User talk:Renamed user 9: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 12:57, 16 February 2008

Welcome!

Hello, Renamed user 9, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. 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 Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Blueanode (talk) 20:18, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. I've probably been on wiki as long as you.

geordies

I have posted references to these people "who you think are geordies" about them being mackems. 86.153.34.190 (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gregs, this would appear to be a fair point here. The IP editor appears to be making good faith attempts to change this, yet you're providing little rationale for reverting and your edit summaries are a little sparse. Thoughts? - Alison ^❤ 00:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please meet WP:V which your references do not meet. 86.150.252.106 (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every provided reference is verifiable as far as I can see. There is no official definition of a geordie, this IP's POV or Greggs POV of what is or isn't one is neither here nor there, the sources stand as per policy until refuted. If you can find sources that refute these, please add it to the talk page person by person so a controlled and traceable removal can occur if required. MickMacNee (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MickmacNee he doesn't seem to understand that the premises that references bring are valid thus they are valid and they add to the article. He also doesn't seem to understand that these citations fit in with other citations on the article...

Explaination of my revert

Excuse me but you don't seem to understand, the article geordie has a number of people in it which are claimed to be "geordies", and these may be backed up by citations, but since geordie is a dialect and a local nickname for the people Newcastle Upon tyne (not county durham or washington), no source for this kind of subject can ever be accurate. As many people from the region of North East England are mistaken for geordies by outer sources who do not understand the regional nicknames when the people who are claimed as geordies clearly aren't, hence why situations like this occur, and many of these people who are in the article geordie, come from the Wearside area, which has its own dialect and nickname called Mackem (which is a completely different thing) and many people who are on the list of notable geordies at the same time are on the list of notable mackems, this makes things difficult and confusing on wikipedia and hence no sources for this subject are reliable, I am offended by the content of the article, I personally think wikipedia would be better off without these "notable geordies" and "notable mackems" sections due to the lack of WP:V. 86.150.252.106 (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the references are not valid because the topic itself cannot be covered by such sources that do not understand what a geordie is, you are ignorant by not understanding the post I have just posted above

Seriously you do not seem to understand what this Ip is trying to tell you. You are being a WP:DICK about things. Zogonthetyne (talk) 18:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Geordie. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. Even explaining why you are making your edit does NOT give you the right to violate the three revert rule. If you add the edits to the article one more time, you will be blocked. Use the article talk page instead to get others to agree with you BEFORE making the edit again. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are not valid, will you take that in. 86.150.252.106 (talk) 18:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will never understand why people think edit war warnings are valid if they come from the person involved in the edit war. Hey ho, on we go it seems. MickMacNee (talk) 19:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I was not involved in the edit war. I have no interest in the article at all. Please check your facts before making such acusations. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Apologies, I saw the IP's post without indent above, and attributed it to him. Anyway, we have another IP involved now, claiming there is an official sysop version, i.e. using your ban to justify a revert to an 'official version'. MickMacNee (talk) 12:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Regarding the IP, recently over the past two months I've been watching it, it changes but it is usually BT and changes between three towns in scotland in I would say a 50 mile radius. That is the pattern.

Hello

I have posted the Ip's and your rationale on Talk:Geordie please take a look and read it properly, what you fail to see is a mis-understanding by the people who wrote the references. You need to find out what a Mackem or a "wearsider" is, and hence that they are sometimes mistook for geordies by news sources even though they speak an entirely different accent and dialect. This is why the Ip wants these people removed, please read the talk page carefully. Zogonthetyne (talk) 18:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I refuse to revert any further due to WP:3RR, however I would like to comment that since there is no definition of a geordie, you can't accuse anyone of being them, this is why the sources are invalid. plus tabloid newspapers aren't a valid source they are known for being biast. Zogonthetyne (talk) 19:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zog on the tyne

On the geordie page you seem to have got into the suspicious molag habit of strawmanning, to confuse readers.

I never said there was no defination of Geordie, I said there was no official documentation. Look at the article there are cited definations which by the way anyone can use to back up a logical premise.

--Gregs the baker (talk) 20:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

You violated the three-revert rule on the article Geordie despite being warned. The warning above was left at 18:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC) and you reverted the article for the FOURTH time at 19:02, February 15, 2008 (UTC). When the block expires, please do NOT try to reinsert the edit again UNLESS you achieve consensus on the article's talk page to do so. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Renamed user 9 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have put a lot of effort in putting up all those references on the geordie page. The references are checked and are valid. SOme of the people Molag Bal is taking down have even called themselves Geordies Also Molag Bol and his sock are POV pushing, as you can see there is no official documentation as to what a geordie is. We can only go on what is in the article. Also the templates I'm defending not only are they backed up by references, (e.g. some of the people are quoted as calling themselves Geordies) the references are backed up by what is in the article. Read the article and read the references in Geordies of note. If they can find a reference that refutes that, as MickMcmee (I think that is his name) says I might be open to accept it. But I know they wont, but if they do I will remove the templates in question. I'm a fair user and I'm not the one who has reverted three times. I have protected the article from being reverted by valdalism. I'm all for fair game and those references are fair game. And I would like to request that the page gets frozen. Thank you Gregs_the_baker

Decline reason:

Although you claim you have not reverted three times, this is simply not true. I see numerous reverts by you to that article today. — Yamla (talk) 19:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Renamed user 9 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hello Jayron32, I would like you to unblock me, but if not I can always come back and use this block as a break. I was editing in good will. I’m reasonable and yes statistically I have reverted 4times, but I was defending the article from vandalism and ridiculous vandalism at that. I’ve seen Molag before and he doesn’t listen and I didn’t want to waste my energy on a fight, I was hoping you lot would sort this out. Anyway here is what is ridiculous about the vandalism that I couldn’t be bothered to fight with Molag who will strawman me. To look like he is winning an arguement. 1. Molag removed The hair bikers cook book, where Si implies he is a Geordie.

2. He removed the Paul Collingwood citation were he refers to himself as a geordie in the reference.

3. He removed the catherine cookson reference were her biographer says, she became a geordie again.

4. Steve Cram who is from Gateshead Tyneside and yet in his scatter gun approach to this in his subjectivity Geordie are from Tyneside and Mackems Wearside. Also the citation calls him Brendan Fosters fellow geordie ;There is another citation that calls him a geordie.

5. In a strawman he pulls a Tabloid (and there is not anything wrong with that type of reference by the way) excuse out of his rear, I think he claimed in a strawman that they are all tabloid papers, the ones he pulled, and yet I cant find one tabloid newspaper on the references that he has a problem with.

6. he rmoved the Bryan Ferry link where Ferry actually calls himself a geordie.

7. In his scatter gun approach, were without references he says the Tyne is Geordie and the Wear Mackem, he removes the Robson Green citation that calls him a geordie, Robson Green is from Hexam which is on the Tyne.

8. He remove a citation about Heather Mill Mcartney were her friend writes about her and calls her a geordie. Also look at the mackem discussion page. It seems she even called herself a geordie on the TV.

9. I think he removed three Bryan Robson citations.

10. He removed the testy Geordie George Stevenson reference, also Geordie is a derivative of George.

11. He removed Niel Tennant reference were he is quoted as saying I've only ever had a bit of a Geordie accent.

Heh, heh, heh

Anyway have a happy shift

Decline reason:

Since I was asked specifically, I will respond. These edits were NOT VANDALISM, and mischaractizing the edits of other people as vandalism, simply to attempt to claim a moral high ground, or to exempt yourself from the Three Revert Rule is simply disruptive. Vandalism has a clear definition at Wikipedia WP:VANDALISM, and these edits were not it. That you call them vandalism does not make it so. It woudl fully appear that these people made their edits in good faith, based upon comments they have made; they genuinely believe that the edits, though some may be cited, are not cited to reliable sources and thus, have a valid concern about that. If you rightly believe that these edits ARE cited to reliable sources, then make your case on the article talk page, but do not add your edits back to the article. Establish consensus FIRST then add them to the article ONLY when consensus is reached. If you are at an impasse, and neither side is backing down, you can seek outside editors, who don't care about the article, to comment on it by filing a request for comment or a request for third opinion. If outside editors agree with you, THEN you have consensus to act, but not before then. Let me make this completely clear. Do not use reverting as a way to enforce your version of the article. Claiming you are "right" does not exempt you from the three revert rule. Everyone believes themselves to be "right" When this block expires, do what I have described above to solve the problem, instead of reverting the article again. — Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

This is not an unblocked response, I accept I'm blocked because you have the right to go by the rules, in that I edited or reverted more than three times and you probably have the right to have discretion in that you can be blind to how I in good will protected the templates (fairly using three stages of page blanking, removal of content or templates,’ templates.) from a user that had clearly not read them as you can see by my second unblocking response. So I can accept that I didn’t read my discussion page to get your warning, slipping to literally brake a rule and you now have the right to ban me. And as I stated in my last appeal I’m not be bitter about it with you for following the rules. I slipped you pressed the button, big deal... And I accept I fell into the trap of almost a four page revert dictatorship over a period of time, but on my side is the fact that this page is repeatedly vandalized and the user had not read the citations properly, I mean look at the list above I gave you in my second appeal, which brings about a protective instinct in me and I suppose MickMacNee who was also protecting logical premises. Anyway I’m not eye balling you like an internet keyboard warrior, but here is some friendly candid advice from one equal wiki user to another, advice like you give out to others in your role: though I suppose you could peacefully say you were not shouting and I got the wrong interpretation, if you are in your ‘moral’ authoritive position on wiki, please don’t SHOUT at your wiki editing minions. It does you or no one any favours and it could bring resentment were previously there was none. And it looks to an outsider that you are trying to humiliate. Were did I shout at you, and what interest do I have to shout at you? Yet you shouted. If you note on the templates there are four stages before steam comes out of your lugs. With my appeal I was at stage two with you? Or are you going to tell me I was at stage three?

By the way on MickMacNee's talk you called me gregs the bunny, this is actually Gregs the baker, not gregs the bunny, ;)

@@ Line 42: / Line 42: @@
 **I was not involved in the edit war.  I have no interest in the article at all.  Please check your facts before making such acusations.  --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron32]].[[User talk:Jayron32|<small>talk</small>]].[[Special:Contributions/Jayron32|<small>contribs</small>]] 19:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 ***Apologies, I saw the IP's post without indent above, and attributed it to him. Anyway, we have another IP involved now, claiming there is an official ''sysop version'', i.e. using your ban to justify a revert to an 'official version'. [[User:MickMacNee|MickMacNee]] ([[User talk:MickMacNee|talk]]) 12:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
+****Regarding the IP, recently over the past two months I've been watching it, it changes but it is usually BT and changes between three towns in scotland in I would say a 50 mile radius. That is the pattern.
 == Hello ==