→Syrian civil war infobox: hogwash |
Greyshark09 (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 110: | Line 110: | ||
First, you are being hostile contrary to WP policy on Civility and Good faith. Second, I am not the ''only person'', editor Editor abcdef also reverted you. Third, you again reverted my and editor Albrecht's edits that have nothing to do with your complaint which is disruptive. Fourth, it was discussed and agreed long ago to include only the largest and most notable of the groups in the infobox and link the main article with the list of all of the smaller ones in the infobox. Your additions are both too long and redundant (since we provided a link) as editor Editor abcdef has said. Finally, you just made a 2nd full revert in less then 24 hours on a page that falls under a 1RR policy, under which no more than 1 revert is allowed per 24 hours. So, I would please ask that you cancel your revert, otherwise violations of 1RR can get you blocked. [[User:EkoGraf|EkoGraf]] ([[User talk:EkoGraf|talk]]) 14:28, 15 October 2016 (UTC) |
First, you are being hostile contrary to WP policy on Civility and Good faith. Second, I am not the ''only person'', editor Editor abcdef also reverted you. Third, you again reverted my and editor Albrecht's edits that have nothing to do with your complaint which is disruptive. Fourth, it was discussed and agreed long ago to include only the largest and most notable of the groups in the infobox and link the main article with the list of all of the smaller ones in the infobox. Your additions are both too long and redundant (since we provided a link) as editor Editor abcdef has said. Finally, you just made a 2nd full revert in less then 24 hours on a page that falls under a 1RR policy, under which no more than 1 revert is allowed per 24 hours. So, I would please ask that you cancel your revert, otherwise violations of 1RR can get you blocked. [[User:EkoGraf|EkoGraf]] ([[User talk:EkoGraf|talk]]) 14:28, 15 October 2016 (UTC) |
||
:Your accusation is hogwash as the groups I added are bigger and more important than many of the groups that were already listed. You don't unilaterally get to decide which groups are notable.--[[User:IceFrappe|IceFrappe]] ([[User talk:IceFrappe#top|talk]]) 15:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC) |
:Your accusation is hogwash as the groups I added are bigger and more important than many of the groups that were already listed. You don't unilaterally get to decide which groups are notable.--[[User:IceFrappe|IceFrappe]] ([[User talk:IceFrappe#top|talk]]) 15:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC) |
||
==SCW&ISIL sanctions== |
|||
{{Ivmbox |
|||
|'''''Please read this notification carefully,''' it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does '''not''' imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.'' |
|||
A [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive253#Request to amend sanctions on Syrian civil war articles|community decision]] has authorised the use of [[Wikipedia:General sanctions|general sanctions]] for pages related to the [[Syrian Civil War]] and the [[Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant]], such as [[:template:Syrian Civil War infobox]], which you have recently edited. The details of these sanctions are described [[Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant|here]]. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a '''one [[Help:Reverting|revert]] per twenty-four hours [[Wikipedia:Edit warring#Other revert rules|restriction]]''', as described [[Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#1RR|here]]. |
|||
[[Wikipedia:General sanctions|General sanctions]] is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means [[WP:INVOLVED|uninvolved]] administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|purpose of Wikipedia]], our [[:Category:Wikipedia conduct policies|standards of behaviour]], or relevant [[Wikipedia:List of policies|policies]]. Administrators may impose sanctions such as [[Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Types of restrictions|editing restrictions]], [[Wikipedia:Banning policy#Types of bans|bans]], or [[WP:Blocking policy|blocks]]. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged [[Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Log of notifications|here]]. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. [[User:Greyshark09|'''''GreyShark''''']] ([[User talk:Greyshark09|''dibra'']]) 21:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC) |
|||
| Commons-emblem-notice.svg |
|||
| icon size = 50px}} |
Revision as of 21:02, 19 October 2016
Welcome
Hello IceFrappe,
Welcome and enjoy Wikipedia. Your edits are much appreciated.
These links might help you with your contributions:
For Wikipedia-wide involvement, visit the Community Portal and the Village Pump.
Be sure to check out Australian resources, like the Australia Portal, Australian Wikipedians' Notice Board, Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight, New Australian Articles and Australian stub articles. You can list yourself at Australian Wikipedians.
Also, assuming you're an Adelaidean, have you considered participating in WikiProject Adelaide? Help is always needed!
By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Preferably, use four tildes (~~~~), which produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page.
Again, welcome.--cj | talk 03:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Respond to IceFrappe
Thank you very much! I actually had a lot of help from Cremepuff222 with it.
I was, but now I am actually on Wikipedia much less frequently which would make adopting someone quite unreasonable. I'm sorry to say no, but it wouldn't benefit you at all. Good luck, though! —Preceding unsigned comment added by GorillaWarfare (talk • contribs) 02:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
There is no consensus yet to move this article to Adam Jones (football). Please undo your edits. « Milk's Favorite Cøøkie » 01:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I highly doubt if you follow the NFL. 95% of all news articles call him Adam Jones starting from this season. His player profile on sports.yahoo.com, si.com, and other prominent sports websites all respected Mr. Jones' wish to be called by his given name from now on. Wikipedia should do the same in a preferably speedy manner. By the way, the admin who protected Pacman Jones is committing admin abuse.--IceFrappe (talk) 01:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I have undone your copy-paste move and protected the page. Apparently, there is no consneus for moving the page-- it was protected against being moved. Copy paste moves are thoroughly unexceptable as they destroy the edit history of the article. Please seek consensus before changing articles. Thanks. Dlohcierekim 01:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
You have inserted your personal opinion in the middle of a dispute. That is unacceptable behavior for an administrator. The fact that other wikipedians either do not follow the NFL or are simply ignorant does not change the fact that Mr. Jones explicitly stated that he no longer wishes to be called Pacman. His player profile in sports.yahoo.com, si.com, NFL.com, etc all reflected this change.--IceFrappe (talk) 01:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
- I actually agree with the move. I think it is, er not best practice to have the article under a nick name instead of his real name. However there was no consensus for the move. And Copy-paste moving to get around the existing protection was a poor idea. Copy-paste moves do not preserve the edit history for the article. This one was disruptive. As I said on the article talk page, the matter needs to be resolved following the dispute resolution process- an RFC, a straw poll, another request at page moves. a reasonable discussio ont the talk page. mediation. Ultimately, ARBCOM. It is you who are inserting your opinion without consensus. You can not go without consensus unilaterally, complaining about how ignorant others are. Perhaps others are not so ill-informed or ignorant as you would like to suppose. And you'd be surprised how many Wikipedia editors are well acquainted with the NFL. If your arguments are persuasive-- in a consensus building process that follows the rules we all are required to edit by- the change can be made. Dlohcierekim's sock (talk) 02:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
I would like to solicit feedback concerning moving this to Adam Jones (football). It makes sense to me, but is there consensus? Please opine in the section of the article talk page. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 20:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Vandalism
Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Roger Clemens. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. Jackal4 (talk) 14:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Roger Clemens is not retired. How is removing the retired player box someone randomly added vandalism?--IceFrappe (talk) 05:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- How many years does a player need to be inactive before he's de facto retired? Especially someone of Clemens' age? P.S. Beware of risking violating the 3-revert rule. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:52, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball/Archive_6#Changing_active_infoboxes_to_retired Consensus established here. Please stop reverting. Thank you--IceFrappe (talk) 02:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
STOP
Stop chaning the infoboxes, these players do not have to say they are retired to get retired player infobox. I will tell you why these guys have the retired infobox:
- Roger Clemens- Has said that he has no interest in playing and will most likely not again considering hes 47 next year link
- Reggie Sanders - He is 40 coming off an injury, no team has had any interest in him at all, hes done
- Jose Mesa - He is another aging pitcher who no one has show interest in, hes done
- Steve Finley - This is a no brainer, hes 44 next season and has not played since the beginning of LAST SEASON, yeah he says he still wants to play, but no team wants him, so he is done--Yankees10 05:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball/Archive_6#Changing_active_infoboxes_to_retired Please bow to established consensus. Thank you--IceFrappe (talk) 02:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
yeah that was then, the season is over and they werent signed or even closed to being signed, sorry but you are wrong--Yankees10 04:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
You are wrong is not a vadly argument. The consensus at the time seems to be either wait until spring training to see if these veterans get an invite to spring training or when they officially announce retirement.--IceFrappe (talk) 18:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
- How about confining this discussion to WP:Baseball, so that there is a possibility of consensus on the matter? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
I see no rationale in revisiting the topic when a consensus was already establiehd. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball/Archive_6#Changing_active_infoboxes_to_retired (which Yankees 10 took part in) Do we have to constantly revisit the issue just because Yankees 10 has a fetish for declaring the end of a player's career?--IceFrappe (talk) 04:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Various baseball player articles. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Grsz11 →Review! 00:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
How about confining this discussion to WP:Baseball, so that there is a possibility of consensus on the matter? Did I say that already? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
The consensus was already reached months ago, which Yankees10 was a part of. Now he is wikilawyering his way out of a previous agreement with other editors. The blatant lack of good faith and the breach of promise on his part is unacceptable in Wikipedia.--IceFrappe (talk) 03:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Why do I get a 3RR banner but not Yankees 10? Please stay objective.--IceFrappe (talk) 03:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- You continue to cite a false "consensus". Keep this on the project page and cease your reversions. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
Why didn't Yankees10 discuss before unilaterally reneging the agreement and changing all the infoboxes? He's the one who's starting all the problems. And now you're reverting to his preferred versions. Can you call yourself neutral and objective? I highly doubt that.--IceFrappe (talk) 10:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT!!!!--Yankees10 16:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
There was a agreement, at least temporarily, to leave the infoboxes alone. You should had open up a new discussion thread before unilaterally changing the infoboxes then edit war to keep your preferred version.--IceFrappe (talk) 06:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
No actually there wasnt, everything you have said has basically been wrong to this point--Yankees10 06:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Edit Warring
I have no interest in these articles/infoboxes and as such I am completely neutral. As such it does appear that you are disruptively editing and do need to cease, please discuss any changes you wish to have, it appears most of the baseball project seems to disagree with the changes you are making which is a pretty strong consensus against what you wish to do. Continue to edit in a disruptive manor and you will be blocked. -Djsasso (talk) 14:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
You are not because you did not warn JustSomeRandomGuy, who is vandalizing in a number of pages and making unilateral removal of information especially in Carlos Delgado.--IceFrappe (talk) 00:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Actually looking at that page, he appears to be correct in the matter and you are just being disruptive. -Djsasso (talk) 01:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
How is he correct? Carlos Delgado received a world series and was on the roster when the Jays won in '93. How is he not a world champion? Justsomerandomguy unilaterally removed that part with no discussion or consensus whatsoever. Your unprincipled support is a disgrace for good faith editors--IceFrappe (talk) 06:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- First off where is your source. If you think you are right find a source calling him a World Champion. As for the closers, the cite is right at the top of the template. It says {from the mlb.com depth charts) which is the best cite you could possibly use during the off season. To just assume that these players will not be the starters is violating WP:NPOV and WP:OR. -Djsasso (talk) 17:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Syrian civil war infobox
First, you are being hostile contrary to WP policy on Civility and Good faith. Second, I am not the only person, editor Editor abcdef also reverted you. Third, you again reverted my and editor Albrecht's edits that have nothing to do with your complaint which is disruptive. Fourth, it was discussed and agreed long ago to include only the largest and most notable of the groups in the infobox and link the main article with the list of all of the smaller ones in the infobox. Your additions are both too long and redundant (since we provided a link) as editor Editor abcdef has said. Finally, you just made a 2nd full revert in less then 24 hours on a page that falls under a 1RR policy, under which no more than 1 revert is allowed per 24 hours. So, I would please ask that you cancel your revert, otherwise violations of 1RR can get you blocked. EkoGraf (talk) 14:28, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
- Your accusation is hogwash as the groups I added are bigger and more important than many of the groups that were already listed. You don't unilaterally get to decide which groups are notable.--IceFrappe (talk) 15:59, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
SCW&ISIL sanctions
Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, such as template:Syrian Civil War infobox, which you have recently edited. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.
General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. GreyShark (dibra) 21:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)