User talk:MBarness1234

July 2019

Your recent editing history at Stephen Hendry shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 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. —Rutebega (talk) 21:36, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to “greatest” in Stephen Hendry page

It appears I have been blocked for expressing a different view on this issue.

For the record, I agree with the sentiment of the views expressed under the discussion page entitled ‘Is Hendry the greatest’, i.e. that referring to an individual as “the greatest” or even “one of the greatest” should be avoided in the opening paragraphs of an encyclopaedic article (as a general principle) to ensuring objectivity and neutrality.

However, I note from the edits applied to the Stephen Hendry and Ronnie O’Sullivan pages that there seems to be an effort (whether deliberate or unintentional) to refer to O’Sullivan’s status with stronger language than Hendry’s. Specifically, this effort is being pursued by using the phrase “one of the greatest” in the O’Sullivan page and the phrase “one of the most successful” in the Hendry page. I note that attempts by different editors to make both pages more consistent, including by referring to O’Sullivan as one of the “most successful” rather than “greatest”, have failed as changes have been repeatedly reverted back, pages protected, users blocked and discussion pages prematurely closed.

It is disappointing that it has been acknowledged in the ‘Is Hendry the greatest’ section of the talk page that the O’Sullivan page is not in keeping with Wikipedia’s guidelines and yet nobody contributing has sought to change it, unlike with the Hendry page (i.e. by removing references to “greatest” in the opening paragraphs of the page). It is particularly disappointing that some editors who have engaged in the ‘Is Hendry the greatest’ talk page have made complementary additions to the O’Sullivan page but have not sought to also apply the same changes they are advocating here.

I would therefore politely ask for your support in making amendments to the O’Sullivan page and creating consistency between both pages. Otherwise, other editors will inevitably also pick up on this inconsistency in the future and an edit war likely endure across both pages.

@Rodney Baggins: .MBarness1234 (talk) 18:11, 8 July 2019 (UTC) @Betty Logan: .MBarness1234 (talk) 18:11, 8 July 2019 (UTC) @Lee Vilenski: .MBarness1234 (talk) 18:11, 8 July 2019 (UTC) @Rutebega: .MBarness1234 (talk) 18:11, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would support your idea to amend the O'Sullivan page in order to create consistency between Hendry and O'Sullivan. I would also agree that puffery has no place in the lead and it would be prudent to remove words such as "the greatest" from that section altogether. Further discussion is probably in order, but I have been preoccupied with other things of late so have not been watching recent developments. Rodney Baggins (talk) 18:41, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I actually agree with the removal of content on O'Sullivan's page - the issue here is that the user has made the edits on the Hendry article. The issue is very clear - this is well covered in both articles' prose, but not in the lede. However, the block here is regarding potential sock puppetry, and not being an administrator I can't overturn that. I would recommend appealing if you are indeed not a sockpuppet of alwaysrightman. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:38, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Betty Logan: .MBarness1234 (talk) 06:09, 9 July 2019 (UTC) Do you have any input?[reply]

If you had proposed altering the wording at the O'Sullivan article I would have supported that, but you were blocked for your behavior at the Hendry article and block evasion. I suggest you retire this account and pursue the WP:STANDARDOFFER at your Alwaysrightman account. Betty Logan (talk) 06:33, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Betty Logan: Yes, I am proposing amending the O’Sullivan page. I therefore assume you will make the necessary edits to the O’Sullivan page given how strongly you feel on this issue.

I don’t have any other accounts, as you seem to so strongly believe. Please be mindful that simply because an editor agrees with the edits of another user and applies those does not make them the same editor. As an example, you and Lee Vilenski have made the same edits on the Hendry page but, I assume, you are not the same person. Based on your past edits it appears you have actively pursued a large number of editors who have held different views to yourself. This is unfortunate as I was hoping to continue improving my home town Wikipedia page as a side project and increase awareness of its amenities. I was also hoping to improve the standard of pages for my other sporting interests. It looks like that won’t be possible anymore. MBarness1234 (talk) 07:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Betty Logan: So when are you amending the Ronnie O’Sullivan page?. MBarness1234 (talk) 21:04, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MBarness1234, you retain access to this page to appeal your block, not to ping other editors to proxy edit on your behalf.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 21:14, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Betty Logan: It looks as if I have come up against the might of the Ronnie O’Sullivan fan club. MBarness1234 (talk) 20:44, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]