Canterbury Tail}} | |||
| ::Hundreds of little edits, i don't think so. You cannot make that volume of edits without discussing, especially when i politely started a discussion with you and then despite that you ignore and carry on regardless. Search Ramsdens Cup, and then search Challenge cup and see what you think is the common name of this competition. You keep referring to other sponsors, the William Hill Scottish Cup isn't a common name the Scottish Cup is where as the Ramsdens Cup is the common name over Challenge Cup. As long as we link to the main article there isn't an issue here, piping is commonly used for similar reasons throughout wikipedia not just football. Ramsden's Challenge Cup and Ramsden's Cup both use the common name. ] ] 00:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| <div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px">]<div style="margin-left:45px">You have been ''']''' ''']''' from editing for ]. </div><div style="margin-left:45px">If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the ], then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}. </div></div><!-- Template:uw-blockindef --> | |||
| :You have been blocked indefinitely from editing Misplaced Pages for blatant violations of the warning given above. You were given a final warning and you chose to double down in response to it. As a result you've left me with no choice as it seems clear you're unwilling to abide by Misplaced Pages's civility policies and interact with other editors in a civil manner. ] ] 13:56, 27 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| You are claiming the "common name" is Ramsden's Cup can you prove this? The Common name in England for the equivelant competition is Johnstone's Paint Trophy yet Misplaced Pages ignore that and uses Football league trophy. Also if you have to link over the main article called something different, this demonstrates it is not the common name. If it was the common name the main article for the competition would be "Ramsdens Cup" also is the "Common name" Ramsden's Cup or Ramsden's Challenge cup. I have seen both used in article frequently. Also when I tried to respond to you I encountered continual edit conflict as you kept adding and changing what you had put.] (]) 00:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :No i changed it once and you have decided to cause drama. I suggest you read ] which i already provided for you above and ]. You need consensus for this change and its pretty damm easy to show common name in this case a search comparison shows the shear number of hits for Ramsdens over Challenge Cup, it is very rarely used as a term which is why when searching Challenge cup it shows mostly stat pages. I repeat one last time there is nothing wrong using piping in this case. Look at how many articles edited by how many people in order to make changed on the scale you are doing you need to discuss to gain a consensus either way. ] ] 00:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Is it only you who is pushing this sponsored name? Are you in any way employed, or a shareholder or someone who stands to benefit by plastering this free advertising all over wikipedia against the common sense and the other precedents such as the Football League trophy.you arguments though are still lacking in logical substance.] (]) 00:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :No its not just me. These articles have been edited by many users, you are the only one who has changed this. Your suggestion i am employed by the Ramsdens Cup is wholly laughable, my argument on common name and clearly showing you there is a difference does not lack substance. Ive been very patient with you as you are a new editor and shown you the related policies but lets get this straight wikipedia is about consensus and when that volume of articles contains the same linking and has been edited by multiple editors and someone asks you to stop and discuss. You stop and discuss you don't keep going, You were reverted and you go through to discuss as per policy you don't then try and push your own personal opinion by reverting again especially whilst not using edit summaries. Ive been patient but you are edit warring and not discussing instead accusing someone who has been around for a long time and clearly by looking at my user page and edit history will show you very clearly i do not work for the Ramsdens Cup and since you cannot back that claim up in any way you should retract it.] ] 00:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| If " firmly stand by the comments which made" then an indefinite block is entirely appropriate. As another editor observed in the ANI thread, a male editor making similar comments to a female editor would likely not received a warning, but have been immediately indefinitely blocked. --] <sup>]</sup> 14:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| *S&P - drop it now. I know you're new here but accusing other editors of having a conflict if interest (not true btw, I know where EW works and it's not for Ramsens) is not appropriate, neither is opening a frivolous ANI thread about editors you are in conflict with, and neither is repeating any of the above. Please leave it as you are both becoming increasingly disruptive. ]] 21:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :{{ping|NeilN}}Those comments have been struck through and withdrawn, and I apologise for those comments. ] (]) 14:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::If you want to walk away for a time, I can discuss with the blocking admin a reduction in the block length to say three months so you won't be tempted to come back before then. --] <sup>]</sup> 14:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::But you still made those comments. This is the root of the problem, you keep making comments such as those and I can't shake the feeling right now that you're just saying what you think we want to hear for the time being. My concern isn't now, it's what happens if you come back and interact with other editors again as it seems any time you don't like something you drop into these civility issues. Based on the history of such comments, the repeated reports on ANI and what I've seen myself, I can't in good faith lift the block at this point, though I leave it to other admins to consider this. ] ] 14:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'm in agreement. In this case, the ] would apply I feel. Walk away for 6 months, come back and show that you really want to work in a collaborative environment, staying away from such comments that led to this block. ] (]) 14:46, 27 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
| {{unblock reviewed | 1=I'm in the process of going on a long break from here, and I am very frustrated here by the whole situation which has been taken. I am unaware of why I have now for some reason been blocked forever. I think a block forever is over the top. I was always under the impression they would be incremental and not punitive. I would like to voluntarily leave Misplaced Pages, and go away from here, with the option of returning at some point one day. At the moment though It feels like a user who has been looking to throw me off the site has taken extreme action, and not been proportionate. I am not sure what the reason here is. I am in the process of walking away, and i am being attacked as I leave. If there is a need for a block all i ask for is some proportionality here. I just want to go away here, and I just want to have the option of one day coming back. if what I have said is in violation of something then I apologise for that, all i ask i am allowed to walk away for what may be a very long time, and could be forever. ] (]) 14:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC) | decline = ''Cabal of vested interests''? Well there's that. BTW your block is indefinite, not infinite. Continuing the same railing in your unblock request is hardly going to induce anyone to unblock you. As RickinBaltimore says, wait 6 months. See how you feel then. Request the ].--] (]) 14:53, 27 February 2018 (UTC)}} | |||
| Please note I have already apologised for that. The ANI was not frivolous it was based on someone swearing and refering in a derogatory tone. It was not frivolous just that it fell outside of an actionable remit. ] (]) 21:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| *{{CUnote}} This is now a CheckUser block.--] (]) 11:07, 24 April 2018 (UTC) | |||
| == WPNOTNEWS listed at ] == | |||
| == Independent Olympic Athletes == | |||
| ] | |||
| <small>Note: following edit made on behalf of ] who could not make it because of a false positive edit filter. ] (]) 19:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)</small> | |||
| An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ]. Since you had some involvement with the ''WPNOTNEWS'' redirect, you might want to participate in ] if you have not already done so. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 22:43, 29 December 2018 (UTC) | |||
| {{Talkback|Talk:Independent Olympic Participants at the 2012 Summer Olympics|Requested move|ts=User:85.167.109.186}} | |||
| == The three additional athletes == | |||
| If you check the sources, you will see that the number of IOPs adds up to seven, not four. However, if you have a source that says different, that would be great. The London 2012 site and olympic.org are both looking very unreliable as of late. ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 07:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm reverting to seven until I see a source that says four added to the article. ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 00:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| If you change the number to seven could you add in the 3 addition athletes to the linked article. ] (]) 00:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| : There was a source added to the article that the Kuwaitis were competing under their own flag. That is good enough. ] (]) 00:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :: Actually, it's not that simple. We now have sources cited in the article that contradict each other. It is verifiable that there will be seven IOAs competing, even though three of those will probably be added to the Kuwaiti roster soon. I cannot verify that there will be only four IOAs competing, as no source that I have seen actually states that. The source which says the Kuwaitis will be competing under their own flag (which I added to the article, so please don't think I'm opposed to having that information in there) also gives the total number of Kuwaiti athletes as eleven, which still leaves one person missing even if we add the three Kuwaiti nationals listed as IOAs to the seven members of the Kuwaiti team listed by London 2012. I've added footnotes to the article now to clarify, and yes, I will go add info to the IOA article. Give me a few minutes. ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 00:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::: It is verifiable by a source that admits it is outdated. We have a new source which CLEARLY indicates Kuwaitis will be competing under their own flag. There is a disclaimer on the source you are citing saying it may not be up to date. In this case, it isn't. It has not been fully updated since Kuwait was allowed to compete under their own flag. The new source I just added CLEARLY indicates Kuwait will be competing under their own flag. That's more reliable than a source that ADMITS it may not be current. ] (]) 00:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::: The IOC source is outdated. It says so itself. The 11th athlete probably qualified later. We could figure out who it is if we really wanted to by looking at the qualifying lists for all the sports, but that seems like a waste. That's probably the reason, especially since the IOC source admits it's outdated. ] (]) 00:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::: I've added footnotes that clarify the situation. You are correct to point out that London 2012 is very likely out of date, but we have no way to establish that. The fact is that a source stating that the Kuwaitis will be sending their own team is ''not'' the same as them stating that the three Kuwaitis listed as IOA's will be competing for that team. Unless, of course, the source specifically names those three Kuwaitis as part of the team. Unless they explicitly state that, however, we are entering ] territory. And that's bad. ] <sup>(]|])</sup> 00:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: Fair enough. But it's also bad to put out information that is "most likely" false, even if we can't verify it is. Perhaps just not report a total for now? ] (]) 01:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Could you please move this to your own talk pages as I appear to no longer be involved in the conversation. ] (]) 07:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == IOP/IOA Merge == | |||
| Could you clarify your position on the IOP/IOA merge discussion? Would you, in addition to the ] article, keep the original articles, such as ]? If so, I think we can snowball it, keep the articles, and create the new one too. If not, please state your reasons for getting rid of the original articles in addition to creating the new ones, so we can discuss. Consensus seems to be nearly unanimous for the new article, the only question is what to do with the original ones. Your stance and Wesley Mouse's stance are unclear, everyone else in the discussion says keep them. Could you please clarify? Thanks. ] (]) 23:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| I think the ship has sailed to merge the articles, the main article on "Competing under the Olympic Flag" will need to link out the result dump articles with brief introductory paragraphs on each. ] (]) 23:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| : Fair enough. Do you mind formally stating so on the talk page so we can close it out? Thanks. ] (]) 23:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Regarding edit, spokespeople (particularly public sector ones) are not named in the UK, so it would not be possible to identify them. As such, I've removed the tag. Cheers, ] ]] 09:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| The claim you have made above is sweeping nonsense showing that there is no reading round of sources and poor verification practices on your behalf. A simple web search on the news story very speedily found the name of the spokesman. Please do not make absurdly sweeping incorrect claims. Please be more careful when removing legitimate templates that are there because necessary information is missing. ] (]) 10:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :Fair enough, I'd just never seen one named before (and I'm not sure why their name matters anyway), but well done for finding it. Not sure your attitude is required though. ] ]] 10:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| It must be the hot weather and the time of the month sorry for being a little ratty. ] (]) 10:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Tit-for-tat, i imagine] (]) 20:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ==Username== | |||
| Not againt you, per se. But just thought id mention ]] (]) 20:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| My user name is based on my areas of interest and I am not really sure what your post is on about. ] (]) 01:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :It suggests you could have some kind of agenda. ] (]) 12:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::Its just a name how does it suggest "an agenda". People need to be less suspicious. ] (]) 12:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'm not saying you have, but it could be misinterpreted. Sport is often used as a political tool (check out our ] article if you haven't already done so). I'm concerned though when I'm accused of being politically biassed wby someone with a username Sport and politics (as was the case ). ] (]) 12:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::::You have though wholly missed the point of the article by making the suggested addition that you did. ] (]) 12:43, 8 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Regardless of whether that is the case, your reply was ] and ]. If I find any similar comments elsewhere I'll be re-mentioning you at ]. ] (]) 13:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I don't understand your obsessive nature against my user-name. ] (]) 14:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ==Removal of comment== | |||
| That removal of your comment from the talk page was by accident. My apologies. I placed it back just before you put it back. ] (]) 23:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ==Query== | |||
| Have you edited under other account names? <small>]</small> 22:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| No I have not, this is my first account. Why what makes you think that this is another account. I have been editing though without an account before. I have also been doing a fair amount of reading of the ways of the principles of Misplaced Pages based on the welcome post which was put up. ] (]) 22:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :I too was thinking you seem to know a lot for a new user. But thats no a negative ;)(] (]) 01:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)). | |||
| :I asked because it's unusual for new users to be active on ] and ] but I wasn't assuming either you were new or you weren't. Just asked to help frame appropriate responses, addressing experienced editors like new editors is condescending, addressing new users with excessive wiki-speak is kind of rude. <small>]</small> 01:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::I understand that there seems to be a lot of ] going on from the discussion and user cla68 there is also zero ] | |||
| *If nobody has pointed to it yet - see: ]. If you've already read that one .. feel free to delete this post. ] (]) 02:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have also read ]. The user I was in dispute with has apparently read neither of those. ] (]) 10:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :::Just be aware of the hierarchy of guidance -- BRD (cycle) is an essay whereas consensus is policy -- but ] is a pillar ... Misplaced Pages is not really all that coherent; takes awhile to figure out how things work around here. <small>]</small> 02:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I understand that now, I have now had pointed out to me that a selective and biased interpretation which did not accurately convey and give the intent of the revert rule was used. As it was being stated that any removal of any content (except form a narrow list) more three times in 24 hours, even if it was added by different editors and was different information being removed each time, was revert warring. I have now had show to me to this was a highly selective and obstructive interpretation of revert warring. where in fact it it has been shown as being "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions..." There was no evidence of that occurring whatsoever. ] (]) 09:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :* (also: ]) ] (]) 02:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == Disengage == | |||
| At this point it would be best for you to disengage from FF on ANI. The more back and forth between you two reviewers see the more likely a topic ban or double block is. Let the thread play out without you (enjoy real life for a while, perhaps). <small>]</small> 16:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
| I had no intention of engaging any further. FF is no longer worth my time of day in my opinion. ] (]) 17:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :That's how I felt about him at the Controversies page. I think the block on him is far too short, and that the attacks on you were completely unjustified. ANI is a very sick place. Keep up the good work. ] (]) 22:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == My Talk page == | |||
| S&P, you probably didn't notice, but I said I didn't want any more comments in the that topic on my Talk page. So, I'm going to remove (again) your latest comment. Thanks.--] (]) 20:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Fair do. I did apologise in my comment though. I also had no intention of making any further comments. ] (]) 20:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :No worries, let's just leave it as is.--] (]) 20:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::I am sure the user will fall foul in the same way as the other user did as they are behaving in a very very similar way which is very characteristic of the previous waffle to attempt to include everything and stifle opposition to including everything by going personal. The same high levels of over-opinionatedness are also present.] (]) 20:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ==Disambiguation link notification for August 19== | |||
| Hi. When you recently edited ], you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ] (] | ]). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. <small>Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].</small> | |||
| It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 04:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
| == August 2012 == | |||
| ] Hello, and ]. You appear to be engaged in an ] with one or more editors  according to your reverts at ]. Although repeatedly ] another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Misplaced Pages this is usually seen as obstructing the ], and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a ] on the ]. | |||
| If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be ]. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the ], which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Misplaced Pages is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-ewsoft --> ] ] 17:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :I have requested full and long term page protection of this article to force all users to discuss. I trust you have warned the other user(s) involved as well. ] (]) 17:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ::I have warned the other user, too and have commented at ]. Full page protection would not be the best option here because the only edit warring is between you and {{User|Showmebeef}}. I suggest that you two discuss it on the article's talk page and if that doesn't work, bring it to ]. Edit warring won't get you anything but ]. ] ] 18:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
| Please not this is the second edit war and the page was previously protected for a 12 hour period. The previous edit war also involved Showmebeef. ] (]) 18:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :I see that you too have tried to discuss it on the article's talk page. I recommend that you bring it to ] (I'm a volunteer there) or ]. Best, ] ] 18:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC). | |||
| ==Notice of Dispute resolution discussion== | |||
| Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at ] regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "]". Thank you!<!--Template:DRN-notice--> ] <sup>''] / ]''</sup> 08:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC) | |||
| ==Notice of Wikiquette Assistance discussion== | |||
| Hello, Sport and politics. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. {{#if:|The thread is ]. }}{{#if:|The discussion is about the topic ].}}<!--Template:WQA-notice--> Thank you.] ] 19:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 23:25, 19 May 2020
Do not add any forms of warnings to this page unless they are fully justified and are done after the engaging of discussions. Do not jump to adding warnings, and do not add warnings in the first instance, as they are counterproductive, and do not go anywhere near being able to resolve any issues at hand. Warnings are a last resort and not a first resort.
When making comments on this talk page please be aware of the use of the pronoun SHE, when making comments.
Please do not remove or edit parts of this talk page as per WP:TPO. Drawing particular attention to the following:
Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning....Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection.
| This is Sport and politics's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 12 months  |
The following editors are not welcome to comment on this talk page. Any comments left by the following editors will be closed without hesitation, and not responded to. This is formal notification of an avoidance of deliberate interaction with the individual users listed below.
Only warning
- The following discussion is archived and relates to civility on wikipedia. Please do not modify it.
Hi, Sport and politics. As you've stopped responding at AN/I, I'm just notifying you here that you've been formally issued a final and only warning via AN/I: All of Sport and politics comments and communications are to be in compliance with Misplaced Pages's civility policies and at all times - failure to do this will result in being blocked. Said warning was issued by Oshwah, and endorsed by Canterbury Tail, NeilN, and myself. Please see the AN/I thread for the full comments. Regards, Swarm ♠ 08:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
:It seems any cabal of vested interests can group together and act like the mafia. Individuals making up nonsense and then going round making up their own rules. I firmly reject this "Only warning" Bullshit. I shall be looking at ways to appeal this pile of dog poo. I firmly stand by the comments which I made. and the other user was wholly sexist when quoting the dictionary, and being as ignorant as one can be. the apology was not sicncere, and i never asked for one.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.
I have removed the comments which appear to have caused the issues below. I apologise for making those comments, they are not made out of anything other than frustration, upset and disappointment. All I have ever wanted to do here is improve and write articles, it does though seem that I get to meet users who do so n an aggressive way, and have lots of other users who act just as aggressively around them. Maybe it is ,e, maybe it is them, maybe it is both of us. I just want to leave and com back later, It is likely to be months and potentially years. I may never come back, but All i want to do is walk away do some soul searching and potentially comeback at some future point. I am not in a great place myself, and in the future being on here could be something can have in my life. I would like to learn more when I come back, but now all I want to do is leave voluntarily. Sport and politics (talk) 14:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC) @Canterbury Tail:
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
- You have been blocked indefinitely from editing Misplaced Pages for blatant violations of the warning given above. You were given a final warning and you chose to double down in response to it. As a result you've left me with no choice as it seems clear you're unwilling to abide by Misplaced Pages's civility policies and interact with other editors in a civil manner. Canterbury Tail talk 13:56, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
If " firmly stand by the comments which made" then an indefinite block is entirely appropriate. As another editor observed in the ANI thread, a male editor making similar comments to a female editor would likely not received a warning, but have been immediately indefinitely blocked. --NeilN 14:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- @NeilN:Those comments have been struck through and withdrawn, and I apologise for those comments. Sport and politics (talk) 14:20, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- If you want to walk away for a time, I can discuss with the blocking admin a reduction in the block length to say three months so you won't be tempted to come back before then. --NeilN 14:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- But you still made those comments. This is the root of the problem, you keep making comments such as those and I can't shake the feeling right now that you're just saying what you think we want to hear for the time being. My concern isn't now, it's what happens if you come back and interact with other editors again as it seems any time you don't like something you drop into these civility issues. Based on the history of such comments, the repeated reports on ANI and what I've seen myself, I can't in good faith lift the block at this point, though I leave it to other admins to consider this. Canterbury Tail talk 14:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- I'm in agreement. In this case, the standard offer would apply I feel. Walk away for 6 months, come back and show that you really want to work in a collaborative environment, staying away from such comments that led to this block. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:46, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- But you still made those comments. This is the root of the problem, you keep making comments such as those and I can't shake the feeling right now that you're just saying what you think we want to hear for the time being. My concern isn't now, it's what happens if you come back and interact with other editors again as it seems any time you don't like something you drop into these civility issues. Based on the history of such comments, the repeated reports on ANI and what I've seen myself, I can't in good faith lift the block at this point, though I leave it to other admins to consider this. Canterbury Tail talk 14:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
- If you want to walk away for a time, I can discuss with the blocking admin a reduction in the block length to say three months so you won't be tempted to come back before then. --NeilN 14:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Sport and politics (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I'm in the process of going on a long break from here, and I am very frustrated here by the whole situation which has been taken. I am unaware of why I have now for some reason been blocked forever. I think a block forever is over the top. I was always under the impression they would be incremental and not punitive. I would like to voluntarily leave Misplaced Pages, and go away from here, with the option of returning at some point one day. At the moment though It feels like a user who has been looking to throw me off the site has taken extreme action, and not been proportionate. I am not sure what the reason here is. I am in the process of walking away, and i am being attacked as I leave. If there is a need for a block all i ask for is some proportionality here. I just want to go away here, and I just want to have the option of one day coming back. if what I have said is in violation of something then I apologise for that, all i ask i am allowed to walk away for what may be a very long time, and could be forever. Sport and politics (talk) 14:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Cabal of vested interests? Well there's that. BTW your block is indefinite, not infinite. Continuing the same railing in your unblock request is hardly going to induce anyone to unblock you. As RickinBaltimore says, wait 6 months. See how you feel then. Request the WP:standard offer.--Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:53, 27 February 2018 (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.
Checkuser note: This is now a CheckUser block.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:07, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
WPNOTNEWS listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect WPNOTNEWS. Since you had some involvement with the WPNOTNEWS redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 22:43, 29 December 2018 (UTC)