User talk:Sport and politics: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:19, 19 October 2017

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.

Welcome

The following discussion is archived and relates to the Wikipedia:Welcome. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Welcome!

Hello, Sport and politics, 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 name on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~, which will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

meco (talk) 17:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Welcome to Wikipedia: check out the Teahouse!

The following discussion is archived and relates to the Wikipedia:Teahouse. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hello! Sport and politics, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Sarah (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Challenge/Ramsdens Cup.

The following discussion is archived and relates to the Scottish Challenge Cup. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

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.Edinburgh Wanderer 23:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 Football league trophy which is England's equivalent is not called the Johnstone's Paint trophy. Lets get some consistency going here.Sport and politics (talk) 23:08, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

England is irrelevant. Its a name of the trophy, William Hill Scottish Cup or Scottish Communities League Cup. However the Challenge Cup is the Ramsdens Cup or ALBA Cup no mention of the word challenge which defines it as different to the William Hill Scottish Cup. 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.Edinburgh Wanderer 23:21, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.Edinburgh Wanderer 23:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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. Sport and politics (talk) 23:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you also please make all your comments in one go to stop edit conflicts.Sport and politics (talk) 23:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm not missing the point. You changed boldly I've reverted and you discuss. 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 WP:Commonname. 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.Edinburgh Wanderer 23:46, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The principle is exactly the same also in some articles it refers to the competition differently in some article it refers to the competition as the Scottish Challenge Cup, in some it refers to the competition as Ramsden's Cup and in some it hybrids the name to the Ramsden's Challenge Cup. This goes to show there is no uniformity. The English Football League Trophy is relevant as it is never referred to in the media as the Football League Trophy but Wikipedia refers to the competition as the Football League trophy. You are also missing that there is confusion by using a sponsors name when it has not been the exclusive sponsor. This competition has had many sponsors so to only use a sponsors name give an impression that there are many many different competitions by virtue of the different names, to avoid this there needs to only be one mane in use. Could you also have some courtesy by not making hundreds of little edits when conversing.Sport and politics (talk) 23:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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. Edinburgh Wanderer 00:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia 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.Sport and politics (talk) 00:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No i changed it once and you have decided to cause drama. I suggest you read Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle which i already provided for you above and WP:Commonname. 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. Edinburgh Wanderer 00:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.Sport and politics (talk) 00:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.Edinburgh Wanderer 00:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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. Giant Snowman 21:50, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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. Sport and politics (talk) 21:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

July 2012

The following discussion is archived and relates to the Wikipedia:Warnings. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Your recent editing history at 2011–12 Dundee F.C. season shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Eeekster (talk) 21:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unwarranted warning

I have removed the warning you placed on my page as you did not place one on the other editor page and I only made two reversions the first was actually an edit to the article not a revert. The other user made three reverts and from the reading the revert policy it appears to say the warning is issued on the fourth revert. Please be more careful when chastising individuals and claiming it is the enforcement of policy when the policy is not being enforced correctly. Sport and politics (talk) 21:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The removal just confirms the fact you have received the warning and what the other user did is not important. You are in an edit war and you need to stop. If you do not stop, you risk being blocked. Eeekster (talk) 22:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have jumped in a day late and are wading in potentially making things worse when other have successfully dealt with the situation. Sport and politics (talk) 22:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You were edit warring. Stop trying to blame me (or anyone else) for your own actions. Eeekster (talk) 06:35, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You jumped in when all the article editing had stopped and the (rather heated) discussion was taking place. Also I Only made two reversions d not four as the policy seems to state before any violation of revert rule appears to have been broken. Sport and politics (talk) 08:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't "jump in". I simply let you know that you had been edit warring and that you shouldn't do that. But instead of just moving on for some reason you want to debate the warning. Eeekster (talk) 18:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I am raising this with you is because by you placing this "warning" on my page you have accomplished nothing but resentment against you an impression that Wikipedia is unwelcoming to new users (by effectively throwing rules and warnings when less over the top methods would be far more effective) and the following: Firstly you placed it only my page and not on the other users page giving off an impression (no matter if its intended or not) of a level of bias towards the other user. Secondly the discussion had already moved, so you were potentially causing something to start up again (be that your intention or not). Thirdly no rules had been broken, as the revert rule clearly states three reverts and I only undertook two and the other user had done three. Finally by coming along and placing the warning before simply asking for the conduct to stop shows a lack of sensible due process and heavy handiness on you behalf (weather you realised you would come across in that manner or not). Please be more careful next time when you decide to jump into something and start waving rules and warnings about, especially when the conduct you are complaining about is no longer occurring. Sport and politics (talk) 09:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Independent Olympic Athletes

The following discussion is archived and relates to Independent Olympic Athletes. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.Note: following edit made on behalf of User:85.167.109.186 who could not make it because of a false positive edit filter. Black Kite (talk) 19:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sport and politics. You have new messages at Talk:Independent Olympic Participants at the 2012 Summer Olympics.
Message added User:85.167.109.186. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

The three additional athletes

The following discussion is archived and relates to Independent Olympic Athletes at the 2012 Summer Olympics. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

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. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 07:43, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reverting to seven until I see a source that says four added to the article. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you change the number to seven could you add in the 3 addition athletes to the linked article. Sport and politics (talk) 00:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was a source added to the article that the Kuwaitis were competing under their own flag. That is good enough. Smartyllama (talk) 00:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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. Smartyllama (talk) 00:46, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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. Smartyllama (talk) 00:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 WP:SYNTH territory. And that's bad. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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? Smartyllama (talk) 01:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please move this to your own talk pages as I appear to no longer be involved in the conversation. Sport and politics (talk) 07:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

IOP/IOA Merge

The following discussion is archived and relates to Independent Olympic Athletes. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Could you clarify your position on the IOP/IOA merge discussion? Would you, in addition to the Competing Under the Olympic Flag article, keep the original articles, such as Individual Olympic Athletes at the 2000 Summer Olympics? 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. Smartyllama (talk) 23:24, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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. Sport and politics (talk) 23:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Do you mind formally stating so on the talk page so we can close it out? Thanks. Smartyllama (talk) 23:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics

The following discussion is archived and relates to Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Regarding this 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, Number 5 7 09:52, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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. Sport and politics (talk) 10:19, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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. Number 5 7 10:27, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It must be the hot weather and the time of the month sorry for being a little ratty. Sport and politics (talk) 10:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tit-for-tat, i imagineLihaas (talk) 20:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Username

The following discussion is archived and relates to Wikipedia's User name policy. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not againt you, per se. But just thought id mention Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention#User-reported Lihaas (talk) 20:29, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My user name is based on my areas of interest and I am not really sure what your post is on about. Sport and politics (talk) 01:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It suggests you could have some kind of agenda. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its just a name how does it suggest "an agenda". People need to be less suspicious. Sport and politics (talk) 12:27, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying you have, but it could be misinterpreted. Sport is often used as a political tool (check out our Politics and sports 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 here). Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have though wholly missed the point of the article by making the suggested addition that you did. Sport and politics (talk) 12:43, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether that is the case, your reply was uncivil and did not assume good faith. If I find any similar comments elsewhere I'll be re-mentioning you at Wikipedia:Usernames_for_administrator_attention. Paul MacDermott (talk) 13:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your obsessive nature against my user-name. Sport and politics (talk) 14:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Removal of comment

The following discussion is archived and relates to Wikipedia's Talk page guidelines. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

That removal of your comment from the talk page was by accident. My apologies. I placed it back just before you put it back. Cla68 (talk) 23:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Query

The following discussion is archived and relates to Wikipedia's User name policy. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Have you edited under other account names? Nobody Ent 22:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 Wikipedia based on the welcome post which was put up. Sport and politics (talk) 22:53, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I too was thinking you seem to know a lot for a new user. But thats no a negative ;)(Lihaas (talk) 01:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)).[reply]

I asked because it's unusual for new users to be active on WP:WQA and WP:ANI 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. Nobody Ent 01:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that there seems to be a lot of WP:bite going on from the discussion and user cla68 there is also zero WP:AGF

If nobody has pointed to it yet - see: WP:CON. If you've already read that one .. feel free to delete this post. Chedzilla (talk) 02:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have also read WP:CYCLE. The user I was in dispute with has apparently read neither of those. Sport and politics (talk) 10:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just be aware of the hierarchy of guidance -- BRD (cycle) is an essay whereas consensus is policy -- but WP:NOTBUREAU is a pillar ... Wikipedia is not really all that coherent; takes awhile to figure out how things work around here. Nobody Ent 02:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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. Sport and politics (talk) 09:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(also: WP:INDENT) Chedzilla (talk) 02:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Disengage

The following discussion is archived and relates to Wikipedia's Etiquette policy. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

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). Nobody Ent 16:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had no intention of engaging any further. FF is no longer worth my time of day in my opinion. Sport and politics (talk) 17:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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. HiLo48 (talk) 22:16, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

My Talk page

The following discussion is archived and relates to Wikipedia's Talk page guidelines. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

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.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair do. I did apologise in my comment though. I also had no intention of making any further comments. Sport and politics (talk) 20:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, let's just leave it as is.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.Sport and politics (talk) 20:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Disambiguation link notification for August 19

The following discussion is archived and relates to Wikipedia's Disambiguation guidelines. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hi. When you recently edited Turks and Caicos Islands, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sprinter (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 04:45, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

August 2012

The following discussion is archived and relates to Wikipedia's Edit warring policy. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. 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 three-revert rule, 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 Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Electric Catfish 17:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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. Sport and politics (talk) 17:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have warned the other user, too and have commented at WP: RFPP. Full page protection would not be the best option here because the only edit warring is between you and Showmebeef (talk · contribs). I suggest that you two discuss it on the article's talk page and if that doesn't work, bring it to WP: DRN. Edit warring won't get you anything but a block. Electric Catfish 18:01, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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. Sport and politics (talk) 18:03, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you too have tried to discuss it on the article's talk page. I recommend that you bring it to WP: DRN (I'm a volunteer there) or WP: 3O. Best, Electric Catfish 18:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC).[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

The following discussion is archived and relates to Wikipedia's Dispute resolution procedure. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard 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 "Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics". Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 08:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent the article 'Technologies in track cycling' to the Dispute resolution noticeboard --Andromedean (talk) 09:04, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Notice of Wikiquette Assistance discussion

The following discussion is archived and relates to Wikiquette. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hello, Sport and politics. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Blethering Scot 19:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Please fill out our brief Teahouse guest survey

The following discussion is archived and relates to the Wikipedia:Teahouse. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hello fellow Wikipedian, the hardworking hosts at WP:Teahouse would like your feedback! We have created a brief survey meant to help us better understand the experience of new editors on Wikipedia. You are being selected to participate in our survey because you edited the Teahouse Questions or Guests pages sometime in the last few months.

Click here to be taken to the survey site.

The survey should take less than 10 minutes to complete. We really appreciate your feedback, and we look forward to your next vist to the Teahouse!

Happy editing,

Jonathan and Sarah, Teahouse hosts 02:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics

The following discussion is archived and relates to Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page). No further edits should be made to this section.

I've reverted your edit concerning tape delays. If you wish to justify the deletion, I would like to point out that the article is littered with controversies that seem to be country specific, not reported "worldwide," or well known. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 07:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have missed the common practice of tape delays being the done thing where airing something "live" would either be at a highly inconvenient time such as the middle of the night or when a broadcasting station would not be on the air. If you wish to include this information please start a discussion not a revert war. This is minor information regarding operational decisions by two media Companies and is not related to the Olympics themselves, as the Olympics still took place as was regardless of the "tape delays". There has been enough of that on this page already. If you can see other things which are country specific please be bold and remove them or start a discussion on the issues. Sport and politics (talk) 08:04, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do me a favor and reply on my talk page directly from now on. None of this template stuff. I disagree with your assessment given this tape delay was more egregious in nature. People complained about it, and it was noted in other places. How this doesn't warrant inclusion is mind boggling. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 08:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion about whether tape delays should be in the article belongs at Talk:Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics. Nobody Ent 10:15, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree with your assessment over the tape delay. What I should've added was that out of the hundreds of broadcasters that provided live feeds of the Olympics to it's viewership, the three broadcasters in question chose to tape delay major aspects and events despite the complaints of it's viewership over not providing content readily (given the quick dissemination of media nowadays). That is controversial. My edit as it stood was to just give a general summary without bogging down the article itself with the numerous examples of each broadcaster (NBC alone fills an entire page!) which can be left to other articles as you partially suggested. As for countries that didn't even bother to air the Olympics for whatever reason......can you provide creditable sources on that claim? I would love to see them. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 11:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please move your discussions of this topic from my talk page to the article talk page. Sport and politics (talk) 11:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page). No further edits should be made to this section.

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

The following discussion is archived and relates to Wikipedia's Dispute resolution procedure. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard 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 "Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics". Thank you! — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 09:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think your comment on the drafts my have been placed wrongly due to simultaneous edits. I believe you were intending to respond to Andromedean's draft. I echo many of your concerns about what the article is about. 88.88.167.157 (talk) 11:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Version you accepted minus one detail

The following discussion is archived and relates to Wikipedia's Dispute resolution procedure. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

I have made a final effort to get the versions you have accepted reconsidered. The largest change is that I removed the quotes from the athletes re:home advantage. I think it suffices to say that it is an alternative explanation without using the quotes. I think you can agree to this, and hopefully they will to. I would hate for this to start all over again. Please indicate that this change is not large enough for you to oppose, so we at least have one active proposal as a last chance to avoid mediation. 88.88.167.157 (talk) 11:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anticipating a problem regarding removal of source 8. We should perhaps be prepared to defer it to WP:RSN if they object based exclusively on that. 88.88.167.157 (talk) 13:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The source is a blog, but covered by a WP:NEWSBLOG. I have accepted the source as the source for the claim of violating the spirit of the rule, as long as the claim is attributed to the writer. I hope both you and they can accept this. 88.88.167.157 (talk) 18:46, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated: Please accept my apology for using male pronouns to refer to you. I have conciously tried to avoid using pronouns whenever possible, but I have defaulted to the male ones (on the balance of probability as most editors are male) in hurried comments or when I have been unable to rephrase the comment satisfactorily. 88.88.167.157 (talk) 13:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Olive branch

The following discussion is archived and relates to Wikipedia's Dispute resolution. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

		The Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Olive Branch
		For all your hard work on the Olympic cycling dispute. Amadscientist (talk) 10:59, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hello, from a DR/N volunteer

The following discussion is archived and relates to Wikipedia's Dispute resolution. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If this dispute has not been resolved to the satisfaction of the filing editor and all involved parties and no further comment is made at the opened filing, it may be failed and suggested that the next logical course of action be formal mediation. Please take a moment to add a note about this at the discussion so that a volunteer may close the case as "Failed". If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. Amadscientist (talk) 05:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

		The Dispute Resolution Barnstar
		For your valuable contribution in the Olympic cycling dispute, you are awarded this barnstar for helping resolve the dispute. Thank you for a civil discussion. Amadscientist (talk) 22:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

ANI of Andromedean

The following discussion is archived and relates to Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard for Incidents. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
I had no desire to to this. However, I think Andromedean's repeated accusations require community attention. 88.88.166.230 (talk) 11:50, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Further discussion on Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics

The following discussion is archived and relates to Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Just wanted to let you now that I will not take part in further discussions on this issue. If you are unable to agree with the other two editors on wording when the discussion restarts at the article talk page, which seems likely, I suggest Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. I suggest this because, as I understand it, your view is that their additions and removals would make the article less neutral than it is now, and both you and they are unlikely to change each others minds on this by discussing with each other. It may be best to let experts in NPOV view the current version and whatever version they argue for and decide whether your concerns are valid (I think they are). If they decide the concerns of balance are not valid, just let them add it. Enjoy your time on Wikipedia, good bye.88.88.166.230 (talk) 19:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to remind you the volunteers recommendation was to kick back the discussion of wording to the talkpage, prior to considering mediation. You have not only refused to discuss it but have been complicit in hiding this text so even people on other boards will probably miss it. This is unacceptable and is most definitely not in compliance with Wikipedia policies.

Your response was “I would also like to point out the disruption you engaged in by placing unwarranted warnings and un-collapsing the closed discussion on the talk page of the article. It was unwarrented and shows a lack of understanding of Wikiepdia.” Sport and politics (talk) 14:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andromedean (talk • contribs)

I am not refusing to discuss. I am simply ignoring you Andromedean and your continued disruption. I will engage with constructive users and will wholly ignore un-constructive users such as yourself and all the disruption they are attempting to cause. Please also be aware that silence on an issue does not imply consensus. It has been made abundantly clear there is outright opposition to your attempts to disrupt Wikipedia and continue pushing your version on this article. I have said all am going to here and am now closing this discussion. Sport and politics (talk) 13:12, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Andromedean's addition to Skyring's obsession - Thanks

The following discussion is archived and relates to Wikipedia's User conduct comments board. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

For obvious reasons I've been watching Skyring and his political ally Surturz compile their dossier on my evil nature. The reason for Surturz adding his voice is obvious. I am sometimes brutal in blocking the attempts of both of them to manipulate Australian political articles towards their Labor/union hating perspective. It surprised me that anyone else could be bothered watching. Although that project is keeping them occupied, and while they're doing that they're doing less damage to the real articles in Wikipedia. Anyway, thanks for adding context to Andromedean's story.

I'm awaiting the next stage of this process with interest, anticipation and amusement. HiLo48 (talk) 23:04, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Bisexuality and Pansexuality

The following discussion is archived and relates to Bisexuality and Pansexuality. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hi, Sport and politics. I reverted your edits.[1][2] Your edit to the bisexuality article contradicted how bisexuality is defined by most sources. It made it so that bisexuality means the exact same thing as pansexuality, in the sense that "more than one gender" can mean more than two and can also be taken to mean "all." If you'd checked the bisexuality talk page, you'd have seen that using "toward males and females" is justified as the big-time sources (such as the American Psychological Association) do indeed state that bisexuality is about romantic and/or sexual attraction to two sexes/two genders. It also sometimes means romantic and/or sexual attraction to all sexes/all genders, but the big-time sources do not define it like that and this is noted already in the lead by noting pansexuality (a subdivision of bisexuality). An editor on the bisexuality talk page additionally noted that bisexuality can refer to non-human animals and that this is another reason for not making the first line about people, which is what adding "gender" does in a way because gender is a social concept more than it is a biological matter. Adding only "gender" and not "sex or gender" also completely ignores biological sex, considering that the two terms may or may not mean the same thing in a given context. If you'd analyzed the recent edit history of the pansexuality article, you'd have also seen that use of "regardless" was reverted before,[3] and that two editors agreed with the revert. See User talk:Dev0nfish. 199.229.232.42 (talk) 15:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added an invisible note about what's been discussed on the bisexuality talk page about the definition topic, and another source that I am sure is authoritative on the topic (the American Psychiatric Association).[4][5] I additionally made note of this on the talk page.[6] 199.229.232.42 (talk) 17:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"More than one gender," meaning more than two, is also covered by the Polysexuality article. 199.229.232.42 (talk) 20:11, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

RfC on HiLo

The following discussion is archived and relates to Wikipedia's User conduct comments board. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hi there, I hope you don't mind but I have hatted the discussion you've been involved with on this page. The section there is for discussing Hasteur's closure proposal and it seemed to me that the discussion was making any sort of closure less, rather than more, likely. I completely understand that your views there are strongly held but I don't think you're going to get a resolution that is any more satisfactory by keeping the discussion going. Better to let Hasteur close and see where we go next. I hope that's OK with you; if not then of course you can revert my hatting but I'd need some persuading that any good would come of it. I'm posting the same message on the talk page of all editors who have been involved in the hatted discussion. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am pleased you have as it'll shut down the irrelevance being added. Sport and politics (talk) 17:11, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

December 2012

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. v/r - T P 19:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

ANI Notice

The following discussion is archived and relates to Wikipedia's Administrators'_noticeboard for Incidents. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hello. There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding your editing behavior. The thread is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Behavior_of_.22Sports_and_Politics.22_warrants_admin_attention.21. Thank you. —Showmebeef (talk) 05:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

High-tech warfare

The following discussion is archived and relates to Controversies at the 2012 Summer Olympics. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

I discovered that the term "high-tech warfare" in the source did not refer to the British team exclusively. Hence your version using "the British team" is wrong. I have changed the wording to make it clear that "high-tech warfare" is not limited to the British team. Hope you'll find my wording acceptable. As far as the other difference between the disputed versions is concerned, their version is equally true if more cumbersome. Just accept their roundabout wording on UCI approval. As no disqualifications are mentioned in the section any reader will see that the approval was genuine, not a British claim. I don't think it is wise to continue the discussion unless they propose further changes. 85.167.109.64 (talk) 09:58, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

wishing the best for you

Now i know that this drama has been going on for a while, and throughout my more than 5 years of scouring the an/i and other noticeboards i've seen a plethora of cases like this, and they ended in either a block or topic ban. I really don't want to see either of you (you or andromedean) getting blocked, so i have an off an/i sollution. and i don't clame to have any special status, i'm just a concirned editor who has seen many cases like this. but for a little while, maybe both you and andromedean need to stay away from that particular article untill things simmer down between you two. this coming from someone who's aunty is a counceler. trust me S&P, i don't want to see either of you getting blocked, so please think about the idea of both of you staying away from the article temperarily, or at least stay away from each other for a short while untill things cool down, ok? 199.101.61.190 (talk) 06:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

denial clame by me

before you go flaming me, the comment i made on an/i does not clame that you are the only one denying plame, i don't think that andromedean is blameless but i think that your actions are a little more evidencial of denial which is why i spoke on it, so just don't flame me please. mmkay? 199.101.61.190 (talk) 16:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Disambiguation link notification for December 22

The following discussion is archived and relates to Wikipedia's Disambiguation guidelines. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mayor of Doncaster, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peter Davies (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Title and text match up

The following discussion is archived and relates to Directly elected mayors in England and Wales. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hi. I see your point. I already saw that point before adding the refs. The problem is we have these articles which say they are about "Mayor of X" which in WP:RS means what it means in printed sources. At the very least a hatnote or mention in lede needs to point the reader to another article if it exists. If it doesn't exist then the lede should be consistent with title.

Mayor of Salford ‎ (This article is on the executivee mayor not the civic mayor) (top)
Mayor of Bristol ‎ (background on civic mayors is on other page) (top)
Mayor of Hartlepool ‎ (Undid revision 529270752 by In ictu oculi (talk) rather odd reference removed) (top)
Mayor of Leicester ‎ (Undid revision 529238681 by In ictu oculi (talk) this page is for the executive mayor not the civic mayor) (top)
Mayor of Middlesbrough ‎ (Undid revision 529269542 by In ictu oculi (talk) information on civic mayors not the executive mayor) (top)

I'm quite happy to leave this dilemma with any other editors for 24-hours, but will look again at these pages to see how the issue is being addressed. We can't have a statement of the sort that was on those ledes (and to which you've reverted, I presume to work on them). Lede and sources reality of what the term meant over the last 300 years and today and tomorrow has to match. Good luck with this! Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This issue is easily covered by the single sentence disambiguation statement found at the top of each article on directly elected mayors which redirects to the historical Civic Mayors or the Lord Mayors which are still in existence. There is no issue here. If some articles do not contain such a link please feel free to add one. Please see Mayor of London as an example. Sport and politics (talk) 13:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but if you don't mind initially I'm leaving it with you to fix, at least for 24 hours, since you were the one who deleted the "first Mayor of X" refs. The best thing to do now would be to work out on a case by case basis where those refs and that information on earlier mayors belongs. If another article exists, great, then link to it. If it doesn't exist then it belongs in the same article per avoiding WP:FORK to non-existent forks. What wp cannot do is simply deny the existence of several centuries of "Mayor of X." Best wishes. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or one, just by way of example Lord Mayor of Bristol Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:41, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please slow down and don't create WP:FORKs at the wrong titles. We all need to first read sources, then create articles. With respect you already got Liverpool wrong. You need to look a local newspapers and local govt websites on a case by case basis. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the dablink. This must be consistent with sources, we cannot just invent titles for cities. Each city is different.

Personally I don't think the Chair of the Council of Middlesbrough is notable. But certainly you can find 3 sources and it will not get AfDed. Best wishes In ictu oculi (talk) 14:47, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to Liverpool you are missing the point. For consistency and to follow what the actual Council call the position, what the BBC refer to the position as and what the person who holds the office refers to it as. They all show it is simply referred to as "Mayor of Liverpool". Please see here, here and here no confusion whatsoever. They all unequivocally refer to the post as simply "Mayor of Liverpool" calling it anything else is confusing and a fork in and of itself. As for Middlesbrough if a separate article is not notable why should a POV fork be created and confusion added to the article? if a seperate article is not notable, think, is this information actually encyclopaedic and notable? Sport and politics (talk) 14:52, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but that is an argument about WP:AT title, WP:COMMONNAME. Wheras the lede of an article must be based on WP:PRECISION, whether the title says Mayor or City Mayor. You can try to convince a RM to use a non-precise title, we do it all the time. But the lede must give the accurate title. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of Liverpool the accurate lede title is simply Mayor of course. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:04, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Back to Middlesborough. "if a seperate article is not notable, think, is this information actually encyclopaedic and notable?" No its not. So I suggest you don't bother creating it. But don't delete 1853-2002 from the Mayor of Middlesborough article either. !!!! Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 15:09, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The info on Middlesbrough should go (if at all) in the main article on ~~Bristol~~ Middlesbrough and not conflate the two posts. As has been done with Bristol as you cited above. As For Liverpool the RM is all about the AT and not the lede, this discussion I was under the assumption was a continuation of the RM. Please can you be more specific in future. Sport and politics (talk) 15:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the above "on Bristol" is a typo right?

The problem with Directly elected mayor of Liverpool is that the content has already been artificially pre-forked. If even a potted history section with Margaret Bevan and a few other truly notables is added to Mayor of Liverpool then the retitle suddenly loses all problems. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:35, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any artificial forks created by redirects or alike will be corrected by an appropriate admin. if you believe the ceremonial post is notable and the information on the ceremonial post holders should be included in an article feel free to be bold and create the article. as I have though made clear in my statements on the RM Commoname and Consensus with the other article titles leave this article horribly out of kilter and confusing when compared to the rest. There should though in my opinion be no conflating by having the same article, the current directly elected executive mayor and the Lord mayor.

Hiya, nope :) I don't remotely believe the ceremonial post is notable, I believe 1853-2002 is notable. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 00:40, 24 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Tried the mayor question

The following discussion is archived and relates to Mayors in England. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

dunno how useful the answer is but I put one up there. Elinruby (talk) 23:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Speedy deletion nomination of Bristol 1st

The following discussion is archived and relates to speedy deletion of articles. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hello Sport and politics,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Bristol 1st for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks, Anir1uph | talk | contrib 20:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Adding info from table

The following discussion is archived and relates to a Wikipedia:Teahouse inquiry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

I saw your question at Teahouse talk (for future reference, you should ask questions through the main questions page so other people will be more likely to see them). I don't think there is currently any simple way to copy and paste a table into an article; you will probably have to manually enter the information into a wikitable. If you like, you can re-ask your question at the Teahouse questions page—someone else might know a way to do this. – 29611670.x (talk) 02:08, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

County council articles

The following discussion is archived and relates to List of county councils in England. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hi Sport and politics. The IP editor that you reported at ANI is a sockpuppet of Sheffno1gunner. I've widened the rangeblock on the University of Manchester IPs and semi-protected a load of articles that s/he has edited. If there are any IPs or articles I have missed, just let me know, or you can file a report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sheffno1gunner. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:11, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Isle of Wight Council election

The following discussion is archived and relates to the 2013 Isle of Wight Council election|Wikipedia's Disambiguation guidelines. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hi there. Just wanted to let you know that I now accept your rationale for the change you made to that article. To be honest, I kinda had an inkling it was against consensus, but just wasn't sure. The only thing that got me was just you making the change first off with no rationale explained. Without trying to sound patronizing, please remember to edit summary as much as you can to avoid confusions like this. Thanks. Redverton (talk) 19:57, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

AEGON Championships

The following discussion is archived and relates to the AEGON tennis championships. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

They are not the same name, the other is called AEGON International (Eastbourne) not AEGON Championships (London). The same goes for BNP Paribas Open (Indian Wells Masters) and BNP Paribas Masters (Paris Masters). It is a case of a minor Sponsot, they have been using that name since 2009. Dencod16 (talk) 01:07, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, AEGON Championships is not an uncommon name it has been used since 2009, It hasn't been confusing to anyone for what 5 years now until you. And you are not including the sponsor for sponsorship reasons, you are placing the actual name of the tournament, there are so many sponsors of an event. And if you go watch the actual event and listen to the tournament, they introduce it as AEGON Championships and not Queen's Club Championships. If you hear Queen's Club they are referring to the place. It is much like French Open or US Open, French Open is referred to Roland Garros and US Open as Flushing Meadows. Dencod16 (talk) 20:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Improper summaries

The following discussion is archived and relates to edit summaries. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

You posted something strange. Summary one, "Please join in the discussion on Talk:Laura Robson." For your information I STARTED the talk there. Please add to it if you insist on edit warring. You also summarized "known disruptive edit do not ignore imbedded text or ongoing discussion join the discussio"... that imbedded text is incorrect and not to consensus. No one agreed to it at all. Plus we have discussion, which I started at Tennis Project talk to straighten this out. Please join there and stop adding the information to the infobox. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not improper you started you own discussion and did not join the other discussion also multiple users have reverted on the Laura Robson page the summary is completely in-line you just simply dislike it. Be more careful when making edits which remove valid and essential information from infoboxes. Also do not start your own discussions join existing discussions. Sport and politics (talk) 07:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Talk:Unified Patent Court#detailed table

The following discussion is archived and relates to the Unified Patent Court. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

He Sport, you're most welcome to discuss your ideas for a ratification table-change on Talk:Unified_Patent_Court#detailed_table. I think improvements are possible, but your initial idea was not sufficiently mature (unsourced etc) and removed viatla information for immediate implementation; it would be great however to have some more eyes on this page! L.tak (talk) 22:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Unsigned comment

The following discussion is archived and relates to Wikipedia Signature guidelines. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

You forgot to sign your comment at requests for page protection. RGloucester (talk) 14:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Unified Patent Court

The following discussion is archived and relates to the Unified Patent Court. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

He Sport, I found some data regarding Austria and France, but it's well possible that more countries have already taken their first steps in ratification (which would render the table outdated). Did you find any other statuses of legislatures that you could add, so we keep the article up to date? L.tak (talk) 14:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am still doing some research the UK is passing their bill through the House of lords on 30 July. Sport and politics (talk) 17:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Indian GP

The following discussion is archived and relates to the Indian Grand Prix. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Read and responded to. I'm not sure what your issue was, since the error was in the reference coding, not in the URL.

I'm surprised you didn't think to check the source independently. You could have Googled F1F and found that article on your own. You also could have triangulated it by checking other sources, like Autosport, who are reporting the same thing as F1F. The BBC might be a reliable source, but the author is notoriously poor in his previous works. He appears to have written the article based on information that was two days out if date at the time.

Also, the rewrites you did to the article were pretty poor. They were unclear, non-committal, based on a bad reference and very poorly-worded. I had to read it four times before I understood it. ~~>~

I have responded to you crass comments, I would also like to remind you that if you are demanding a source be used, then the onus is on the user advocating its use to ensure it conforms to the rules of wikipedia and is easily obtainable. Other users are not required to do research demanded of them by other users simply because the user making the demand thinks they are "in the right". The BBC article was also a lot more balanced giving the reasoning behind the "very political" concerns and issues. The BBC also have editorial controls where as F1Fanatic only has the controls in place if any from the owner of the personal webpage and blog who happens to be the same as the author of the article. This renders the source meaningless and unobjective in terms of being reliable. Sport and politics (talk) 07:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you were fully aware of the issue, why did you revert to it? Why didn't you make the necessary edits while you restored other content?

I'm well aware of the policies about article ownership. My approch to the article has been to restore content when people knowingly make bad edits to a page and the do not correct them, as you just did.Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was nothing to correct. The edit summary was accurate and clear. Now a third editor has stated the source for the Maurissa drivers is waffle and do not state what is being claimed by their use. This shows the inability by yourself Prisonermonkeys to understand the sources and appreciate it is not about owning the article and winning. Sport and politics (talk) 15:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

August 2013

The following discussion is archived and relates to a Wikipedia:Bot. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Angmering & Findon (electoral division) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

===[[West Sussex County Council election, 2013|2013 Election===

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Article Feedback Tool update

The following discussion is archived and relates to Article Feedback Tool. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hey Sport and politics. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 22:03, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Stephen Williams MP

The following discussion is archived and relates to Stephen Williams. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hi Sport and politics,

I noticed you removed a few chunks from the Stephen Williams MP article.[7] I have reverted this removal. Noting Williams' votes on tuition fees and homosexual marriage are plainly notable, with plenty of media attention on the Lib Dems promise, and Stephen as University Spokesperson. Equally, on equal marriage, Stephen has individually had notable attention for his votes and speeches. They are clearly relevant for an encyclopaedic article on a politician, and written in a NPOV style. I'd be interested to hear more of your argument for why they should be removed. Thanks PhilMacD (talk) 21:35, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Tom Brake MP

The following discussion is archived and relates to Tom Brake. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

I note that you have removed the fully sourced and notable fact that, among others where you have also NPOV removed this fact, Brake reneged on an explicit promise to oppose the imposition of tuition fees. This is not a simple question of an individual vote, it it the broken promise that is significant. It has also been a notable fact in the media. Your reference to a previous discussion does not cover this question and the discussion came to no conclusion to censor this material. Material restored in the case of Brake and should be in due course elsewhere. Bagunceiro (talk) 22:43, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing the point. It is not the voting pattern that matters here, it is the reneging on a solemn and explicit promise. It is not "just the LD MPs" that are being referenced - it is those MPs who welshed (they happen to be LD). The discussion that you keep referring to and which you seem to think puts an end to the matter doesn't address this question at all. The breaking of the pledge on tuition fees was, and is, a significant matter in British politics and warrants inclusion. Bagunceiro (talk) 12:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are wrong here. This is nothing to do with the fact that these individual MPs voted in favour of a particular matter, it has everything to do with the fact that they broke an explicit and solemn promise to vote against the proposal in doing so. What the other six hundred and odd MPs did is irrelevant - they either did not sign the pledge or they behaved honorably and voted as they had promised to do before the election. I think we need to take this somewhere with a wider audience, though I'm not sure where - to concentrate on just one of the individuals concerned would be invidious. Bagunceiro (talk) 22:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened the subject here Bagunceiro (talk) 22:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Julian Huppert MP

The following discussion is archived and relates to Julian Huppert. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hi, I note you removed a chunk of material I had added to Julian Huppert MP's page, relating to the specific activities he takes up that relate to Cambridge. The work an MP does to promote causes that are specific to his constituency are major part of his work as an MP, and should be left. I have therefore reverted the removal. I would of course be interested in hearing any arguments you wish to make to the contrary.

Tutenkamu (talk) 23:33, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Universal Credit/sandbox

The following discussion is archived and relates to the Wikipedia Sandbox Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hello, Sport and politics, and thank you for your contributions!

Some text in an article that you worked on Universal Credit/sandbox, appears to be directly copied from another Wikipedia article, Universal Credit. Please take a minute to double-check that you've properly attributed the source text in your edit summary.

It's entirely possible that this bot made a mistake, so please feel free to remove this notice and the tag it placed on Universal Credit/sandbox at any time.Template:Z128 MadmanBot (talk) 10:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As this 'sandbox' page was in the article space, presumably accidentally, I have moved it to User:Sport and politics/Universal Credit. 220 of ^Borg 14:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Went looking for this sandbox based on comments in the article talk page. Looks like after it was moved by user "220" the original sandbox page was completely deleted by admin "jac16888" for being "(R2: Cross-namespace redirect from mainspace)" which resulted in a redlink. As a courtesy I have provided the link to the new page location on the article talkpage. 66.97.209.215 (talk) 07:18, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Changing names of races

The following discussion is archived and relates to the Wikipedia Consensus Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Could you point out to me where you are obtaining the "consensus" you are claiming for these changes? I can only find an ongoing discussion in the 2014 season article. Britmax (talk) 13:15, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly Britmax please see the discussion on Talk:2014_Formula_One_season/Archive_3#.22.28Name.29_Grand_Prix.22_vs._.22Grand_Prix_of_.28Name.29.22. Sport and politics (talk) 13:23, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

WP:OWN

The following discussion is archived and relates to Article Ownership. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

You are far, far to quick to bring up WP:OWN to justify removing edits that you disagree with. I would like to remind you of WP:AGF and suggest that you refrain from accusing other editors of breaking a policy as serious as OWN unless you can show actual cause. In this case, the content you are claiming is only in the article because of OWN has actually been there for months, and is supported by references like the WMSC calendar. Other parts have been included for the sake of standardising the names in the article to avoid confusion. None of this was being debated until the issue was brought up, and nobody accused anyone of breaking OWN until somebody disagreed with you.

If you look at my edit history, you will notice that I edit a lot. This is in part because I tinker, editing bits and pieces as they occur to me. But it is also because I do most of my editing from a mobile device, which has its limitations. For example, if I want to copy and paste a URL into a large article, I cannot do it directly as my browser may inadvertently overwrite data (especially if the auto-correct picked up a spelling mistake). I am forced to make three or four edits just to get that URL into the article. That does not mean I think I OWN it. It just means I have to do the best that I can with what I have. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Disengaging

The following discussion is archived and relates to Article Ownership, Assuming Good Faith, Disruptive editing and having an agenda . Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Okay, I am trying to be civil here. You are not helping your cause. Your claim of consensus is not supported by the discussion on the talk page, you accuse people who disagree with you of breaking WP:OWN, ans now you are trying to pretend that I do not exist. This is an issue that you brought up - it will not go away because you would rather not deal with it. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 13:45, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are speaking as if this is a war and a fight of terrorist with causes, which is clearly an over the top exaggeration and over involvement in the discussion, You are making out as if it is a matter of life and death. I am not entirely sure you are reading the same discussion as everyone else. I am also not entirely sure what you are talking of by stating "individual article titles have not been discussed" when multiple users have said they do not support a change such as the following contribution from Falcadore
"In the 85 year history of the Australian Grand Prix it's never been known as the Grand Prix of Australia. 85 years. Less than 30 of that has been Formula One world championship. The race has an amazing and rich history which has nothing to do with the World Championship, or the European championship that preceded it. Grand Prix of Australia has nothing to do with the first five and a half decades of the race. That's just one example. Shall I detail more? And that is without knocking holes in the parrallel examples of rallies and touring car races. Rallies have had all kinds of names, some with no geographical component at all. I think it is incredibly premature to even contemplate moving the race names. New races? Possibly, even probably that would be good. Not for any others."
Clearly they are showing no support for your position and are clearly talking about the principle of the formatting not just the format of the article title, such as can be seen with Falcadore's comments "Grand Prix of Australia has nothing to do with the first five and a half decades of the race"
I am also at a loss as to what you are referring to by when you state "as only been discussed within the context of article titles" This is a discussion on the whole principle of the format and stating that use in article bodies is some how completely divorced from article titles is bizarre and highly confusing. The discussion on the talk page in on the principle of the format and it applies to its use over all and stating it only applies to article titles is a distortion and a weasel to attempt to claim there is no consensus on format as it goes against the outcome which is preferred by yourself. Please stop as your actions are not in the best interests of Wikiepida and certainly not constructive. The consensus is clear and claiming semantics or trying to make distinction of it only having been discussed for article titles is fanciful. The format with consensus is (name) Grand Prix not Grand Prix of (name). With regards to OWN I have encountered a discussion with you before regarding the use of certain sources. You [8] reverted to your preferred version even removing more reliable sources when then were added simply because you liked the previous sources as you had added them. You removed those sources and are still behaving in the same owning and overbearing manner. Sport and politics (talk) 14:08, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prisonermonkeys dealing with you is summed up in a nutshell by the following essay Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Sport and politics (talk) 15:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about the content or merits of an argument on a talk page. This is about the way you ignore AGF and immediately accuse someone of breaking OWN when they disagree with you. The fact that you refer to discussing issues as "dealing with someone" speaks volumes. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Prisonermonkeys you clearly have you own agenda and are unable to see when no one but yourself supports a position and you use absolute obfuscation and derision tactics to try get your own way and say other users are not against you when they have poured cold water on your position in its entirety. Wikipeida works on building support for a position not demonstrating lack of opposition to a position because you are fancifully claiming the whole discussion is only on one very narrow part which therefor suits your agenda. You are not worth engaging with and your agenda is one of serving only your own interests not those of building consensus or furthering Wikipedia for the better. Sport and politics (talk) 11:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

The following discussion is archived and relates to Edit warring. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive232#User:Sport_and_politics_reported_by_User:Tvx1_.28Result:_Stale.29. Thank you. Tvx1 (talk) 20:43, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Speedy deletion nomination of Hands Off Tamworth Schools/meta/shortname

The following discussion is archived and relates to Speedy deletion. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hello Sport and politics,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Hands Off Tamworth Schools/meta/shortname for deletion, because it's too short to identify the subject of the article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Wikiuser13 (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Speedy deletion nomination of Hands Off Tamworth Schools/meta/shortname

The following discussion is archived and relates to Speedy deletion. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Cogito-Ergo-Sum (14) (talk) 17:55, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Mike Hancock

The following discussion is archived and relates to the Mike Hancock. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hello Sport and politics, I see that you have very swiftly reverted my edits to Mike Hancock. As a result, the page again says that he's a Liberal Democrat councillor in Portsmouth, which is wrong. He has been suspended by the party and is now an independent councillor, one of the reasons I edited the page. Please explain. Eric Blatant (talk) 17:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for that oversight, the Over-linking and chaining of the English is what I was reverting as it is fine as it is if I have accidentally reverted his party status I thtas an error on my part. Sport and politics (talk) 18:19, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We're probably not going to agree, but I think I only added three links to other Wikipedia pages. They were:

 Portsmouth City Council, where Hancock is a councillor.
 Fratton, the part of Portsmouth where his council ward is situated.
 The SDP, the party for which he won a seat in parliament.

I suggest that they are all important parts of Hancock's life, about which readers justifiably might want to know more, and not 'over-linking'.

I also explained that Mencap is a charity and gave the correct first name of his Russian researcher, which seemed to be wrong throughout. I corrected the capitalisation of various words which aren't proper nouns and shouldn't be capped up, such as police, general election and parliament. I don't do 'edit warring' and I won't touch your page again, but I do feel that your reversion was wrong. Eric Blatant (talk) 19:08, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Overlinking is explained here at WP:overlink which basically says if a link is used once don't use the same link again and again and SDP and Liberal Democrats for example are used over and over in the article and should only really be used once as for the English there is no need to change to separate wording when single words are just as accepted and in the dictionary. I hope this helps do some explaining. Adding extra info on Mencap please go ahead as long as it is reliably sourced and notable. Sport and politics (talk) 23:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't presume that I need Wikipedia's policy on overlinking explained to me. At no point did I add a link to the Liberal Democrats. Fratton and Portsmouth City Council were not previously linked. I did add one to the SDP at its first mention, and granted, it was linked once later in the article, but in that case the correct course of action if you thought my mistake serious enough would have been to remove one of the SDP links rather than reverting everything with one thoughtless keystroke. I have no interest in adding 'extra info' on Mencap other than that it's a charity, a necessary explanation. So did you REALLY revert the whole edit because I believe 'front bench' and 'back bench' should be two words when used as nouns, even though you yourself don't think that's wrong? By doing so, you have also re-introduced what I think are basic factual errors which outweigh your other niggles by a considerable margin. Eric Blatant (talk) 22:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Reference Errors on 1 February

The following discussion is archived and relates to Wikipedia:Citing sources. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the 38 Degrees page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Oxfordshire County Council election, 2013

The following discussion is archived and relates to the Oxfordshire County Council election, 2013 and WP:BRD. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hi, re your edit summary "undid unhelpful reversion the edit did no such thing as "damage" as weirdly claimed." Please check your original edit: it left redlinks in the sections Summary (to Template:Liberal Democrat/meta/color); in Abingdon East (to Template:Liberal Democrat/meta/color and Template:Liberal Democrat/meta/shortname); in Banbury Hardwick (two instances of Template:Election box candidate with party lin); in Grove & Wantage (two instances of Template:Liberal Democrat/meta/color and two of Template:Liberal Democrat/meta/shortname); and in Wheatley (to Template:Election box candidate with party lin). If that wasn't damage, would you please explain what it was?

Although your subsequent edits have addressed the redlink template problem, you have now left the page in a state where it says {{{change}}} on every single candidate row, and every single turnout row. Do you intend to fix that? --Redrose64 (talk) 19:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The page is in the process of an update and I thought I had put the template on the page to reflect that if not I will add that template. The page has so many issues that doing it all in one go is not good due to the time sitting at a screen. Sport and politics (talk) 20:43, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Middle names

The following discussion is archived and relates to Wikipedia:Common names and Wikipedia:Official names. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Please will you revert this edit, per WP:BRD. Then please explain on what policy or guideline you shortened these names? --Redrose64 (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No I am not going to. Please see the link provided on the talk page of that article for the reasoning why. I am willing to discuss this matter on that articles talk page. I will add the middle names if the consensus on the article talk page or in the wider wiiprojects comes to that conclusion. The current discussions have centred around demonstrating the middle names are not the commonly used names and the link provided gives an example of this being the case in this instance. Sport and politics (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Nottinghamshire County Council elections 2013

The following discussion is archived and relates to the Nottinghamshire County Council election, 2013. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hi why have you put down an N/A variance? This makes no sense. if a party had not stood before in an election and got 20% the variance would be +20%. Your variance percentages in multi wards are wrong too. [9] --Verzarli (talk) 15:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If a party has never stood a candidate before then there is no base from which to go up or down from. If a party had stood before and recieveed zero votes and the next time recieve 20% of the votes cast, then it would by +20%. As the parties have never stood before there can be no up or down from a previous result as no previous result for that party exists. The same rule applies to independent politicians who have not stood before. Also if a party has stood candidates before in a preious multi-member ward then there is a base to work from if they have stood more or less candidates than prviously then the +- figure is for the number of candidates previously stood working from top to bottom. If a party stood 3 candidates last time but only 2 this time thn the higest position is comapred with the highest position previously to give +- figure for the higest finishing candidate is compared across both elections and the second candate the second position candidates across both elections and so on. If 3 candidates are stood this time and only 2 candidates were stood last then the third higest candidate would get N/A and the top two based on the previous criteria. It is very logical and very simple. Can you please explian what is wrong in this logical and simple +- set of figures. Sport and politics (talk) 00:06, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well I guess that is one method which has some logic behind it now you have explained your way of doing it. But it is also prefectly acceptable that if a party/independent had not stood before the variance would be a +figure of there percentage. However I'll will not delete your variance colum and I may use your method to help complete it in due course, unless you beat me too it ;-) --Verzarli (talk) 18:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :) Sport and politics (talk) 18:28, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still working on your variance column?, You have also left a format error in Calverton. --Verzarli (talk) 00:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will be starting again shortly please leave the variance columns already in place Sport and politics (talk) 10:02, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No probs. Ps i've fixed the error in the Calverton variance column.--Verzarli (talk) 22:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Gedling Borough Council election, 2011

The following discussion is archived and relates to the Gedling Borough Council election, 2011. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Local politicians use this page and like to by election section where it is for ease of viewing. We want this section kepted in, please do not remove. These by-elections all relate to the 2011 cycle. There is no reason for you to delete them. Please stop.

(cur | prev) 15:02, 22 February 2014‎ Verzarli (talk | contribs)‎ . . (42,622 bytes) (+3,106)‎ . . (These by-election relate to the 2011 cycle. There is no reason to delete them!) (undo) (cur | prev) 21:52, 19 February 2014‎ Sport and politics (talk | contribs)‎ . . (39,516 bytes) (-3,106)‎ . . (Cleaned up and removed by elections to local elections page by election go on Local Authority Local elections page.) (undo | thank) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verzarli (talk • contribs) --Verzarli (talk) 15:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Local politicians can use the page all they want. The norms on Wikpedia are not to include bye-elections on the results pages for specific year elections as the elections pages are not necessarily for the term of the councillors elected or for the whole council. As in some cases areas elect by half or by third and uniformity needs to be maintained across all election articles, for the same or similar types of elections. In this case UK local goivernment elections for tier 1 and tier 2 Local Authorities. Sport and politics (talk) 00:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your personal view. By-elections are useful and relevant, they should be on the page as they relate to those elected in 2011 as mid term resigned thus all part of the same cycle.--Verzarli (talk) 07:04, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The bye-elections are not the elections which took place. The elections which took place were the standard 2011 elections, so the inclusion of the bye-elections are unhelpful, confusing and are already available and consolidated in the Gedling local elections page, as such they should not be on the 2011 page and nor should any other bye-elections. It is also unnecessary information duplication including it on the 2011 page. Sport and politics (talk) 18:21, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We independent & small party members with no money or resource use this wiki page for a reference and strategy planning guides. It makes life easier for us locals to have all the data to hand on one page. We believe by-elections on our local election page are helpful as all the data is on one page at a glance and it all relates to the 2011 - 2015 Council term, we don't always spot data on other pages, which it could be in one place. This page is really useful to us. Please stop deleting the data we local's want to use for our local election planning. --Verzarli (talk) 18:33, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to sound crass here but do you represent a small political party and or an independent candidate or are you yourself either of the two. If so please can you declare the relevant interest and potential conflict of interest. Can you also please define who We is as on Wikipedia unless you have reliable sources you can only express your personal opinion and not claim to represent others views or opinions without a reliable source, as if untrue, may breach certain rules. Wikipedia has its accepted guides and standards and the guides and standards in this regard are not to include the Bye-elections a you want them included. If you wish to challenge this please build a consensus to demonstrate support for your position. the guidelines can be found here WP:consensus. Sport and politics (talk) 18:39, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Myself and friends may or may not be setting up a small local issues party in the East Mids at some stage in the future, nothing has been decided as of yet. In addition I have contributed to political results pages out of genuine interest across the UK, and have been thanked by members of the all the main parties, some smaller parties and independents for my contributions. --Verzarli (talk) 18:59, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK the correct spelling is ‘By-Election’ not ‘Bye-Election’ please amend back. The correct terminology is confirmed on Gedling Borough Council web-site relating to By-elections, as is spelt as "By-election". As per link http://www.gedling.gov.uk/councillorsmeetings/elections/gedlingby-election/ --Verzarli (talk) 12:09, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The use of either spelling is wholly acceptable. --Sport and politics (talk) 23:39, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No probs then, I've altered it to 'by-election' :-) --Verzarli (talk) 00:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

helping each other

The following discussion is archived and relates to the Wikipedia:Collaborations. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

There are pages which are half finished on Wiki or some elections have no page at all. It would be useful if people like you and me who have an interest in politics work togther to finish them? Rather then undo each others work on established/finish pages. Here is an example of an unfinished page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincolnshire_County_Council_election,_2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verzarli (talk • contribs) 15:42, 22 February 2014 (UTC) --Verzarli (talk) 15:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am very hapy to help expand the other atricles. It would though be even more helpful to Wikipedia as a whole and far more constructive if highly constructive clean up edits were not undone. The edits reverted to are out of line with wikipedia standards and norms for election articles in UK local authorities. Reverting in the manner which is being done by yourself is unconstructive and unhelpful. If you can justify why your style must be used please do so. Otherwise please do not undo what is done to move an article to be inline with norms of wikipedia. Sport and politics (talk) 00:16, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've got no problem working with you. I will not delete your variance column. Please stop deleting my/other people's by-election selections, the by election section are relevant and extremely useful to us. No one else has an issue with the by-election section. --Verzarli (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read WP:own as sections and edits are not yours and may be edited or removed by anyone. Please also define who us is and Wikiepida is not for WP:Advocacy. Please also do not asume that no-one else has taken issue just because the issue has not been raised with you or other you know. Sport and politics (talk) 18:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Reference Errors on 24 March

The following discussion is archived and relates to the Wikipedia:Citing sources. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the South West England (European Parliament constituency) page, your edit caused a missing references list (help | help with group references). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:33, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

N/A percent change in elections

The following discussion is archived and relates to the election boxes. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hi, percentages changes in elections in which a party has not stood before from a previous election are generally shown. Most media outlets do not indicate them as an N/A but give a percentage including when the BBC report on elections.

As an example on the 'English elections page' www.englishelections.org.uk - St. John's ward of Fylde Borough Council, Fylde Ratepayers got 65.7%, they did not stand before so the percentage change is shown as +65.7% not as an N/A percentage change.

http://www.englishelections.org.uk/england/lby/northwest/stjohns.php

--90.217.160.107 (talk) 21:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

News outlets can do what they like the overwhelming norm and practice on Wikipedia is N/A for parties which have not stood before, if you wish to challenge this norm please gain consensus on the relevant wikiproject. The N/A is two fold, there can be no percentage increase from no base as the percentage increase is mathematically infinite not +_ the percentage they got in that election it would only be that if the party/candidate had stood before and received no votes. The second is it shows easily and properly who stood before and who did not. Sport and politics (talk) 13:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An N/A varient is not the norm on wikipedia. Please provide the evidence to back up your statement. Mathemitically the starting base for a party who has never stood before is 0%. There the variant will be a +. --90.217.160.107 (talk) 09:38, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look at UK parliamentary election results articles will demonstrate the use of N/A do not use anything other than N/A for a party which has never stood before. Also mathematically a 0% base is wrong there is no base if a party has never stood before not a 0% base. See Haltemprice and Howden by-election, 2008 as the best example. Sport and politics (talk) 09:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you set up a consent vote. I have no idea how to do it myself as newish. But, I agree with the other person. I would vote for a plus percentage over a N/A variance. There are also lots of example on Wiki where a plus percentage is shown for a new party. If you look at the Leicester South seat both systems are being used, I think we need to use one system or the other... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leicester_South_%28UK_Parliament_constituency%29#Elections_in_the_2010s

--Nottingham Politics (talk) 10:56, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, a vote cannot be setup as it violates one of the five pillars of Wikipedia as Wikipedia is Wikipedia is not a democracy, If you wish to challenge the current consensus or which to raise this issue please do so on the talk page of the relevant Wikiproject WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom. Sport and politics (talk) 14:37, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Gedling Borough Council election, 2015

The following discussion is archived and relates to the Gedling Borough Council election, 2015. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

You have no right to remove the article, it was approved by the wiki moderators. Everytime you remove the aticle i'll simply add it back in, and put it to dispute.

--Nottingham Politics (talk) 17:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No one owns an article and any editing which is not vandalism can be undertaken to any article. Redirecting to a more appropriate page is perfectly valid as a an editing action. Please calm down and I strongly suggest reading the Five Pillars of Wikipedia. 21:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Redirection undone. No one owns the article including you!!! So stop being a hypocrite. It is not for you to bully other writers, therefore I suggest you back off. Article added back, and every time you remove/re-direct it. It will be added back.

--Nottingham Politics (talk) 06:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The 2014 elections have not taken place yet if you wish to discuss this further I suggest you take to the revenant Wikiproject otherwise please stop engaging in aggressive an ownership behaviour. Just because you like the article and want the information and the article to remain the way you have created it does not mean you have the right to impose this on the rest of wikipedia. The standard Wikipedia length of time before an article is created is in relation to elections especially minor municipal election such as this ne is a couple of months before the election is to be held. This far out there is no guarantee the council elections will occur and the Government could decided to postpone or cancel these elections for some reason such as creating a unitary authority. Having an article for an election this far out is a lear violation of WP:CRYSTAL. he only way round this for you is to provide some independent and verifiable third party sources on the 2015 Gedling Council elections and the sources must relate directly to these elections in 2015 in Gedling Borough. Failure to do so will result in the article being deleted or redirected.Sport and politics (talk) 15:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirection undone. I have also saved all the coding so will go back up again if deleted.

Elections are happening and are scheduled: http://www.gedling.gov.uk/councillorsmeetings/elections/scheduledelections/ Boundary changes have been approved: http://www.lgbce.org.uk/all-reviews/east-midlands/nottinghamshire/gedling-fer

--Nottingham Politics (talk) 22:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Err, can we all keep the peace as this seems like an editing war and seems overdone on both sides. Nottingham politics, you need to calm down... Sport & politics, this article seems pretty good and useful to be honest... and saves me a job! :-) Is there a compromise you can reach with Nottingham_poltics to allow his article to stay up? Both of you need to re-read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Own

--Verzarli (talk) 05:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't "deleted" the article the content remains there. There though must be waiting for closer to the time for the article. It is too far in to the future and violates WP:Crystal. When the election comes rolling round and April 2015 comes round the redirect can be removed. Simply leave the page re-directed with the content hidden that way there is no article for a set of elections which may not occur and has no independent third party sources to verify. The article is a prime candidate for deletion if it remains unredirected. Editor convenience is a very poor reason to retain the article in visible form. Sport and politics (talk) 07:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Undid your spiteful and unjust redirection. Be my guest to put the article in dispute.

--Nottingham Politics (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think you understand Wikipedia. This is not a place for ownership and always assume good faith and always avoid personal attacks your above comments fail on all three of those points. you are at risk of being reported and blocked from Wikiepdia if you continue in this manner. I now have no choice but to list the article for deletion as it does not belong on Wikipedia, until at the earlier March 2015, when it can be re-created. Sport and politics (talk) 00:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

BLP

The following discussion is archived and relates to the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

When editing articles under the purview of WP:BLP (this includes recently deceased people), please ensure that you use reliable, secondary sources, especially when making changes which are likely to be controversial. Regards Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We appear to be having a crossing conversation here lets move the conversation to here for convenience.

Please see my reply on my talk page. If you re-add the information I will block you. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

AfD argument

The following discussion is archived and relates to the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

that was a good one! going on my list. thanks. LibStar (talk) 06:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Tower Hamlets Council election, 2014

The following discussion is archived and relates to the Tower Hamlets Council election, 2014. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Just to let you know, I've restored the original mayoral election results table. Your version was less detailed (as you left out the invalid/blank votes and registered voters), and also included incorrect info (it was not a Tower Hamlets First gain, as Lutfur Rahman was the incumbent mayor). Also, I note that you claim the original table format is obsolete - this is not the case - it's the most widely used form of election results table on Wikipedia. Cheers, Number 5 7 14:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please respect WP:BRD. If you want to restore an overly complicated (and frankly awful looking) table format, please add all the relevant information. Otherwise the original table will remain. Thanks, Number 5 7 19:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you dislike the use of the standard table for election under the supplementary vote please discuss it as opposed to becoming someone sounding like an owner by stating things like "it will remain". No other mayoral result for a UK mayor uses the table format you are stating "will remain". You are clearly using a format which is not in line with norms and consensus. I suggest you discuss this on the relevant wikiproject talk page as opposed to engaging in frankly your own edit war based on your own opinion grounded in nothing more than aesthetics. Sport and politics (talk) 20:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It will remain because that is how WP:BRD works. It's nothing about being an owner. You're more than welcome to change the format as long as you keep all the information in the table. As for accusing me of engaging in an edit war, you have now reverted four times on Directly elected mayor of Tower Hamlets. Number 5 7 20:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are being very selective and are intentionally ignoring the main principle of Wikiepida and that is to work collaboratively and by consensus, If you are going to play the BRD card then you too need to leave the Directly elected mayor of Tower Hamlets article alone and I will leave the Tower Hamlets Council election, 2014 page alone that way neither of us are going be hanging the original content of the article before this started. That way no one is holding articles to random and disrupting Wikipedia while discussion take place. Sport and politics (talk) 21:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how I'm being selective. WP:BRD applies to the Directly elected article too. You added some information. Some of it was correct, some of it not, and the bit that wasn't correct was removed by Bondegezou. Therefore BRD was applied correctly, but you continued to revert that material back into the article. I am not interested in doing any deals for "You leave that alone and I'll leave this alone", because that is clearly a violation of WP:OWN. I have no particular interest in the election article other than ensuring the maximum amount of information is made available to readers, and any removal of key information should be reverted. Any change in how that information is presented (within reason) is fine, as long as the information remains.

What I don't understand is how you can't see how obviously wrong you are on the Lutfur Rahman election. Rahman was a THF mayor before the election, and a THF mayor after the election. It wasn't a gain. You're just misleading readers. How can you justify this? Being done wrong elsewhere is not a valid excuse. Number 5 7 21:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are seemingly not prepared to engage in a serious discussion and from the sounds of it you clearly believe you are "right" and are determined to "win". This is not how Wikipedia works. A discussion, a serious discussion that is one which will allow all sides to have a reasonable say and will have no pre-formed outcome, is what is needed . You have also conveniently dismissed the Doncaster Mayor articles stating "not the same person was elected" when two mayors left the parties they were elected as and went independent and you are seemingly content with having English Democrats gain from Labour and Labour gain from English Democrats purely on the basis that "the same person wasn't re-elected", even trough Peter Davies originally elated as an English Democrat re-stood as an Independent. Sport and politics (talk) 21:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you confusing me with someone else? I have never discussed a Doncaster mayoral election with another editor. Anyway, your accusations of not being prepared to engage in a serious discussion are clearly nonsense. As I noted on the article talk page, from the very start I've said that what you're doing is wrong, but you haven't given a single justification for it on factual grounds, but instead relied on "it's consensus", "it's what's done elsewhere" rather than actually base your arguments on the facts. In my last response on your talk page I asked you directly how you could possibly justify your stance, and again you have dodged the question rather than debate it.

So, there is someone here who is not engaging in a proper discussion, but it's not me. Given that you have now accused me of at least two things that it is really you who is guilty of, I'm not sure that there is much progress to be made here, so let's wait for some other people to weigh in at the article talk page. Number 5 7 21:29, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for confusing you with the other contributor, my point though still stands. You are also using definitives to describe your opinion you believe what is there is incorrect that does not make what i am doing "wrong". You just dislike the current longstanding stable article versions which are the current consensus. You need to demonstrate that there is support for your proposed changes as is it is not without contention to make the changes you are proposing. i am also completely lost by what you are rambling about when you start taking of being guilty and so on , just grow up and engage in a proper discussion and stop trying to circumvent a discussion and claiming wild rubbish to try and speed ram your version of thing through. Sport and politics (talk) 21:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that you've restored your preferred format again, despite it still not containing all the information. As I noted in the edit summary when restoring the original, if the format cannot handle simple electoral information like number of registered voters, then it is not fit for purpose. As I said originally (several times), I don't mind you using that style, as long as it doesn't involve removing any data. If you can get it to display registered voters (I think you may have to create a new sub template, as there doesn't appear to be one capable of doing this), then you're more than welcome to readd. You may also want to be a bit more careful, as you didn't update the total number of votes to include the spoilt ones. Cheers, Number 5 7 12:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge the information you requested has been added, if this is not the case please let me know what additional information is missing which you would like to have added. __Sport and politics (talk) 17:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Revert

The following discussion is archived and relates to Wikipedia:Reverting. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Could you explain the logic of this revert? I don't see why the succession box is warranted, as it now duplicates the new {{East Sussex elections}}. I also don't understand why the {{Brighton}} template is warranted, as the article isn't on that template. Thanks Number 5 7 16:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, the Brighton template does have the election on it. However, I really don't understand the reason for the succession box being reinstated. Number 5 7 16:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Murder of Milly Dowler

The following discussion is archived and relates to the Murder of Milly Dowler. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

You will note that User:David J Johnson already made the proper/helpful point of requesting a reference to provide better documentation of the edit, and that a reference was already provided. Please take a moment to read the edit chain, or create a talk item for further balanced discussion with fellow editors, rather than carrying out multiple "undo"s. We're all in this together for the continued improvement of all articles. Cheers. (Wait! Was this trolling? Cool - my first time victimized by a troll. However, I guess that means that I fell for it, and you were successful, so you win and I guess I lost?) Jmg38 (talk) 08:40, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what on earth you are on about in relation to Trolling. Also the information you keep adding is not relevant to the article without a reliable source as it does not directly relate to this murder. Sport and politics (talk) 08:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I requested the reference, which was duly provided and is a reliable source. My view is that the information is relevant to the article, as the murderer is a convicted serial killer. Please do not continually revert edits, if you disagree with a edit take your point to the article Talk page for discussion amongst editors and get consensus. Thank you, David J Johnson (talk) 09:15, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Morton season page

The following discussion is archived and relates to Greenock Morton F.C.. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

I've done these for 5 years, and they have been done like this the whole time.

Events is there for a reason, as bookings are mentioned not just goals; and the Renfrewshire Cup is a friendly competition and our manager didn't even take the team on Monday, with us making 5 subs. Given you have probably never heard of the team, kindly don't revert my edits without explaining why you are doing it.

Salty1984 (talk) 17:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please calm yourself just because you have done it for X years does not mean you are the owner or have a monopoly on the format of the article. I assume you are either connected to the club or are a supporter of the club by the use of the phrases "our manager" and "with us making 5 subs". Stating phrases like "you have probably never heard of the team, kindly don't revert my edits without explaining why you are doing it", is showing you are demonstrating, a degree of entitlement and ownership over the article. I strongly suggest you refrain from this tact as it will likely result in at best poor reputation of yourself or at worse you being given a ban or topic ban. I strongly suggest reading WP:Ownership as it lays out that no matter how much an editor feels they are right and an article is their domain, that is not how Wikiepdia operates. Sport and politics (talk) 09:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please contribute to the discussion on the 2014–15 Greenock Morton F.C. season talk page here. Sport and politics (talk) 09:49, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Reference Errors on 20 July

The following discussion is archived and relates to Wikipedia:Citing sources. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Emily Benn page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sarah Brown

The following discussion is archived and relates to Sarah Brown. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Sarah Brown (politician)#Gay versus Equal marriage. Thanks. ~Excesses~ (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Quarterfinal IS correct

The following discussion is archived and relates to the Wikipedia Manual of Style. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

http://www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/quarterfinal

Bil EoGuy (talk) 00:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no right or wrong both are acceptable usage.

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/quarter-final

Also more wider used is Quarter-final see this BBC article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/proginfo/2014/26/world-cup-quarter-finals

So as per common usage Quarter-final is more acceptable.

--Sport and politics (talk) 09:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

next UK General Election

The following discussion is archived and relates to the 2015 United Kingdom general election. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hi, I notice you on the next United Kingdom general election talk page. Bondegezou and I have been discussing the possibility of a prose summary of the major shifts and trends in public opinion over the Parliament (where that can be seen reported in reliable sources) on the article page. I would tend to agree, and have started to draft, but would like others' views before I put too much work into it. Please comment! DrArsenal (talk) 13:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Your edit to Mayor of Mansfield

The following discussion is archived and relates to the Mayor of Mansfield. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

I came back to expand this article to find you had hidden the outline box I added in this edit. More information is known, except that some is hard-copy only as yet. At what point would you anticipate revealing the detail? No urgency, but I know who/what the three main candidates are (as yet); other readers may like to know.--Semperito (talk) 20:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Until nominations are closed any names no matter ow confirmed or sourced they are will be speculation and subject to potential change. Also just because "other readers may like to know" is not a reason to add what is little more than speculation at this point in time. Sport and politics (talk) 17:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your attitude is coming across as very controlling and officious (I have read some of the other postings above), however I am aware that this is a consequence associated with any portal and I have observed it many times on WP. As I have already unequivocally stated, all three main candidates have already been announced (no "speculation") and press-profiled (all three in the same hard-copy feature [with a 'fourth' being the existing incumbent who is to retire] and one of the three online) with summary manifestos and there is no uncertainty about these standing, excepting calamaties. The knee-jerk, OTT reaction "what is little more than speculation at this point in time" is inappropriate, but thanks for allowing me to abandon this page at an early stage without wasting further input. It's supposed to be 'consensus', not subject to your personal control. We're done here.--Semperito (talk) 19:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Please support my proposal in Wikipedia talk:Community portal

The following discussion is archived and relates to the Wikipedia:Community Portal. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Currently the portal's section "help out" lacks "Create these articles", "Represent a worldwide view" and "Add historical information", which is odd since there are still plenty of notable uncreated articles, e.g. smokers' rights and Joseph Charles Aub, plenty of articles with geographic imbalances and plenty of articles lacking sufficient historical information, and the issues are no less serious than the fact that there are still many articles requiring update. So please go to that page and support my proposal to add "Create these articles", "Represent a worldwide view" and "Add historical information" to the section "help out".--RekishiEJ (talk) 05:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Green Party of England and Wales

The following discussion is archived and relates to the Green Party of England and Wales. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hi. I have reverted you removal of content from Green Party of England and Wales. I don't find it contravening any wikipedia guidelines. If you object to my revision (which you probably do or you wouldn't have removed the content in the first place) could we take this discussion onto the articles talk page? Gaia Octavia Agrippa^Talk 23:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the discussion on the talk page of the Green Party of England and Wales article. Sport and politics (talk) 12:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Canvey Island Independent Party listed at Redirects for discussion

The following discussion is archived and relates to Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Canvey Island Independent Party. Since you had some involvement with the Canvey Island Independent Party redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Huon (talk) 00:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Gedling Borough Council 2015 - candidate names

The following discussion is archived and relates to the Gedling Borough Council election, 2015 and Wikipedia's naming convention regarding people. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

The names I have entered are correct as per the statement of persons nominated and exactly how they are to appear on the voting papers.

The candidate names are accurate and taken from the statement of persons nominated.

As per Gedling Borough Council links here

http://www.gedling.gov.uk/councillorsmeetings/elections/2015elections/

http://www.gedling.gov.uk/media/documents/councillorsmeetings/elections/Statement%20of%20Persons%20Nominated%20-%20Gedling%20Wards.pdf

These names will not appear in any shorted form and are as they are, and are fact.

Gedling Borough Council, Elections Office - direct line 0115 901 3844 - will also confirm this is the case. (Verzarli (talk) 15:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)).[reply]

Please sing comments and follow the Manual of style. Neither of which are being followed by an IP troll. Sport and politics (talk) 14:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the page back for a 3rd time to the factually correct names the and commonly known as names as per on the actual ballot papers and listed on the actual statement of nominated persons. These are the correct names and a statement of fact, and have been referenced and cited.

Your own personal preference seems to be to remove middle names from candidates who clearly wish to use their full names as per the statement of nominated persons.

I do not understand your rationale for changing candidate names, to names the candidates are not actually standing as and are not referenced or cited as.

If you disagree, feel free to put the page forward for a consensus. (Verzarli (talk) 15:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)).[reply]

You are more than welcome to start the discussion yourself, i see little value though in engaging with you, due to your history on this page and sense of ownership of the page. You are not a consensus building editor you are little more than a page owner on a single issue kick. I strongly suggest a good reading of the Manual of Style. Sport and politics (talk) 15:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see here which explains the change in the law forcing names to match those on the electoral roll. Eliminating the old rule on being able to have any name you are actually commonly know by e.g. John Richard Smith cannot appear on the ballot paper as just John Smith. This means that the claim of "candidates who clearly wish to use their full names" is invalid in law. Sport and politics (talk) 15:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted back, the middle name where on the ballot papers and are what people offical stood as in full. Your altering of people names this is inaccurate. --Verzarli (talk) 20:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See the above link for the law on this also see the newspaper coverage of the names and how the councillors elected are listed on the Council website (not the results or elections pages). You are acting as the owner of this article and I intend on exposing you as such. Sport and politics (talk) 20:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your hostile aggression or why this is so important to you, you seem to be trying to own the page.

Under the legal changes candidates must use middle names, these cannot normally be taken out. This elections where fought with people using their whole names, the press reported the results using whole names and the result where declared using whole names.

I do not understand your personal objection to the result being recorded using the candidates full names which they campaign on the election as... I can scan you copies of the leaflets and local papers to prove this.

As a matter of fact the council declared the results using full names, you can see this from there web-site: https://democracy.gedling.gov.uk/mgElectionElectionAreaResults.aspx?EID=500000004&RPID=503978498 --Verzarli (talk) 04:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your quote: 'Eliminating the old rule on being able to have any name you are actually commonly know by e.g. John Richard Smith cannot appear on the ballot paper as just John Smith.'

Therefore on wiki why are you changing John Richard Smith to read John Smith? When is not legally correct, as per your above example? --Verzarli (talk) 04:14, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are just a single issue jobsworth. Please clear off of Wikiepdia. Sport and politics (talk) 18:13, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Your repeated reversions on Don Foster (politician)

The following discussion is archived and relates to the terms of office for Members of the House of Commons in the United Kingdom and Don Foster. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

It is a very basic fact of Parliamentary procedure that MPs cease to be so upon the dissolution of Parliament. I have even provided a citation to back this up from what must surely be considered the definitive source. I don't know what motive you imagine I could possibly have for falsifying such information. Perhaps you would explain what reason you have for supposing that the date of 30 March is not accurate? --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 17:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note you are acting unilaterally, refusing to engage and instating on your version. This is what is referred to as a violation of ownership. and POV pushing, please refrain from doing or you will likely be reported for your disruptive beheaviour. Engage in constructive discussions or you will find Wikipedia s not the place for you. Discuss this on relevant pages not individual user talk pages. I am not going to engage on here but will engage on the issues on term end for MPs - Dissolution of Parliament. Sport and politics (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Tim Loughton

The following discussion is archived and relates to biographies of a living person and Tim Loughton. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

The BLP issue with that section you are adding is not regarding Loughton, it is regarding his constituent, who has contacted Wikipedia about the matter. The whole section is completely WP:UNDUE anyway. Please do not restore it again. Black Kite (talk) 12:45, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not act like the owner of the page relying on an essay. Please do not pander to the I.P. editor who is directly involved with the content and is the other person involved in the dispute with Laughton. I will restore the information and will not be threatened by someone acting like an owner pandering to another editor who is abusive and want the information removed because they dislike it. The information is well sourced, justified and reliable. All of which trump the unsubstantiated undue weight claims. Sport and politics (talk) 18:18, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Talk:London mayoral election, 2016

The following discussion is archived and relates to the London mayoral election, 2016 and London Liberal Democrats. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

I've raised my issues with the Liberal Democrat result table at this talk page. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

David Burgess (lawyer)

The following discussion is archived and relates to David Burgess and page moves. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Please abide by the outcome of Talk:David Burgess (lawyer)#Requested move 15 September 2015, where no consensus was found to move the article. As it says there: "Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review." I have reverted your out of process move, which also was to a wrong title: Because there is no other article titled Sonia Burgess, any move would go there and not to Sonia Burgess (Human Rights lawyer), which is also miscapitalized. Sandstein 11:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

ArbCom elections are now open!

The following discussion is archived and relates to the 2015 ArbCom elections. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

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) 16:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

December 2015

The following discussion is archived and relates to Arsenal F.C.. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Please do not add or change content, as you did at 2015–16 Arsenal F.C. season, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Qed237 (talk) 12:33, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am planning on ignoring you , as your position is untenable, everything is updated, relying on a single source as has been done is absurd, the end of Round 16 concluded with the Monday fixture Chelsea v Leicester, Leicester won and at the end of the round 16 matches they were top. Tonight Arsenal Play Manchester City in the round 17 final Match again on Monday, I do not see Arsenal being listed as Second place on that or for that matter Manchester City being listed in third on their respective season article. This is the same reasoning being used to list them as first at the end of round 16's matches. Either be consistent or drop the dead horse and actually use some common sense, this goes to also show the unreliability of the current source being held as a bible, which fails WP:reliable. Sport and politics (talk) 12:39, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are clearly missing the point. There is a consensus that there are no rounds in English leagues as matches gets moved around for different reasons. Therefore we list position by matchday, which is what has been done for a very long time and which for example also BBC does in their "as it stood table" in the matchreport (BBC is a very reliable source). Perhaps you should start listening. Qed237 (talk) 12:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since Arsenal and ManCity have not played their 17th match yet, they have no position that matchday yet. Qed237 (talk) 12:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is now the absurd position of both arsenal and Leicester being listed on their respective season article pages as being in position ! at the end of game/round 16. This is a patent absurdity. This is also confusing and frankly a ridiculous position to be in. This cannot be the case and it was not the case. When all teams had play the matches of the period of 11-14 December Leicester were top not Arsenal. Sport and politics (talk) 12:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is what reliable sources show us and as I said, there is consensus that there are no rounds. If you want to call that "absurd" that is your POV, but it is the best way to show the progress of the teams. As you may have seen there is no "position by round"-table on the main PL article and that is for a reason. Qed237 (talk) 12:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Editing of List of snooker tournaments article

The following discussion is archived and relates to Snooker. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Greetings. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to List of snooker tournaments, did not appear to be constructive and has been or will be reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Betty Logan (talk) 07:01, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Total and utter nonsense, please go to the talk page of the article, do not post quackery on my talk page. This is not the place to post unfounded nonsensical warnings. This warning is not accepted in any way and is utterly believed to be tosh. Please also refrain from the patronising in the above, talking at me as if i am a green, wet behind the ears, new user who is thick, and does not know what they are doing. I hold the above with complete contempt. The best course of action would be to apologise for posting such crap and being so condescending and superior. The above also stinks of WP:ownership of the article in question. Do not jump to rude and wholly offensive warnings without being constructive and posting a constructive discussion regarding the issue. Sport and politics (talk) 07:12, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

February 2016

The following discussion is archived and relates to Arsenal F.C.. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at 2015–16 Arsenal F.C. season. Your edits have been or will be reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. Qed237 (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Inappropriate warning

The following discussion is archived and relates to warnings on user talkpages and WP:civility. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hi Sport and politics I've just looked over yours and Qed237's interaction on the 2015–16 Arsenal F.C. season article and cannot see anything which would warrant an AGF warning (let alone a level 3 one). I can, however, see a content dispute. In future, instead of templating the regulars, please consider discussing the edits with them. It would also be wise to remember that an editor can remove a warning from their user talk page to indicate they have read it (or for any other reason really) - please do not revert such edits. Thanks! -- samtar ^whisper 15:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Qed237 has jumped to adding a warning to this page instead of engaging in discussion. They have assumed the edit is disruptive, it is not and was never intended to be. As the above warning was added stating they have come to the conclusion the edit was disruptive, they have assumed I am acting in bad faith, and are by extension assuming bad faith regarding my editing. Warnings should be a last and not a first resort. I am fully of the opinion the warning posted by Qed237 is in no way justified as it rests on me acting in bad faith, and this is not the case, in this case bad faith instead of good faith has been assumed. There is noting inappropriate about pointing out and warning a user for assuming bad faith as has been done here, instead of engaging in good faith assumptions, which was not done here. It is unconstructive and needlessly confrontational, it does not advance consensus editing, it advances adversarial editing as warning should be a final resort when discussions and reason have been exhausted. Warnings used in this manner do not have meaning, they have a feeling of pettiness and point scoring. Warnings need to have meaning and not be handed out because of a simple disagreement. Sport and politics (talk) 15:31, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In conclusion Qed237 has therefor posted an equally inappropriate warning on this talk page and in the interests of fairness Qed237 should receive the same warning as has been placed on this talk page, if not then the appropriateness needs to be fully explained and fully justified. I do not accept that my warning was inappropriate under the circumstances as explained above. Sport and politics (talk) 15:35, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I could easily accept a level 1 warning for this, but why on earth would I deserve a level 3? I gave you a level 3 because of your history, but your warning just as a retaliation is not assuming good faith from your part (making your retaliation just as bad or even worse). Also you could have explained your edit, which you did not. There is something called edit summary. Or you could simply have asked someone before your edit. Qed237 (talk) 15:38, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not passing judgement on Qed237's actions here (which, looking at the above warning, were quite unnecessary as well) - if you so fervently disagree with the use of warnings why did you template in retaliation? All of this could have been avoided if this was discussed plainly, by both parties -- samtar ^whisper 15:47, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

samtar I wholly agree, but I just got exasperated by the unnecessary use of them on here (not just by QED), and QED's totally unnecessary use of one here, If a user is going to unjustly slap one on me for no good reason, then the only way I saw to get over this was to place an, in my opinion appropriate warning on their page. It is now clear no warnings should have been paced by either party involved. I would like for QED to accept this fact and then we should all move on. This is a little over the top over the use of one piece of wiki mark up, used in good faith. Warning should be a last resort and not a first resort. Discussions should be a first resort not a last resort.Sport and politics (talk) 15:59, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely

chalk it up to a learning experience and let's get back to building an encyclopedia -- samtar ^whisper 19:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Fixtures

The following discussion is archived and relates to UK football fixtures . Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hi, per consensus at football project and per UK copyright laws we always diplay one upcoming fixture and this has been discussed so many times. You hid that match without any explanation and given history at your talkpage I choose a level 3 warning. But what made me deserve level3 and not level1? Qed237 (talk) 15:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you had simply said what you have now said above and provided a link to the discussion, instead of getting high and mighty and using edit summaries as 'WTF', then none of this would have occurred. You assumed this whole episode stems from editing that had been done disruptively, and this was not the case. You are aware constructive discussions are easy with me as we have discussed things before. The conduct shown by yourself was confrontational and unconstructive. labelling edits as disruptive and branding users with warnings. This causes resentment and does not lead to a conducive environment for consensus editing. Calm discussions are the best thing, not jumping all over other editors and edits.

I also take issue with your 'talk page history' theory, the warnings on here were first resort not last resort and are in my opinion old or unjustified, like the level 2 warning paced by you regarding sources and the daft level one warning (placed not by you) placed over a content dispute, which was under discussion at the time. Just because a warning is visible does not mean it is justified, or in anyway a reflection of the truth. You are not a new editor, so level one is not appropriate. You and I have also engaged in constructive discussions before, so you are aware I am not a disruptive editor, and I do engage in discussions. By you making the assumption of me being disruptive, it goes against prior interactions you and I have had. You have therefor jumped to a bad faith assumption which justifies a level 3 warning in my opinion.

In future engage without labelling, hyperbole, or judgement. Then none of this will occur in the future. This could have so easily been avoided by you simply placing the above statement here as you have now done at the start. This whole episode reflects very badly on all involved, yourself especially, in my opinion, as it shows you, weather rightly or wrongly, to be confrontational, instead of consensus building in your editing.

The best thing to do is move on and carry on with life. Sport and politics (talk) 15:53, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

London mayoral elections

The following discussion is archived and relates to Mayor of London articles. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hi!

I've reverted some of your edits recently -- you have systematically removed information from the London mayoral election articles. While I understand where you're coming from, it's still unnecessary. The more details, the more rounded and better the article becomes. If the wording is bad, or the info is poorly presented, then I suggest you re-write/re-phrase it, rather than remove it altogether.

Not trying to start an edit war, so I thought I should just inform you about my changes. Feel free to discuss it.

Μαρκος Δ (talk) 22:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The information is commentary and opinion. The previous revisions were much more neutral and more factual. The modified revisions also contain pejoratives and weasel words. The sections were reverted because they were simply badly written and commentary, the original revision was simply better and do not need changing. The modified versions do not add to the article, they detract from it. Asking for a bad revision to be re-written when a perfectly good version exists and is already there, is a waste of effort. It is better not to lose something good, because a new version has been made and reversions are somehow seen as a bad thing, that logic of editing is just simply a nonsense and creating more work where none is needed. Accordingly I shall revert and under WP:BRD please go to the main talk pages or wider relevant wikiproject and discuss the edits before reverting again. A bold edit has been made, it has been reverted, now discussion is what is needed, not an edit war, over what is essentially very minor changes to small amounts of pros. Sport and politics (talk) 23:18, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sporting venue names

The following discussion is archived and relates to WP:COMMONNAME. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Greetings. Why do you disagree with listing the name of a venue as it was officially described at the time? In 2009, the commonly known name for the Manchester Arena was indeed the MEN Arena—the article (and every single other boxing article) originally stated it as such for the sake of historical accuracy. What is the issue with not reflecting that using the pipe? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 02:00, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article has to be accessible, the common name of the arenas as they are known now should be used. Articles are living things and certain facts will change over time. See sports tournaments, when names change, for example the Football League Cup. That tournament could very well be commonly known today as the Capital One Cup, but has previously been known as the Carling Cup, the Coca-Cola Cup, but in order to avoid confusion a common name the Football league cup is used. in this case the Manchester Arena is clearly the common name. This is because firstly it is the current name, but that is not the most important factor. The second thing is the most important it is the fact the same building has had many sponsor names, the NYNEX arena, the MEN arena, and the Phone4U arena. In order not to create any confusion, or give the impression that there are three separate buildings, instead of one building with different names, a common single name is needed, to make clear that the same venue was used, and not multiple different venues. This reduces confusion and increases the article accessibility. Overall it is simple, the multiple names give an impression of multiple different venues, the common name removes this and makes clear it is the same venue. It also must be remembered that all and anyone can read this article and not just those familiar with the topic, and all of the material contained in the topic. Sport and politics (talk) 02:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, taken on board—I had not previous known of the WP:COMMONNAME guidelines. That'll affect an exponentially huge number of articles related to boxing alone, but I'll be sure to pass on the advice over at WikiProject Boxing as we strive to finalise an MOS. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 02:22, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Yellow cards and formatting

The following discussion is archived and relates to the formatting of football results tables. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hi. Why would you destroy the formatting and remove the standard linebreaks to insert commas? Also do you have any consensus for the removal of yellow cards? The lastest discussion at WT:FOOTY resulted in no consensus. Qed237 (talk) 21:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The insertion of the breaks do not actually cause any errors in the goals scored coding, if you also notice it has been retained where it is necessary such as penalty shootouts. The use of the comas makes editing the raw much cleaner and simpler. Nothing has been 'destroyed', and claiming so is sensationalist. None of the formatting is 'broken' and the table is fine without the breaks being required. this is a storm over nothing and the use of the breaks is unnecessary. There should be as little format coding as possible, adding unneeded format code just adds to the difficulty in editing the articles, with no need for it. Sport and politics (talk) 21:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is a guidline in template documentation and standard way of how to foramt these templates and that is not using comma. The use of the comas makes editing the raw much cleaner and simpler is just bs and your own personal view which goes against all other editors. Qed237 (talk) 21:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it is in in a guideline does not mean it is the best, the need for the breaks is so pointless, and it is just a guide and not policy requirement. Also the way the breaks are done in the article is not consistent and two ways of doing it are used, it is just sloppy and unnecessary, this discussion needs to be moved to a more appropriate forum, here is not a constructive place.Sport and politics (talk) 21:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this and I will have no choice but to start taking you to ANI and/or start warning you. It is definately not sloppy and unneccesary. Qed237 (talk) 21:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep what up? Not agreeing with you? This is all a little sensationalist. Also please do not deputise ALL of Wikipeida's users in to your argument, that is sweeping sensationalising which just shows an entrenched position, with no helpful constructive value. I have suggested this is moved to a more appropriate forum. Lets do that and then a more constructive discussion can take place. Sport and politics (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have closed this discussion to facilitate moving the talk to a move appropriate forum. Sport and politics (talk) 22:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Bobby Zamora

The following discussion is archived and relates to Bobby Zamora. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hi, can you provide a source for Bobby Zamora leaving Brighton? Thanks, Mattythewhite (talk) 17:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See this source. Sport and politics (talk) 17:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Talk:Murder of Milly Dowler

The following discussion is archived and relates to the Murder of Milly Dowler. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Greeting, Sport and politics! I'd like to ask, when will our discussion at Talk:Murder of Milly Dowler be taken to DRN? The proposal has been supported by Chaheel Riens, David J Johnson and myself, with no opposition. Linguist 111 Please reply on the current talk page and ping me by typing {{ping|Linguist111}} before your message 12:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Better Bedford Party listed at Redirects for discussion

The following discussion is archived and relates to Redirects for discussion. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Better Bedford Party. Since you had some involvement with the Better Bedford Party redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 17:08, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Mayor 4 Stoke listed at Redirects for discussion

The following discussion is archived and relates to Redirects for discussion. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Mayor 4 Stoke. Since you had some involvement with the Mayor 4 Stoke redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 17:29, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Mansfield Independent Forum listed at Redirects for discussion

The following discussion is archived and relates to Redirects for discussion. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Mansfield Independent Forum. Since you had some involvement with the Mansfield Independent Forum redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 17:42, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Vey odd section

The following discussion is archived and relates to the London Waterloo. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

This looks like the sort of thing that IkbenFrank (talk · contribs) would add. They made edits to a lot of railway station pages showing where you should change to get from that station to Ireland. I thought that I'd removed them all. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:45, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Murder of Milly Dowler - infobox

The following discussion is archived and relates to Infoboxes. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposed new version on talk page – Talk:Murder of Milly Dowler#Infobox Linguist If you reply here, please add {{ping|Linguist111}} to your message 21:11, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Results by matchday

The following discussion is archived and relates to the Association Football results in Premier League football team season articles. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hi.

Regarding this edit, do we really need to discuss this again? There is consensus to display the position at the end of the day they played, and you have been told about it before.

Also in this edit Arsenal was not 2nd on 25 October. Read bottom of infobox that states "All statistics correct as of 25 October 2016". If you want to update things, make sure to update timestamps.

Thank you. Qed237 (talk) 10:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is absurd. Arsenal are second in the league and were second in the league at the end of the matches played that weekend, in the current scenario two teams are claiming to be in first, both Arsenal and Manchester City, this is stupid, the match day position tracker should be scrapped, as it causes this kind of nonsense confusion, also sod off with claims of "oh this again" superiority, there is no ownership here. Sport and politics (talk) 19:39, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also please stop falling back on the date the box was updated crap, rather than keeping incorrect information, just update the sodding date, stop being such such a belligerent page owner. Sport and politics (talk) 19:43, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also statto.com is a dead link and appears to have been dead for months potentially years. Sport and politics (talk) 20:02, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus say matchDAY and not matchweek, so stop making these disruptive edits or I will have to template you (which I know you like). It has been decided after discussion and it is not my decision and I dont own any article. Qed237 (talk) 23:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And statto has been dead for about 1-2 weeks (I know it was working 2 weeks ago) and it hsa nothing to do with the decision to use the position at the end of the day the team played. Saying "potentially years" is just absurd and taken out of the blue. Qed237 (talk) 23:33, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have evidence of statto being dead months not weeks, and statto is being used as the source for the matchday list, without a source it is Original Research as you and I are arguing over the definition of a 'matchday' which is all original research. This twitter feed dated 2015, seems to show statto has been down, or at least up and down for over a year. Sport and politics (talk) 09:28, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The 'matchday' nonsense and intransigence leads to absurdities shown on the Arsenal and Manchester City pages, with both teams claiming to be 1 at the same time, in the results by matchday section, as such it should be scrapped. Sport and politics (talk) 09:43, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is your POV, but the fact that you know about it and still do edits like this is considered disruptive, wheter you like it or not. Qed237 (talk) 10:04, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By the above logic, its fine to spread confusion across wikipeida, with both teams claiming to be first at the same time. Sport and politics (talk) 10:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, statto were down briefly once a year ago. Nothing special about that, most pages has server issues or needs fixing sometimes. Qed237 (talk) 10:07, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As statto appears to be unreliable, and second source is needed, also why is so much weight being given to a single source? There needs to be no undue weight, block using one source carte blanche, surely is undue weight to jus one outlet. Sport and politics (talk) 10:10, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is to show position at the end of the day they played and statto does that. If you have an other reliable source that show the same thing you are more than welcome to let me know. Just dont link a regular table were you have to check all dates yourself, statto provides the list of positions. Qed237 (talk) 10:14, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you look at the table on the article at the time in question. Sport and politics (talk) 10:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a source. Qed237 (talk) 10:39, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What does that have to do with the price of fish, if the table used on the article cannot be used as a way of maching the infobox I am nit sure what can.

Can you please link to the discussion which lead to this consensus. Sport and politics (talk) 10:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look when I have the time, but now I have other things to do IRL. Qed237 (talk) 10:39, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I also suggest that Wikipedia:Link rot is read fully. The link is dead now. The ink is no good not, right now, and needs replacing now. Claiming it will be back up in the future is no good right now. Sport and politics (talk) 10:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I said if you have a better source, dont be afraid to share it. Qed237 (talk) 10:39, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Currently there is no source, claiming a better source is a little bit absurd, a at the moment there is no working source. This means currently there is nothing supporting the claims made where statto is used. Both you and should be looking to add a new source as currently there is no source. Sport and politics (talk) 10:43, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The premier league source has it by match weeks and can be seen here. Sport and politics (talk) 10:59, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A good example what we want to avoid, editors having to check every matchweek on their own. And then there is still the consensus for matchday instead of matchweeks as many matches gets moved in PL. Anyway, statto is now back up and running here and the list Arsenal as 1st after matchday 9. Qed237 (talk) 12:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

The following discussion is archived and relates to Arbitration Committee Elections for 2016. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hello, Sport and politics. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Lance Armstrong verb tense to use in referring to WC victory status

The following discussion is archived and relates to Lance Armstrong. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hi. Just curious about the revert/undo on shifting the tense of 'to be' from is to was and then back again w/r/t Armstrong being the 1993 World Champion. I haven't combed through the MOS or anything, and I don't think cycling wikiproject has had this issue before, but it seems to me that when discussing world championship winners, only the winner of the most recent race and therefore the reigning World Champion is referred to in the present tense. Like, you wouldn't say, "Greg LeMond is the 1986 World Champion." You'd say, "Greg LeMond /was/ the 1986 World Champion." "Peter Sagan /was/ the 2015 World Champion." "Peter Sagan is the reigning World Champion."

btw: This has nothing to do w/ my trying to rhetorically "strip" Lance of another victory, if that's something that might concern you. Heck, I'm friendly with the guy and we've never had a problem. It just seems a bit of unnatural language to refer to someone in the present tense when describing a world championship title they won years previously, which has subsequently been held by a bunch of different riders. Anyway, hit me back and let me know what you think. If you can direct me to some other usages of this convention in articles on cyclists who were world champions, that would help. Regardless, cheers! joepa^T 18:13, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As he was and still is the 1993 world champion the tense in this case which I have used is intentional to create the distinction between the stripped results and the still valid results, for example he was the 2000 Tour de France champion, Braley Wiggins is the 2012 Tour de France champion. in this context is, refers to a perpetual now, was in this context means it was also taken away. So the change in tense is intentional for the Armstrong article to clear up all ambiguity. Sport and politics (talk) 19:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, if I understand you correctly, your thinking is that because Armstrong has had results stripped, in order to limit potential for confusion and ensure clarity as to which victories he retains, describe him as 1993 world champ in present tense? joepa^T 15:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct as he is still the 1993 world champion, that victory stands, the 1999 Tour de France was a title he held, he no longer holds that title. Sport and politics (talk) 17:34, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also w/r/t LeMond I would say he is the 1986 world champion in a biographical context. Sport and politics (talk) 17:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

December 11, 2016

The following discussion is archived and relates to the Wikipedia:editing policy. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did by removing succession boxes on the various U.S. "Presidency of ..." articles.]. Those succession boxes are appropriate for those pages, thus your edits removing them have been reverted. If repeated, future edits removing them could be seen as vandalism. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. If you would like to discuss this issue further, you are encouraged to seek input from the wider community by initiating a Request for comment. Thank you. Drdpw (talk) 17:56, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making ridiculous statements without foundation, the comments above are not grounded in fact and are pure opinion. The removal of a superfluous addition which is just dumped at the bottom of a page which is without any need, is nothing like what is being described. The whole removal of a redundancy that was added without discussion is not un-constructive. I strongly suggest assuming good faith, avoiding acting like an article owner, and the bold revert discuss cycle. None of which are being undertaken here, As such you can take your warning and shove it. ALSO READ THE TOP OF THIS PAGE BEFORE ACTING IN THIS PATHETIC WAY Sport and politics (talk) 18:05, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors. Personal attacks damage the whole community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Drdpw (talk) 18:18, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suggest you practice what you preach. You have launched your above attack on me, slapping this unwarranted nonsense on my talk page. You seem to have no concept of good faith being assumed, and no comprehension of acting boldly in good faith. You are behaving like an article owner. Also do us a favour and adhere to this discussion being closed, your edits to it being wholly unwelcome.Sport and politics (talk) 18:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Euston tube station changes

The following discussion is archived and relates to Euston tube station. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Apologies for reverting your changes without comment. The tool that should be putting the message in the edit message box does not seem to be working for me at the moment. The reason I reverted the changes is that the convention for tube articles is to put just years in the key dates section of the infobox and the items that you added were not significant. You also introduced an error in one of the refs.--DavidCane (talk) 11:48, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please show where the convention of years only is written down, and where/when it was decided. Otherwise how is it supposed to be known that such a convention/consensus exists. Please also not that the current London transport articles some include full dates and some do not. I think a full discussion on inclusion of full dates or just years is needed. I personally find only the years to be confusing as what happens when multiple things happen in the same year? Also please justify on the article talk page why these and not other event are/are not significant.Sport and politics (talk) 11:53, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it does need to be more firmly written down, but the parameter is named years and has been since it was introduced in in June 2006. The example in the Template:Infobox London station page uses years only for dates and most of examples in Wikipedia:WikiProject London Transport/How to write about stations use years only. The one that doesn't, Quainton Road railway station, uses a mixture of full dates and years only that looks incomplete. I think you will find that the majority of the tube station articles follow this pattern.

The purpose of the infobox is to summarise the article, so only the most important events need to be included in the infobox - openings and closings of lines and the like. It's unlikely that more than one event needs to be recorded for a single year, but if that is the case use a </br> in the event field to force a new line. The reason I removed the closure of the surface buildings, the demolition of the C&SLR building and the closure of the connecting passages (the date of which is not mentioned in the article anyway) is that they did not substantially affect the operation of the station. Most tube stations in central London have undergone some reconstruction at some stage and changes of this degree are not important enough to warrant inclusion in the infobox.--DavidCane (talk) 15:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a wider discussion is needed here on the use of only years. A wikiportal with examples does equate to a wider consensus, that is purely a guide. A quick look at real, not example, tube station articles gives a real mix of years only, full dates , and years and full dates. This shows the organic use of the parameters by the wider community is not as is being claimed.

A discussion on the Euston Tube talk page is needed on the "key events".

This clearly needs a good and wide discussion.

--Sport and politics (talk) 20:10, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't claim that the wider community was working in a consistent manner; on Wikipedia it seldom does, which is why we have templates, manuals of styles and the rest to try to bring a degree of uniformity to the 'pedia. That some stations do not confirm to the standard of the WikiProject does not mean that the standard is invalid. It might mean that articles need to be maintained. It might also mean that the project needs to codify its standards more clearly and patrol its articles more assiduously. A discussion on this should take place on the WikiProject London Transport talk page.

If you want to start a discussion on the Euston tube article about key issues, feel free, The starting point of the article should be the condition before your proposed changes.

--DavidCane (talk) 12:20, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Archiving

The following discussion is archived and relates to archiving on Wikipeida. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

By the way, when Linguist111 suggested above that you archive some of your talk page, what they meant was that you create a subpage of this talk page and move older items to it rather than enclose individual items in archived discussion boxes. This helps the page to load quicker. There are templates to help with this - have a look at {{archive box}} and {{talkarchive}}. For an example in use have a look at my talk page.--DavidCane (talk) 12:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Updater

The following discussion is archived and relates to a template on Wikipeida. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Please stop removing the updater. As people have removed it in a few different places, we now have a mixture of at least three different styles being used. We need to have consistency. If you don't like the style, then contribute to the discussion; removing the updater is not helping at all. Thanks, Number 5 7 23:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please go back to the discussion on the football project page. I am in the process of attempting to read the current discussion, it should also be obvious that from the immediate reversion to the first additions, this needs more discussing before implementing. Sport and politics (talk) 23:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to your point on my talk page, I'm not 'imposing' anything on articles. The updater was added to all the articles months ago but seems to have been removed from a few by editors who obviously couldn't work out how it worked. I'm just restoring it to ensure consistency. Responding to your point here, if there's been a discussion and something has been implemented as a result, you can't just start trying to undo it. Happy to resolve this at the discussion, but please stop with the removals. Thanks, Number 5 7 23:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is sod all with consistency, this is not about not giving enough time for discussions. Please stop this roll out before discussions have taken place. Otherwise you are POV pushing, here no matter how in the right you think you are being. Sport and politics (talk) 23:25, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it's not a roll out. The updater was rolled out months ago. Unfortunately it got removed from some articles, which meant there was inconsistency. All I'm doing is restoring it (in most cases it's only been removed from the position field but is still in use for the league and season). This is a separate issue to the format, which you are welcome to join the discussion on. Thanks, Number 5 7 23:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

2017–18 Manchester United F.C. season

The following discussion is archived and relates to the 2017–18 Manchester United F.C. season. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

As much as I respect your right to make WP:BOLD edits, you need to stop and discuss your changes at Talk:2017–18 Manchester United F.C. season. Consistency with the rest of the Manchester United series is more important than some fabricated idea that this change brings the article into line with others from the 2017–18 season, especially since there is not and never has been any consensus to adopt that format for these articles. The collapsible footballbox is not easier to use than a wikitable, and I would argue that it's actually uglier than the table - too much whitespace. – Pee Jay 22:10, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of the Manchester United Articles use a clunky wikitable format, which is difficult to modify, and out of sync with other football articles. the Manchester United articles need re-aligning in to the correct and consistent formatting which is simplest to use. Sport and politics (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "clunky"? Wikitables are extremely easy to use and require far less code than templates. Furthermore, as I have pointed out, not all football articles use the collapsible box, so I don't know what you're talking about there. Your argument simply isn't good enough. – Pee Jay 09:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The tables, contain far less information, take up more space, and require an intimate knowledge of how Wikitables work. The template is copy and go. The table is a nightmare, and really reduces accessibility to the pages, it also looks horrible, blocky ,and out dated. Far better articles season pages are Arsenal or Chelsea, which exclusively use the far superior template, than an old-fashioned template. consistency is one thing, but staying with a bad way of doing things is something which needs to be moved away from. The table is a bad way to doing te season articles. Sport and politics (talk) 11:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Utter rubbish. I'm sorry, but that's just your opinion and not backed up by anything at all objective. – Pee Jay 11:50, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Totally dismissive of objective points, which are simply ignored as the table way of doing things is what is currently done, total nonsense. The table does objectively contain less information, eg who was the referee, a quick glance as to win lose or draw with the simple colour change with no ned to know the wiki code to change colour, what the attendance at the stadium was, and so on. All of which are objective and not opinion. An objective example of simplicity is the need not to know Wikitable mark up code, or how to change colours on Wikitables, the template does it all for the user, which is a damn sight easier and more accessible. Sport and politics (talk) 12:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your points are not objective at all. Yes, the table contains less information, but who says the opposition goalscorers are at all relevant? And furthermore, the table is completely capable of doing all the things you said - the colour does change for a win, loss or draw; the attendance for each match is listed; and we could add the referee if it was deemed relevant (in fact, I may just do that) - but your opinion regarding the simplicity of templates compared to wikitables holds no water here. If people don't know wiki markup code, then they should spend five minutes getting to know it. – Pee Jay 18:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

stating "people should get to know the mark up"is a poor mans way of saying get to do it my way or don't bother. Wikipedia is about being open to all and not the people who currently edit. This restricts to pool of editors making edits to the articles and turns it from open to all to owned by a cliq of editors. this is the wrong way of looking at how to edit collaboratively. Accepting change can be hard, but this can be in the best interests of the whole editing community. Wikipedia is access for all not just those in the know. Sport and politics (talk) 22:46, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not knowing the wiki markup doesn't prevent anyone from being able to edit Wikipedia. You can still click on the "Edit page" link and make changes. We are not required to make everything as easy as possible, some things are just harder. Not my problem. – Pee Jay 14:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above holds no water, as someone else has already put the template version on the page for you. You need to do nothing. The whole point of Wikipedia is to make an easily accessible encycolaedia, which is freely able to be edited by all, without individual ownership or unnecessary barriers, editing by consensus. Sport and politics (talk) 15:48, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And what about the pages people want to create from scratch? They won't necessarily have people around to put templates in place for them. Honestly, if you think wiki markup code is difficult to decipher, you probably shouldn't be here in the first place. – Pee Jay 15:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Templates are designed to make life easier, if you insist on keeping life hard for others then shame on you, as you are acting in a selfish and narrow minded way, preventing new users from joining Wikipeida. Sport and politics (talk) 15:57, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if you think that wikitables are hard to use, I'd suggest that perhaps you underestimate the intelligence of the average Wikipedian, and hence shame on you. – Pee Jay 16:33, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a very clear demonstration of a lack of understanding of how Wikipedia works, do not un-archive discussions on user talk pages, when the talk is closed by the appropriate user, do not modify it. if you wish to comment further but the user has made clear they do not want any more comments, don't comment. Especially as in this case it is just to hurl more personal attacks, as the believed page owner of the article(s) in question. Sport and politics (talk) 08:08, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

June 2017

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

The following discussion is archived and relates to the edit warring noticeboard. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. El cid, el campeador (talk) 13:28, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion moved from the noticeboard as this is a more appropriate place for the discussion:

Previous version reverted to: [10]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: The article is ISIS related, and a 1RR has been instituted on the talk page, which the user is aware of. However, she has also been warned in every edit summary to stop reverting (by multiple users, never me), but she has continued to do so. She clearly knows what she is doing but is determined to get his view in regardless.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: She created a discussion on the article's talk page. No one agreed with him, but she cites it as evidence that his edits are justified. There are multiple people (including myself) who told him to stop and saying his edits did not make sense. Obviously she doesn't care.

Comments:
For most of the month, this user has been taking out items from the list, knowingly without consensus. She has taken out 30,000 bytes repeatedly, and those four edits above have occurred in the past two days. The article has a 1RR. She is clearly too determined to get his edit through. El cid, el campeador (talk) 13:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sport and politics: I'd like to hear what you have to say here - it's rather clear that although you created a discussion on the article's talk page relating to the changes you're wanting to make, you made the edits without waiting for people to reply. I note the discussion was added today, so it's not like it's been ignored for a couple of days either. I don't see any direct 1RR violations by the user, however this behaviour in such a sensitive subject area isn't the best idea -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 13:40, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a content issue, and there is lengthy discussion on the talk page, which I would like to draw the above user to here on the discussion page of the article. To claim there are no discussions is a fallacy. If there is a wish to comment on this content issue, please do so.as discussions are there for a reason. if there is an issue with editing by myself I have a talk page which is easily usable, where a discussion can be had. A far more appropriate place would have been talking on my talk page first, before opening an issue on this page. Remember to always assume good faith.

Simply stating that a page has a 1RR and it not being made known clearly to editors prominently is akin to violation by stealth. As how on earth can one be expected to know about something which is not made clear. 1RR notices need to be prominent on the page such as it is with this page. Having blurb at the top of the talk page which falls squarely in to WP:TLDR, is simply not enough in making users aware of the issue. To assume a user is aware, is just that an assumption, if you wish to make a user aware of this fact let them know on their talk page.

This appears to be a hopeless report, which has no legs. this is far to premature. I have a talk page talk on there, this is a waste of time on here. I would also like to point out I am being thanked by other editors for my actions on this page, and was thanked by the editor who reverted the edit I made, for starting the discussion. I feel this should be closed as it is in the wrong place, this is a content issue and nothing more. Talk on my talk page or on the article talk page as appropriate. I see no reason for this to be here and no reason for me to comment any further on this issue. If there is anything which is wishing to be said to me please say so on my talk page. If there is an issue which is being had regarding editing I am doing, talk on my talk page first. This is daft and unnecessary.

The only constructive thing I can see that has arisen from this here is that there is a clear demonstration of the need for the page to have a page notice on it, as it currently does not have one. That way innocent editors, suc as myself will not be caught out by stealth and wildly unnecessarily be reported here in the future.

Sport and politics (talk) 14:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@There'sNoTime:

Did you not realize that removing 30,000+ of sourced content again, and again, and again, and again, despite being reverted by different people each time, was improper? And as for notice conventions, that is not anything I have to do with, and the 1RR is effective even without notice. El cid, el campeador (talk) 14:48, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The editing is not being reverted each time, that is not an accurate reflection of the editing history, please see that multiple users have removed content, in line with discussion on the talk page, which adds up to the 30,000 that is being alluding too. Also please read the discussions at hand, and please talk on a user page first. Read the whole discussions and see the whole of the editing history.

Hidden 1RR notices buried in a WP:TLDR block which is not read, as few in anyone reads the top of a discussion page, they simply start a new discussion or go to the relevant discussion on the page. Stating 1RR is enforce is no matter, indicates that WP:Bureaucracy needs pointing out, and that stating 1RR is enforce no matter is not in the spirit of an open wikipedia community with WP:Bold editing as a key principle. Again remember to always assume good faith. This is though the wrong place for this discussion. Please continue this on my talk page which is where I shall be continuing this discussion should it be wished to be continued. Sport and politics (talk) 15:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a final point I would like to make clear that claims of no support are also untrue see this here and here. This is a matter of the pillars of wikipedia relating to verifiability of the information being relied upon as a source, backing up the claims being made. This is a very poor report to here, and more research on the claims being made should have done before they were wildly bandied about. Sport and politics (talk) 15:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

2016 Hanover stabbing

The following discussion is archived and relates to the 2016 Hanover stabbing page. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hello, I am just making you aware of the fact your recent edits to this page were reverted (not by me). For any concerns about the page, feel free to discuss it on the article talk. If you question the notability of the subject, feel free to nominate it for deletion, obviously with a policy-based rationale in mind.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 18:19, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Over-tagging.

The following discussion is archived and relates to over-tagging on Wikipedia. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Please do not add unnecessary tags to the page. It is excessive and duplicative. The point is already clear. If you would like to improve the article, please do so, but tagging the article excessively without more does not improve the article. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 15:44, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article has so many issues and they all need pointing out, the areas where the issues specifically related need to be made obvious. Please do not remove tags which are nothing more than disliked, they provide accuracy as to how shit the article really is at points. Sport and politics (talk) 15:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Misguided trolling

The following discussion is archived and relates to the trolling policy of Wikipedia. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

== June 2017 == Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Please stop this, not again. There is no original research. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 15:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Unwarranted, you are the individual going against the other users on this page, The talk page of that article is far more constructive than paying the game of points and look-look I am trying to get you blocked, it is not going to work. Your earlier attempts failed, just get on with constructive discussions. politicking and point scoring is unhelpful. Sport and politics (talk) 16:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Only warning - edit warring at Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present)

The following discussion is archived and relates to the Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present) page. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

This is the only warning I'm going to give you - both yourself and El cid, el campeador have been engaging in a long-running dispute at Islamic terrorism in Europe (2014–present) for quite some time. Take it to the article's talk page now -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 17:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Outdenting on talk pages

The following discussion is archived and relates to outdenting on Wikipedia. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Hi. As a tip, outdenting on talk pages can be done by adding the {{od}} template. It adds a nice visual that makes it clear at a glance that the text below follows the text above. TompaDompa (talk) 14:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

June 2017

Please do not take everything that happens on Wikipedia personally. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ^ᐁT₳LKᐃ 21:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be more specifics here. This appears to be a failure to understand things here. If comments are made and they contain inappropriate language or inflammatory statements, then they will be reported as such. Wikipeida is not a place for anything uncivil, and there needs to be an appreciation that there is zero tolerance for incivility. Sport and politics (talk) 14:17, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Euston tube station reversion

Hi,

The reason I reverted the edits you made at Euston tube station were two fold:

Infoboxes are intended to summarise key information from the article and the key dates section is intended for just years, hence the name of the parameter set, rather than full dates. The example in the {{infobox London station}} does this as do most of the example articles linked at Wikipedia:WikiProject London Transport/How to write about stations, but I admit that it does not appear to be documented clearly.
The edits to the text made the sentence structure less natural:
- Changing "Northern line Charing Cross branch platforms" to "Charing Cross branch of the Northern Line platforms" just adds word and makes the sentence more awkward.
- Changing "northbound and southbound Victoria and Northern line Bank branch platforms" to "northbound and southbound Victoria and Bank branch platforms of the Northern Line" is more convoluted by separating the names of the lines.
- "Interchanges between the northbound and southbound Victoria and Northern Bank Line platforms" had an error in it, it should have said "Northern line Bank branch" rather than "Northern Bank Line", but the change to "Interchanges between the northbound and southbound Victoria and Bank branch of the Northern Line platforms" is, again, cumbersome.
- Changing "Disused passages remain with tiling and posters from the 1960s." to "The previous interchange passageways were formally closed on 29 April 1962 and remain with tiling and posters from the 1960s." adds a date that is not in the citation following the sentence. The date can be derived using a calendar and one of the posters photographed on the abandoned stations website, but as the year is not specifically mentioned in the poster, this would be original research.

--DavidCane (talk) 22:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I notice we had a very similar discussion about the same issues back in January.--DavidCane (talk) 22:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stoke

I prefer using the tables to record results, info such as round, stadium, location, referee and opposition goals/cards can be viewed in a link to the Match report on the BBC website. The table I use is a variation based on tables used in Manchester United and Birmingham City articles. This style is what I have used in all Stoke season articles so consistency is key. Thanks.--Add92 (talk) 23:15, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is the issue it seems here. It seems that the issue here is you are comfortable using the tables. IT also seems that you feel you have put a lot of effort into the articles, and you do not want to see any of that change. Simply going i like it is not good enough on Wikipeida it must have an objective reason supported by policy. Here preventing the evolution of an article by sticking to tables for everything is just that preventing the evolution of the article. You are going to have to do better than I have always one this therefore I am unwilling to accept anything different. This is straying in the territory of WP:ownership. There is no accusation of you being an ownership, but there is a danger of straying into that if you are not careful. I strongly urge you to think about WIkipeida fro all, and not just yourself. Wikipeida has to be for all editors, casual, committed and one time. If an error is spotted by someone it should be easy to fix, not complex, if a person wants to update the results of article it should be easily accessible. The carrying on with the very opaque and complex tables, narrows the openness of Wikipedia, and therefore reduces new users joining the community. The argument on consistency is also old hat, as by that logic nothing would ever evolve or update, or be made simpler. Better reasoning is needed to justify this use of tables. It also appears as if others have changed from tables and you reverted it back. Please try working with what now looks like multiple users trying to drag this article into an easier use format. Sport and politics (talk) 08:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On a secondary point blanket reverting of the whole article is really bad form as it shows you are not reading the changes. Keeping League cup over EFL cup is a prime example of not moving with the times. The tournament is called the EFL cup not the league cup. Keeping on calling it the league cup is like continuing to call the Premiership, Division 1. This has a feel of no changes to the article are welcome. Sport and politics (talk) 08:43, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kostas Pileas

HI, please can you add a source for Kostas Pileas' move from Arsenal on 2017-18 Arssenal F.C. season. Hemf11 (talk) 13:02, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No I cannot I did not add the original information, if you needs help with how to add sources, please see Help:Referencing for beginners. -- Sport and politics (talk) 14:21, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Party vote throughout history on List of Parliamentary constituencies in Somerset

Hi, I noticed you removed the section "Party vote throughout history" on List of Parliamentary constituencies in Somerset and I was wondering why?— Rod ^talk 13:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlisting

I noticed you around at some AfDs related to terrorism. If you have further interest in keeping updated, I recommend watchlisting this page so you are aware of new discussions as soon as an editor lists them and you check your watchlist. Since WP:RAPID is no longer applying to many of these incidents, more nominations may be arriving in the near future.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:34, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

South Ayrshire

Any major removal of information for no real reason other than "it doesn't need to be on here", please discuss on the talk page first. Any information on Wikipedia is welcomed, and information relating to local schools and council structure is of course relevant. You can't just pick and choose what you want included on the page. Goodreg3 (talk) 11:37, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not the place for list dumps, Wikipeida is not the place for wanton dumping of information which is not notable. the person running a council is not notable, the individual councilors are not notable. the dumping of lists of one type of institution in a council area is not notable, the information is all not notable please read the manual of style, the notability guideline, and guidance on how to write an article properly. It cannot be said it information on the subject include it just because. there must be some reason and notability for the inclusion not oh it is information just include it. The information was removed because the article is not a repository for that kind of junk information, which is rightly expunged from the article. Sport and politics (talk) 15:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but this is not acceptable: the article is in line with other similar articles and I would argue all of the information you have said is not notable is in fact very notable where the running and operation of South Ayrshire Council is concerned. "All of this information is not justified because I say so" is not a valid reason to delete half of the article, which is actually excellent relative to other Scottish Council area articles. Also you should respond to Goodreg's talk page and not your own as he will not receive notification of your response. Brythones (talk) 10:36, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To add to my comments, if you want to take this up any further this discussion should take place on the South Ayrshire talk page and not your user page. Brythones (talk) 10:45, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If a comment is made here a response will be made, here that is standard practice to keep a discussion in one place, it is not my responsibility for other users being notified of my responses to their commenting. Sport and politics (talk) 12:42, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Justify the inclusion, not stating complete retention just because it is liked. nonsense. Just because other similar articles are also rubbish does not make this one acceptable. reasons for removal have been given now give reasons for inclusion. Otherwise you are just blindly reverting because and with no reason. excellence in a pile of rubbish is still a pile of rubbish, when the rubbish is the standard. Take a look at the good article criteria and then come back and see if you say the same. Sport and politics (talk) 11:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Common practice is to respond through the other persons talk page: you are responsible for notifying him, he is not responsible for knowing that you have replied to your own talk page without being notified by you. It is also common practice to look for concensus rather than argue black against white. Brythones (talk) 13:21, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Responding in one place is easier. There is no responsibility to notify. I invite you to point out where this requirement is written on Wikipeida and in which policy it is written in. Consensus is about have a discussion, and not blankly going, this is my version like it or lump it, engage in the discussions on the talk page, and do not remove the clean up tag until the discussion on the talk page are concluded. I would also like to suggest a thorough reading of the guidelines and policies of Wikipeida before going on a lecture of do this don't do that. I also strongly suggest a through digesting of the Manual of style on how to write and source an article before going its good because others are like it. a shit standard across the board is a shit standard, and being top of a shit standard is still shit. Sport and politics (talk) 14:09, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Brythones (talk) 15:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vindication is sweet. Now stop with the forum shopping, stop with the petty crap, and get on with addressing the deficiencies in the content. Sport and politics (talk) 06:17, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would be most grateful. Sport and politics (talk) 22:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice AN/I discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

Note

If you ever find yourself frustrated, feel free to message me or e-mail me if some of the language is NSFW(ikipedia). I understand how discouraging it can be; trying to convince editors to adhere to policy is near impossible. You would have a better chance brokering the peace deal for the apparent Second Korean War (the WP:CRYSTALBALL was strong with this one!). Perhaps, instead of mass AfDs, you can propose changing the wording of a certain policy, gain support for a new guideline, or get editors -- outside the systematic bias -- involved in the discussions, thus destabilizing the long-established monopoly.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 06:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note - I have been drafting a proposal off-wiki which, if accepted, could address the terror inclusion debate on Wikipedia. Would you liked to be pinged to the eventual RfC?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 20:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the discussion as promised and here is another if you are feeling ambitious.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017

[[File:Information orange.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Please adhere to NPOV and don't be bias to the articles as you do by creating spree of AfDs. Try to construct Wikipedia and its contents rather destruct. Greenbörg (talk) 09:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are going to have be a damn sight more specific than vague you did X. it comes across as if you are looking to try and make up stuff. State what the issue is don't just add blind vague templates. The posting on here helps no one with the issues claimed. You are just being nothing more that a fly-poster. If you have specifics, mention them. Don't just go you did a naughty. We are not six, this is a place for civil discourse, not ner ner ne ner nerr.Sport and politics (talk) 10:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC) ~[reply]

@Sport and politics: I will again say, Be civil. This kind of conduct will only harm you. Rest, you know better. Thanks, Greenbörg (talk) 10:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Greenbörg:You have not answered the question what POV violations are you talking about, or are these an imaginary set of problems, cooked up to add nonsense to this page. Please do not remove the strike-through, I reject the warning as you have not said what it is for. You have just hand waved. going "You have violated POV policy" without saying what I am supposed to have done you are coming across as a Troll.

Also seeing you give a Barnstar to E.M. Gregory is nauseating. It's a reward for bad behaviour.

You specifically stated 'do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles' yet have provided no diffs and no evidence. That is the definition of a hollow and false accusation. You can do better. --Sport and politics (talk) 10:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Greenbörg (talk) 11:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

June 2017 London Bridge attack - edit war

~~[[File:Stop hand nuvola.svg|30px|left|alt=Stop icon]]~~ Your recent editing history at June 2017 London Bridge attack 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 are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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.Icewhiz (talk) 15:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Same to you. Dickhead. Sport and politics (talk) 15:23, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. This was a friendly warning directing you to the relevant talk page.Icewhiz (talk) 15:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By stating I am involved in an edit war, you have by your own conduct demonstrated you were doing the exact same thing. Some people do like to shoot at themselves. ~~

WP:CIVIL remainder

[[File:Information orange.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Particularly this [15] diff.Icewhiz (talk) 15:29, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My talk page, I will say what ever I please, within the bounds of the what Wikipeida allows. Disliked words are not banned under WP:Civil. Sport and politics (talk) 15:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You happened to call me over here on my talk page ([16]), and I don't believe there is such an exception. See WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL(1)(a). In any event, thank you for your kind words, and I shall cease commenting here.Icewhiz (talk) 15:38, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you were genuinely only interested in flagging up the discussion, that is all you would have done you were trying to make a point. For which I have called you out on it. You don't like? Stop hiding behind phony holier than though nonsense. You are no saint, stop trying to paint yourself as one, the veneer stinks and comes across as awful. Sport and politics (talk) 15:39, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling errors

Please take care to proofread your edits, like your recent ones to Tony Egginton - there are some errors (such as a stray 'ty' in this edit) and mispellings (such as 'allinged' and 'cisrumsatnces' in this one). --AdamM (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, please feel free to correct any errors you discover. Sport and politics (talk) 20:02, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Egginton

I have made some more changes to the article primarily to re-focus the article, as it is was not focused on Egginton, but focused heavily on Rickersey, and Mansfield independent Forum, salon with the post of Mayor of Mansfield.

Please feel free to update the other articles accordingly with relevant information. Sport and politics (talk) 20:01, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that some of the information you have removed pertaining to Rickersey was pertinent to Egginton, as their political careers are intertwined. For instance, the fact that Egginton only became mayor after the culmination of a successful campaign by Rickersey to have a directly-elected mayor is important background information.

Some of the changes you have made are also confusing. You have moved the now-brief mention of the above campaign for a directly-elected mayor from the "Election to Mayor" section to the "Creation of Independent Forum" section - why? You have changed "directly elected Mayor with Executive powers (instead of a Leader) and a Managing Director (instead of a CEO)" to "directly elected Mayor with Executive powers, instead of a Leader and a Managing Director" - why? (This changes the meaning of the sentence - the former leaves the council with a Mayor and Managing Director, and the latter only with a Mayor.) You have removed the paragraph where Egginton discusses the sale of the Four Seasons shopping centre - why? --AdamM (talk) 23:30, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Loughton

Hi Sport and politics. So you think that the Daily Mirror, The Sun and the Daily Mail are acceptable sources? For anything? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:03, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The newspapers pass the threshold for WP:RS simply being a tabloid does not invalidate the reporting. The papers have standards which they must keep to and the article is sourced. Simply going its publication X and not acceptable is not how it works. The papers listed are not blogs, are not unsubstantiated gossip, or wild claims. The article as sourced, and published by a newspaper, or record. In your opinion you do not think it reliable, but tat is not how WP:RS works. The source must be shown to be demonstrably unreliable. The newspapers you have listed are not. If they were then an uncountable number of sources would have to be removed. Simply disliking is not a reason to remove as per [[WP:Like]. If you disagree and would like to challenge the reliability of the newspapers, I suggest making your comments and opinions on the newspapers the the reliable sources noticeboard. Otherwise you are simply giving opinion on the newspapers and that is not enough for carte blanche removal of them as reliable sources, no matter how unreliable you believe them to be. Sport and politics (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see. In my view The Sun barely "passes the threshold" for toilet paper. I wonder if User:John has a view on this matter. I see above that some of your previous edits at Tim Loughton have been somewhat contentious. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:21, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreement is not contentious. This feels like trolling, please either engage constructively or actually make constructive edits. This kind of engagement is poor and will not be engaged with. Go away or engage constructively. Sport and politics (talk) 16:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are now accusing me of "trolling"? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mandatory notice

~~This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.~~

~~Please carefully read this information:~~

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. John (talk) 16:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WTF!!!! Sport and politics (talk) 16:29, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain what on earth the notice you have posted on my talk page is about, You appear to have dumped at the notice at the direction of a user without understanding the whole issue. It feels like the other user has canvassed you on this issue. Please do not jump in before understanding and reading the full issue. This is a sourcing issue, not a BLP issue. Sport and politics (talk) 16:34, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to explain. Edits like this one are not permitted. It is fine for you to discuss your position on sourcing on this BLP, but it is not fine to revert. --John (talk) 16:38, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It appears as if you have jumped in to an RS dispute not a BLP dispute. The other user simply dislikes the sources, and is not claiming the content unreliable or defamatory. Please remove this notice, as i do not have a clue what it is achieving, or why it is even here. This feels like a scare tactic. 16:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

On the contrary, I am not "jumping in" to anything, merely doing my job. Another user asked me to take a look as an admin, and I am formally making you aware of the provisions of an ArbCom restriction. There is no need for you to be scared, as long as you remember not to make any reverts like that one on a BLP again. --John (talk) 16:56, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) S&P, sourcing on a BLP is fundamentally both a RS and BLP issue; and, of the two, the latter trumps the former due to its potential 'IRL' connotations and implications. Re. your edit summary ("what next the sun and mail are rejected?"), the latter has effectively been rejected in one of the biggest RfCs to date (how did you miss it?!) and the former is of- questionable, shall we say-value as a RS, particularly BLPs. If asked, I'd probably suggest that you read up on both policies before involving yourself in what, admittedly, can be a bit of a minefielf (and would also, incidentally, avoid notice's like John's above!). Take care, — fortunavelut luna 17:14, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is the situation not anything to do with BLP, but is more to do with not liking the Mirror as a source. Sport and politics (talk) 22:14, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1,635: / Line 1,635: @@
 == Mandatory notice ==
-{{Ivm|2=''This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia.  It does '''not''' imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.''
+<s>''This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia.  It does '''not''' imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.''</s>
-'''Please carefully read this information:'''
+<s>'''Please carefully read this information:'''</s>
-The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee]] has authorised [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions|discretionary sanctions]] to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons|here]].
+<s>The [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee|Arbitration Committee]] has authorised [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions|discretionary sanctions]] to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons|here]].</s>
-Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics.  This means [[Wikipedia:Administrators#Involved admins|uninvolved]] administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|purpose of Wikipedia]], our [[:Category:Wikipedia conduct policies|standards of behavior]], 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]]. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
+<s>Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics.  This means [[Wikipedia:Administrators#Involved admins|uninvolved]] administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|purpose of Wikipedia]], our [[:Category:Wikipedia conduct policies|standards of behavior]], 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]]. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.</s>
-}}{{Z33}}<!-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert -->--[[User:John|John]] ([[User talk:John|talk]]) 16:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
+</s>[[User:John|John]] ([[User talk:John|talk]]) 16:26, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 WTF!!!! [[User:Sport and politics|Sport and politics]] ([[User talk:Sport and politics#top|talk]]) 16:29, 19 October 2017 (UTC)