User talk:Guinea pig warrior

User talk

Please leave a message

I hope you reconsider

I genuinely hope you don't retire as you obviously make some very good and well informed edits.

My only problem with your edits is, even if an edit is backed up by fact, if you don't approve, it goes.

An example using AFL (video game series).

I made this series of changes to the AFL game page on the 11th Aug, backed up by a comment on the discussion page here.

Your reaction to the change. Revert. I hope you'll agree, nothing I changed can be disputed as factually incorrect? I even provided 2 other games (2 of the biggest of the 1990's while we were disputing a game made in the 90's) as reference to the way I changed it.

Again, I hope you reconsider.

Sequal1 (talk) 23:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I tried mate, I really think you add a lot to Wikipedia and a lot of pages will be worse off without your input. I meant what I said here and was hoping we could move on from this. Sequal1 (talk) 12:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Goodbye Guinea!

I hope you find the time and patience to come back in the future at some point. You were the only other editor even remotely interested in some of the articles I was editing and without your help they might just stagnate. Hit me up by email or something in the future if you like!--Senor Freebie (talk) 03:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Cya

I'm genuinely sorry about you decision. We need all the editors we can get at WP:AFL, even if you and I disagreed occasionally. Jenks24 (talk) 06:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

My Condolences...

As I say to every editor who dramatically announces their "swan song" - you have to evolve and improve. "Bullies" bothering you? Learn how to deal with them. Embarrassed by some of your edits and/or edit summaries: I've got a million I'd love to retract of my own. Been wrong? No shame in that at all - but you've got to be able to quickly learn common sense in editing with all others. I've very little sympathy for truly valuable editors who "quit" out of pressure from others. If you want to positively contribute here to building an encyclopedia - the choice is yours, and all your good edits will be recognized (as well as your bad ones). Best of luck, and hopefully you'll "see the light". Cheers... Doc9871 (talk) 08:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I hope you would reconsider

I've seen you around the various video game articles, and it looks like you have done a fine job from what I've seen. I don't know exactly what is going on, perhaps you're just burned out or something, and you should take a little time off to gather your thoughts and your mind; that may also help with that inferiority complex of yours. The fact of the matter is that we need your help, especially with the rather poor state, as you well know, these video game and football articles are in. If you want to talk about what's going on, feel free to email me. Take good care of yourself, and hopefully you return soon. –MuZemike 14:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Youre not being bullied, your POV is being contradicted with referenced material. There's a difference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maggies1870 (talk • contribs)

Talk page access revoked

Your recent reply to another editor's message was completely unacceptable, so I had no choice but to revoke your access to your own talk page. Favonian (talk) 08:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

September 2010

Please stop assuming ownership of articles such as Port Adelaide Football Club. Doing so may lead to disruptive behavior such as edit wars and is a violation of policy, which may lead to your being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jevansen (talk) 14:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Please do not alter other people's comments, as you did at Talk:Port Adelaide Magpies Football Club, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Jevansen (talk) 14:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Policies

I would highly encourage you to read Wikipedia's Manual of Style before you continue to revert other user's edits when they are simply following a Wikipedia policy. Also when editing articles related to Port Adelaide Football Club and Port Adelaide Magpies Football Club I think you should try and keep WP:OWN, another policy, in mind. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 09:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

References

Please don't remove references from articles simply because you don't agree with what they say, as you did with this edit to the Gold Coast Football Club article. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 14:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you please give a reason as to why you have yet again removed a reference from the Gold Coast Football Club article. There is a discussion going on at the talk page, but yet again you have simply decided that you are right and everyone else is wrong. Pease provide a reason at the talk page. Jenks24 (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

You may also wish to see a discussion here concerning this issue. Jenks24 (talk) 15:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2010 AFL season. 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 several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Jenks24 (talk) 06:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I have reported you to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring for breaching the three-revert rule. The thread concerning you is located here. Jenks24 (talk) 06:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Last chance

A discussion is being held at WP:AN3#User:Guinea pig warrior reported by User:Jenks24 (Result: ) on whether to block you indefinitely. Any hint that you will moderate your warlike ways might be enough to avert this outcome. You can reply there. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

editing issues

You do seem to have some editing issues, they are considering indefinitely blocking you, why don't you offer a IRR editing restriction for a couple of months , self restricting yourself to one revert a day on each article, I had edit warring issues (still can get overly involved occasionally) and I did a six week one revert restriction and actually enjoyed it more, you have to discuss more but it is less stressful. Also you could offer to stay away from the related articles for two or three months, a topic ban from Aussie rules football. Both of these options are very good compared to the indefinite restriction users are beginning to discuss in relation to you. Off2riorob (talk) 18:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of two weeks for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at 2010 AFL season. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. --Chris (talk) 18:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Please note, GPW, I've never seen you in my life, and I think you got off quite fairly. In fact, given this, I think the block could have been far worse, and I was considering a permanent ban. Please please please take this not as someone having a vendetta against you or as un unfair crusade against you, but as an indication that it's not OK to edit war and it will get you blocked, no matter how much you think you're right. Also, please don't sockpuppet, or you're block length may be extended. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

And with that last edit you've made, I'm going to inform you right now that you are on the very very shortest of leashes. GPW, I don't know how else to put this: you are responsible for your own problems. You are rude, and you've broken all the rules concerning editing conduct. It's no one else's fault that you broke 3RR and made it clear you have no problems doing so. It's no one else's fault that this is the second time we've had to delete your additions on your talk page for absolutely filthy and foul insults that no one should have to suffer, or that you insult other community members.

If we can't trust you to edit by the consensus that this community and the owners of this website have established, then you will not be welcome. If you choose to sockpuppet, I will place an indefinite block on your account, and you will never be welcome to come back. This isn't Off2riorob or anyone else's fault, it would be yours.

GPW, I'm not sure if I'll have any success in this request (experience tells me, sadly, that I will not). Just take a few weeks off, and show some restraint, please? Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

2011 season

Can you please explain to me how your edits here and here are fixing grammar. Because, to me, it looks like you are simply reverting my edits because you don't like me. Please, read what I have written on the talk page and respond there, where I asked you not to simply revert me. However, I will WP:AGF that you hadn't seen the talk page, so I won't revert you, but can you please discuss it on the talk page for once. Jenks24 (talk) 11:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't wish to revert you, but if you have a look at your last edit to that article here what the IP wrote actually sounds better, in my opinion, that what you replaced it with. I would ask you to please revert yourself and keep in mind WP:BITE, which states "nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility" and that edit that you undid was that editors first edit. Jenks24 (talk) 11:44, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Smile!

Hello Guinea pig warrior, Thesevenseas has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Set Sail For The Seven Seas 263° 51' 0" NET 17:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

How many teams in the AFL?

Would you mind joining the discussion on this matter at Talk:Australian Football League? I'm interested in your thoughts beyond what you can fit in an Edit summary. Thanks. HiLo48 (talk) 20:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course. I'll be there. GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 7:00, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

AFL talk page

Hi, you edit here where you edited a comment that I made on a talk page goes specifically against the talk page guideline, specifically Others' comments. Edits like this are considered vandalism and if you continue to edit other people's comments on the talk page you will be blocked from editing. Jenks24 (talk) 07:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

This is from the link that I asked you to read, WP:TPO, "It is not necessary to bring talk pages to publishing standards, so there is no need to correct typing/spelling errors, grammar, etc. It tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting." Also you were not "correcting grammar", you were removing a part of my comment. Please don't argue about this, it only makes it look worse for you and you are already skating on thin ice. Jenks24 (talk) 07:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, and your falling in it XD

October 2010

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject AFL, you may be blocked from editing. Jevansen (talk) 10:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

DMY dates

Hi, just wondering why you removed the dmy template from the AFL article in this edit? I promise I'm not trying to badger or annoy you, I'm just genuinely curious. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 04:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I must not have made my question clear. What I meant to say was that I fully agree with removing the link to the 2010 season, but why did you also remove the {{Use dmy dates|date=August 2010}} as well? Jenks24 (talk) 11:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've done that :) Jenks24 (talk) 11:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Names and DOBs for Tredrea's kids

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Privacy_of_names says The names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. (my emphasis) I don't think knowing the names and exact DOB is relevant to the complete understanding of the subject. Month of birth could be relevant - did he have to miss a game to be at the birth - and sex (father-son rule), but that's it. Cheers, IMO. The-Pope (talk) 12:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Page protection

Hi, just letting you know that I moved your request for page protection from the "fulfilled/denied" section to the appropriate to the "current" section, where it says it should have been placed. This is not a comment on whether it should be protected or not, though I would advise you to keep WP:3RR in mind as I think you are dangerously close to breaching it on both the AFL and PAMFC articles. I will not report you, but others may if you aren't careful. Jenks24 (talk) 06:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know, that is why I am asking for protection of the AFL page. I will ask protection of the PAMFC page if this ip vandalising continues. GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 17:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

You really must stop calling the changes by others vandalism. They are nothing of the kind. They are good faith edits which reflect a different opinion to your own. Criticising others' posts like that, added to your own repeated reverting, is not helpful. Do go back to the discussion page for the AFL and see if you can convince people more nicely. HiLo48 (talk) 07:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for people to make stuff and put it on the page just because they feel like it. I have be civil. Do you want me to kiss your hand and give you cookies while I type to you over the internet? like a Queen? (Just joking of course) I have given my sources and since nobody is bothering to go to the discussions page and be mature and give out sources and just put what they like, I am asking for protection. GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 18:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, I believe I have given you a perfectly good source, the official fixture. I haven't made anything up. Please discuss it on the article's Talk page. Ged UK has just made a positive suggestion there too while locking the article. Let's sort this out there. HiLo48 (talk) 08:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

November 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. The-Pope (talk) 03:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Port Adelaide Magpies Football Club

Hi. With this revert you're not just removing the claim that the Magpies are the same club as was founded in 1870, which I understand you are still objecting to, but you are also removing extensive sourced material added by WLRoss and myself, much of which supports your position. I can't imagine that was your intent. You need to be more selective in what you revert, or explain why you're making these changes on the talk page. Similarly, you are adding the unsourced comment that "In 2010, the club was merged with the Port Adelaide Football Club", which I'm sure we both agree is true, while at the same time removing "On 16 November, the SANFL approved of the off-field merger between the two clubs" from Port Adelaide Football Club, with the comment that it is unsourced. This seems inconsistent.

Unfortunately, you're heading towards a much longer block. You're a good editor, and I'd rather see you remain with the project, but if you continue down this route you won't be able to. Is there any chance you'd be willing to step back from the PAFC and Magpies articles for a bit? I'm aware that it takes two to edit war, and so it isn't just you, but this is unlikely to end well. - Bilby (talk) 20:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you are now on three reverts, so if it goes any further you risk a block. I can see that the IP is goading you, and I imagine that makes things difficult, but you really need to step back for a bit. - Bilby (talk) 22:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you should report it. It is clearly trolling and abuse. GW!

Deleting my comment

Hey. I note that you deleted what I wrote incredibly soon after you would have seen it. While that's something you have every right to do, it's a little odd. I hope you haven't taken offence. It wasn't my intention. I was trying to be constructive. Any chance you could respond to me? (On your Talk page or mine.) HiLo48 (talk) 11:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

No, it's just that I cannot reply to what I really think of you, without being bloked. So I'll just delete your comment that I find extremley idiotic. Do you understand that? I can remove anything I want off this page if what I want to write back will get me bloked in 2 seconds. GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 22:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what I have done to cause such offence. Apologies for whatever it its. And don't hold a grudge. That's never constructive. Please look again at my original comment tonight (you will find it in the History) and read it in good faith. it really was well intentioned. HiLo48 (talk) 11:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

You told me that you think that English isn't my first language. Now get off my page, and don't act smug, like you haven't done anything to annoy me. I fixed it up, I write extremley fast, and I do not double check too much (I should, I know). So why are you writting on my page that I'm an illiterate from Mars or somewhere? GuineaPigWarrior (talk) 22:31, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't want a fight. I'll just say again that everything I wrote was meant in good faith. Sorry about the misunderstanding. HiLo48 (talk) 12:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Number of teams in the AFL

There's a discussion underway on this matter at Talk:Australian Football League#Seventeen teams now, surely?. It's only fair that you have a chance to present your view. HiLo48 (talk) 06:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring

Your edit-warring at Australian Football League has now become disruptive. Far too many hours have been spent by good editors arguing with you over trivial nonsense that you are unwilling to compromise on. You appear to be suffering from WP:OWNership and WP:POINTy behavour. I now have to warn you that any further reverts or changes to that article without prior discussion and agreement will result in a short term block to prevent further damage. –Moondyne 02:30, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. –Moondyne 02:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't realised you'd been blocked previously. After reading the warnings you've been given above, this block should really have warranted a permanent block or at least something considerably longer. Consider this as another reprieve. As someone said above: you are responsible for your own problems. You are rude, and you've broken all the rules concerning editing conduct. Continued misbehaviour on your return will be a indefinite block from editing Wikipedia. –Moondyne 03:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

How bout ya go fuck yourself, ya fat fuck! Get off your fucking computer, and come meet me so I can smash your fucking fat face in. Im sick of this fucking bullshit. GO FUCK YOURSELF!