This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Qed237 (talk | contribs) at 22:54, 14 September 2015 (Final warning: Harassment of other users on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Football. (TW)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 22:54, 14 September 2015 by Qed237 (talk | contribs) (Final warning: Harassment of other users on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Football. (TW))(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)December 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States
The December 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
--Kumioko (talk) 01:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects
The January 2012 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Constructor names
Eightball, the reason why the constructor column in the team and driver table on the 2012 Formula One season page contains both team name and engine name is because - as a result of a long-standing consensus - the constructors' standings table at the bottom of the article contains both team name and engine name. Therefore, the team and driver table shows team name and engine name for consistency between both tables.
However, of more concern to me is this, your edit summary:
- "No it's not. You guys are the worst. Always making things up. It ends here."
This is a highly-aggressive - and, quite frankly, extremely rude - comment. If you want to discuss the reasons for the change, then I suggest you talk about it first. It will give you and other editors the opprotunity to explain both ways of thinking and come to an agreement on what is best for the article. As it is, I see your comment that 1) describes other editors as "the worst", 2) accusing us of "always making things up", 3) finishing with "it ends here", as if you are the sole authority on the page and 4) no discussion on the talk page, and you you know what I read?
This:
- "No it's not. You guys are the worst. Always making things up. It ends here."
Becomes this:
- "Screw you guys, I know what's best for the page, and it should look like this because I say so. If you don't like that, deal with it."
To be brutally honest with you, I'd be inclined to revert your edits at the sight of such an arrogant comment.
If you want to contribute to the article, then by all means, we're willing to accomodate that and discuss your ideas. But nobody - and that includes you - has the right to make changes to a page because they don't like them, accuse everyone of poor editing, and then expect that their edits will remain without debate or argument. I've been an editor for four years now, and while I've mostly limited myself to the Formula 1 pages, the one thing I have learned from working with the other editors is that they do not suffer people like you gladly.
I suggest that you take a good, hard look at your attitude and the way you present yourself before you continue editing. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages Loves Libraries Seattle
| Decemmber 8 - Misplaced Pages Loves Libraries Seattle - You're invited | |
|---|---|
 |
|
Happy New Year
|
| Happy New Year from the Women's Football Task Force! |
 Thank you for your contributions to women's football/soccer articles throughout the year. 2014 is looking bright! We're glad to have you as a contributing member of the
Women's Football Task Force and hope to see more of your great work in the new year. Cheers!
|
| Task force quick links |
| Open Tasks | Recognized content | Members | Resources New! Portal:Women's association football |
Mobile editing
I go through the browser. It took a bit of getting used to, because it uses a mobile-friendly format, but it can be a real pain at times, especially on bigger articles. It often takes three or four edits to do what I could do in on a computer, especially if I need to copy and paste as the browser cannot always handle it - if I copy and paste a URL for instance, the browser inserts it in places where the auto-correct has spotted my bad spelling. I updated all of the Formula 1 team articles so that drivers were listed sequentially (ie, Button, #22, was listed before Magnussen, #20, in the McLaren article). That would be simple enough on a computer, but in the mobile browser, I have to do this:
- 1 - Copy the text I want to move.
- 2 - Deliberately break the infobox by closing it off at the point where I want to insert the text.
- 3 - Create a new subsection underneath and save the exit.
- 4 - Edit the new subsection, copying the text I want to move over that heading, and save again.
- 5 - Repair the infobox, and add anything else I need (like a reference template) to the article, and save again.
So it's a pain, which I suppose is why I have been digging my heels in on the article talk page of late. What might seem like a simple edit to most means at least three times as much work for me, so I want to make damn sure that the changes we make are the right ones. But now that you mention that there us a Wiki app, I'll look into it. It might make life easier for me and me easier to get along with. Those long-winded debates on car numbering and Sergey Sirotkin got so long that they kept forcing my browser to stop. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 05:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
- Eightball, you really need to read WP:POINT. I really don't care about the exact issue of the numbering order, but you removing two valid sections whilst you do so, and edit-warring on that particular version, was absolutely unacceptable. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:59, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Edit warring
Eightball you are in violation of WP:3R on the 2014 Formula One season, three reverts on an article in less than a day - and in this case five reverts. If reported, I would expect to see you'd be blocked from editting regardless of the merits of your arguement (because there are no exceptions allowed for 3R). Now stop it with the petty reverting with Prisonermonkeys. For your interest, I created this just for you. --Falcadore (talk) 00:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- If I may add my thoughts here, there is a preliminary consensus on the talk page in favour of arranging the table in number order, not WCC order. You may not like that, but nobody ever said you had to. You may disagree with that, but that is what the talk page is for. The consensus itself might be weak, but it is a consensus. You do not get to override it because you dislike it or disagree with it. Ignoring a consensus, attempting to characterise edits you disagree with as vandalism, and removing 8,000KB of uncontested content from an article is both disruptive and in violation of AGF.
- If you wish to see the order of the table changed, then you will need to form a new consensus first. A consensus can change over time - it is not a fixed rule that will be adhered to for eternity. But if you continue to ignore the existing consensus, if you continue to try and force through your preferred edits without the support of a new consensus, and if you continue this disruptive behaviour, then you can and probably will be referred to the administrators. Having your preferred version of the table in the article does not make your argument any stronger, just as having a different version of the table in the article does not make your argument any weaker. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 06:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Notice of Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents discussion
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents The thread is Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Talk:2014 Formula One season (talk) 10:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. The thread is Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Eightball reported by User:Tvx1 (Result: ). Thank you. Tvx1 (talk) 15:45, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Are you doing this as a bet?
What's gotten into you? Edit-warring over a flag, and it isn't even two flags its just whether it is there or not. Are you OK? --Falcadore (talk) 16:58, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Flag of Germany
Your recent editing history at 2015 Formula One season shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You are already well and truly past 3RR—you have reverted no less than five times in the space of a day. If this continues, you will be referred to the 3RR noticeboard. By rights, you already should have been. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 21:53, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
DRN
If you lodge a DRN, it is mandatory you notify the users involved on their talk pages. You can find the explanation how to do so over at WP:DRN. Regards, Tvx1 (talk) 15:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
ANI
There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Tvx1 (talk) 16:33, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Community Shield
I see that you reverted my edits to the Community Shield disambiguation page, and the Community Shield (disambiguation) redirect. When the base name is ambiguous, that's where the disambiguation page is supposed to be (per WP:D). The (disambiguation) title should redirect to the disambiguation page at the base name so that intentional links to the disambiguation page can be created (per WP:INTDABLINK).
Additionally, copy/paste moves are not allowed. If you feel that the disambiguation page should move to Community Shield (disambiguation), and one of the two articles listed there should move to Community Shield, please use WP:RM to perform that move. -Niceguyedc 18:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- We can keep your version, but the histories are going to need to be merged together, and the page should sit at Community Shield. I will file a request at WP:RM to accomplish this. -Niceguyedc 20:01, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
September 2015
Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:Qed237. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Qed237 (talk) 22:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian, as you did at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Football. Qed237 (talk) 22:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)