User talk:SitNGo

Cheaters never prosper/The end doesn't justify the means/etc

Welcome to Wikipedia.

Please see our policy on sockpuppets. Thanks. Djegan (talk) 13:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you edited as User:Wikipéire before? Djegan (talk) 14:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello my friend, hello. I'm not sure if you're aware of it, but there are a few of us who were willing to give you a chance, and to pave the way for a legitimate come back to the project. (IE: not under some new obvious sockpuppet) However, this would be contingent on your acknowledgement that this editwarring, sockpuppetry and other disruptive BS is not appropriate, and not the way forward. And generally agree to abide by the flippin rules.

The longer you keep up this socking nonsense, the further away that goal gets. Ultimately this path (as you must see by now) WON'T help your cause. Not least because your socks stand out by miles.

Frankly - at this point - even measured and otherwise reasonable edits by any one of your socks will be reverted. On sight. Because anything done under the flag of deception and falsehood cannot be accepted as truth. No matter what.

Did you ever hear the phrase "cheaters never prosper"? Well, if you continue to "cheat" then no matter what you do, it won't stand. So stop bloody cheating.

(Oh. And another thing. Claiming that an MOS guideline supports your case, while shitting all over the general/user behaviour guidelines is just laughable. Besides which, the IMOS doesn't say what you keep saying it does. It's a recommendation to pipe for towns and related geographic stuff. Where ambiguity isn't a critical issue. Not everywhere.) Guliolopez (talk) 14:18, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The IMOS talk page does. The guideline hasn't been updated. This is an international page, where amiguity doesn't exist.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SitNGo (talk • contribs)

RE: IMOS. It's not a guideline then yet then is it. RE: CTA. Ambiguity doesn't exist? Now you're just fooling yourself. Do you really think the average uninformed reader is going to understand an intro which says something to the effect: "Ireland (meaning 1) has no patrolled internal borders under the CTP. Not even between Ireland (meaning 2) and N.Ireland - which is a subset of Ireland (meaning 1)." Really? Ambiguity definitely exists. It's the same ambiguity (Whether "Irish border" means the border *in* Ireland (meaning 1), or *with* Ireland (meaning 2)) is why the Irish border article was renamed. Guliolopez (talk) 16:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the island of Island of ireland is mentioned in one or two spots then the article can be improved to make sure that it clear its not the country its refering to. Can you tell me that an uniformed reader will not confuse ROI to be the name of the state because of the intro? There's more than one problem here and one problem is not more important to than the other. There are two confusions going on, one of them should not be ignored, especially when its backed by fact and when one is a hypothetical issue. Articles like Northern Ireland and the Ireland island pages fair enough, but that argument doesn't override fact completely for a page like CTA. Both sides can be sorted out. SitNGo (talk) 17:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right on one point there. That this can be sorted out. But not through socking and editwars. Until you *demonstrably* stop with these two "tactics" however, there is no point in discussing it. Because nobody will be bothered with a discussion where one contributor isn't trusted to work within the context of collaboration. So, as I've suggested to you before, use this latest account of yours LEGITIMATELY for a few weeks or so. Avoiding the articles or subjects that you've been too tempted to be disruptive with before. And then - maybe - you can get involved in a measured and constructive discussion on wording or context that helps address a compromise between the "official name" point and the "help the reader understand" point. Guliolopez (talk) 17:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can avoid socking and 3RRing and discuss issues instead no problem, however I can't promise to avoid things I'm interested in. I understand your point and I will make an effort to avoid to directly edit the "controversial" edits from the past, but will still discuss the issues if they come up.SitNGo (talk) 17:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concur, some of your recent edits have been positive, so if you are prepared to declare the socks and ask for re admittance under supervision/conditions I would support you. But you have to go legit. --Snowded TALK 14:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to go legit, I haven't edit-warred or have done any bad or misleading edits yet still blocked and reverted so if these terms/conditions were reasonable, I'd be more than happy.SitNGo (talk) 14:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then I suggest you start by listing your various socks here and given an undertaking that you will stop creating them. That would be a gesture of good faith. --Snowded TALK 14:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They've all been banned. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Wikip%C3%A9ire

I'd be delighted to stop using them, using just one account is what I want to do.SitNGo (talk) 14:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of the things that has continously dogged the whole issue is the sockpuppets. Rather than discussing the issue, instead its turned into smoke and mirrors. Good faith editors on both sides think they are making progress, building relationships, teasing out the issues; only for a big stinker of a sockpuppet to sabotage the whole issue. Sockpuppets will accomplish little except isolating people who broadly want what they want. Djegan (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipiere has proven countless times, he can't be trusted. I've no desire to support his reinstatement. GoodDay (talk) 18:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. How can we be expected to work with and give good faith to an editor who has time and time again broken the rules? An editor that has created a number of sockpuppet accounts for the purposes of slyly and sneakily getting outcomes they want? Djegan (talk) 14:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said to GoodDay, if you do not wish to cooperate and wish to get rid of me, you know what to do, you've done it before.SitNGo (talk) 14:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to British Isles

You are now making broad changes to the British Isles article some of which are mislabeled - taking out a whole referenced paragraph is more than tidying up. Image moves were good, possible some of the OR around history should go (other editors may revert you there). However the two I have reverted are controversial and are pushing the limits of your agreements above. --Snowded TALK 18:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just being bold, the section was too long and complicated, I just removed what I thought had little to do with the actual name. If you disagree fine. The notice at the top of the article is there for a reason.SitNGo (talk) 18:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For editor without your history that would be a reasonable statement. However given your disruptive history as a sock puppet on all matters British/Irish you need to be far more circumspect. See GoodDay's comment above to illustrate this. It only takes one report of sock puppetry for this ID of yours to be blocked instantly. So if I were you I would edit with care, be seen to consult on the talk page first and generally be very careful. You might want to ask for a mentor (would be an indicator of good intentions on your part. --Snowded TALK 18:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, though I have no idea what that entails, so I can't say anything on that.SitNGo (talk) 18:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This account should be blocked, Wikipiere's sockpuppet #21 (and counting). GoodDay (talk) 18:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that's how you feel, well then you know what to do.SitNGo (talk) 18:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed, oppose your re-instatement. GoodDay (talk) 18:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have no idea then get someone to mentor you, but I begin to doubt the wisdom of suspending belief about your incorrigibility. --Snowded TALK 18:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll sit on the fence for the moment. I will probably be reported pretty soon by GoodDay or some other editor, so I do acknowledge that mentorship is a good concept for me getting back on track. But if this account isn't going to be here tomorrow, then I won't proceed into anything yet.SitNGo (talk) 18:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Report you? no (not my style). But, should you get re-instated (which is beyond my control)?, you'll have to earn others trust (again). GoodDay (talk) 20:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

September 2008

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to British Isles, you will be blocked from editing. DDStretch (talk) 18:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hardly call it vandalism now, where is the evidence of that?SitNGo (talk) 18:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're not gonna earn others trust, that way. GoodDay (talk) 20:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just supported some of your edits on British Isles on the talk page - best for you to let other people defend you in the first place when you are doing good work. You are going to get a lot o suspicion and some provocative comments. If you try and avoid reacting to those it would help. DDStretch (I think) is not referencing all of the edits but the early ones (see my rv) --Snowded TALK 15:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, I've been blocked by Jza84. Hmm.SitNGo (talk) 15:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have just put a comment asking him to think again. Strongly suggest you do not react, but let me see what I can do. --Snowded TALK 15:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All I did was revert an ip back to the stable version. I'm heading out now anyway, I be back in a few hours and see what happens.SitNGo (talk) 15:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MOS:FLAG

The policy also says Flag icons may be appropriate as a visual navigational aid in tables, infoboxes or lists provided that citizenship, nationality or jurisdiction is intimately tied to the topic at hand. I changed golfer's nationality section, as golfers are typically representing their country. It also says Never use a flag for birth or death place, since doing so may imply an incorrect citizenship or nationality. That implies that using it for nationality is fine. Since these are golfer infoboxes, these are the "sporting nationalities" of these players, as constantly reinforced in typical golf coverage in the media. I don't see prohibitions on this usage at all, and all golfer infoboxes have used flags in this sense for a long time. I do not see a policy prohibition against this at all. Can you please revert them back? Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the policy quite explicitly says flags should only indicate the sportsperson's national squad/team or sporting nationality, which is what these are. Golfers do not have a national team or squad. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It also says "discouraged" not "forbidden". It is typical in golf coverage to use flags to indicate a golfer's country; this is one case where I feel they should be allowed. I do not see any assumption that the flags (when indicating sporting nationality) are forbidden from a sporting infobox. That is a recent change as well... it may have meant to be a clarification of policy but that part would be a large change, and contradicts existing practice. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:12, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinately

I've blocked you again for evasion of your ban. You're very easy to spot, so don't do this again please. --Jza84 | Talk 15:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]