User talk:House of Laughs

Welcome!

Hi House of Laughs! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 00:50, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2021–22 Premiership Rugby, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aled Davies. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:21, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2022–23 Premiership Rugby, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Harvey Skinner.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2022 end-of-year rugby union internationals, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jimmy O'Brien.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2022–23 Premier 15s, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Helen Nelson.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saracens articles

Hi there, loving your improvements to the Saracens F.C. page. Have you thought of splitting them off into a series of articles linked with an template? e.g. List of Leicester Tigers players selected for international rugby or List of Leicester Tigers records and statistics but with Saracens? Main page is getting quite stats heavy now is all. Skeene88 (talk) 10:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of 2023–24 Premiership Rugby transfers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ben Donnell.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of The Showdown (rugby union) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Showdown (rugby union) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Showdown (rugby union) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:18, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2024-25 premiership transfers

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. A page you recently created may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new pages, so it has been moved to where you can continue to work on it. Please consider using the Article Wizard or the Articles for Creation procedure. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read "Your first article". You may also want to read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. LouisOrr27 (talk) 10:08, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I've moved this to the main space as its as good as any other transfers article. Hopefully the "delete everything" crowd will let it pass unnoticed.Skeene88 (talk) 17:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sections of Saracens F.C. split.

Split into List of Saracens F.C. records and statistics & List of Saracens F.C. players selected for international rugby LouisOrr27 (talk) 01:15, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 17

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited England national rugby union team, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ben Cohen.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion invitation: 2024 Women's Six Nations Championship

Hello, House of Laughs. You have new messages at Talk:2024 Women's Six Nations Championship#Request for discussion.
Message added 20:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

LouisOrr27 (talk) 20:49, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at 2024 Women's Six Nations Championship. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 03:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 23:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

House of Laughs (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I would like to wholeheartedly apologise for the above infraction. It was regrettably the result of frustration caused by the prolonged conduct of a single disruptive user (who has since been banned for persistent incivility towards multiple editors, including myself). As the source of that frustration has now been dealt with by the appropriate channels, I would also like to reassure administrators and fellow editors that this issue has no reason to re-occur.

I have been contributing to Wikipedia for over 3 years, with almost 2,000 edits and a clean record up to now, so I regret not handling the situation better. This was my first time encountering circumstances such as this, so I have learned from the experience the proper channels for dealing with uncivil or abusive users in future.

For context, the offending user referred to above (who had already previously served bans for such conduct) had engaged in a pattern of disruptive and bullying behaviour over a period of several weeks (outlined in detail in this formal complaint submitted by another editor). This included repeated unexplained reverts and dismissive or offensive comments towards myself and others in both the edit summaries and talk pages of multiple articles, including this one.

In my time contributing to Wikipedia, I had not previously encountered an individual behaving in such a way, so I was quite thrown on how to handle this matter. Generally, I follow the site's suggested right to remain silent, for the very reason of trying to avoid hostile exchanges like this, as evidenced by the article's talk page when other editors unsuccessfully attempted to engage with this user.

This is simply to explain the background to the frustration that I, and others, experienced with this individual over an extended period of time – it is not to condone becoming embroiled in an edit war as I did. I accept that edit warring is not the appropriate way to deal with these situations, so I wish to give my apologies to anyone who was affected by that.

I am also sorry for making a further edit to the article from a different account. It was, on reflection, an ill-advised attempt to try and prevent further disruptive reverts by the aforementioned user (unbeknownst to me at the time, they had already been banned for the persistent incivility outlined above). I acknowledge that, again, continuing to edit the article was not the right way for me to handle the situation, and I sincerely apologise for allowing my frustration with this user to get the better of me in this case.

I hope that my previous record, prior to this unfortunate episode, will demonstrate my ability to positively and productively contribute to Wikipedia, and am hopeful you will permit me to continue doing so. As explained, the person responsible for my frustration in this incident (which led to the above infraction) has now been appropriately dealt with, and the experience has educated me on the correct channels for addressing such behaviour, should I ever encounter a similarly disruptive user in future.

(Tagging @LouisOrr27 should they wish to make a comment – we have both productively contributed to many of the same articles over several months and, like me, they were also subject to the uncivil and insulting conduct of the aforementioned disruptive individual.) House of Laughs (talk) 10:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You're getting reasonably close to an unblock request that will get you unblocked, but you're still stuck in "he made me do it", which never really works. You should also read Wikipedia's policy on dispute resolution, rather than quoting some random essay that nobody has heard of. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@NinjaRobotPirate: I agree with your assessment. I'm also somewhat concerned about the lack of edit summaries and engagement on talk pages. Engagement is important when faced with these kinds of disagreements and I believe some commitment to communicating when involved in any kind of a dispute and making use of edit summaries more often would improve any revised appeal. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 02:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

House of Laughs (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

With more time to reflect – and also consider the feedback of the administrators (to whom I am grateful for responding so quickly) – I want to be clear that I accept the role I had in allowing this situation to escalate as it did, and that if I personally had made better decisions, this could have been avoided. As @NinjaRobotPirate rightly pointed out, regardless of how frustrated I may have felt with somebody else's behaviour, I had the responsibility to follow the procedures for resolving a dispute, and I regret that I failed to do this (or even simply take a breath and walk away from it, which also would have been better than the course of action I chose).

As it was, getting caught up in an edit war and editing the article from another account afterwards was clearly the wrong thing for me to do. While it was not my intention for my edits to be disruptive, I acknowledge that, on reflection, they ended up having that effect, for which I would like to unreservedly apologise for.

Having had the time to think about my error, and feel the consequences for that, I have taken the opportunity to make myself more familiar with the correct avenues for dealing with a dispute such as this one in future (thank you for highlighting the article which sets these out in detail). As such, I am confident that this mistake will not be repeated.

I am also receptive to the suggestion by @Daniel Quinlan to make better use of edit summaries, and to have increased engagement in talk pages. In the past, I suppose I hadn't used them because I thought the kinds of topics and articles that I contribute were not particularly contentious. But, evidently, disputes can arise, so if elaborating upon my edits might help alleviate the potential for that, I'm happy to agree to engaging more with other editors. And, with better understanding of the procedure for dispute resolution, I also know the correct route to take if use of the summaries and talk pages is not successful.

Finally, I hope that my previous record over the last 3 years gives a more representative picture of the productive and positive contribution that I can continue to make to Wikipedia going forward, rather than this first-time infraction. Again, I accept the part I played here – it was my own poor lapse in judgement, for which I am very sorry for the inconvenience caused.

Thank you again for your consideration.

Accept reason:

Given that the blocking administrator Daniel Quinlan has been making positive noises about this above, and that you have in your unblock request undertaken to be more careful about using edit summaries, I am accepting this unblock request. Please do avoid doing the same kinds of things again - it will be more difficult to convince anyone to unblock you if you repeat the same mistakes. Best Girth Summit _(blether) 20:18, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your approval, and to all of the administrators for reviewing my requests so promptly. House of Laughs (talk) 20:44, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to comment on this if I may, my self and House of Laughs actively edit the same articles and all of their edits are, for the most part, constructive. It is frustrating that they did not use edit summaries or discuss matters however this is an easy thing to rectify. As this was their first offence I would hope that they can be unblocked. LouisOrr27 (talk) 16:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support. I agree that I could improve my use of the summaries and talk pages, and I am absolutely willing to do that. House of Laughs (talk) 17:21, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 27

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2023–24 Premiership Women's Rugby, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Molly Wright.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

I've reverted most of your edit to the 2024 Wales rugby union tour of Australia article. The biggest issue is that you failed to source your data updates for the first test; I have no idea where you got the timings of the substitutions from, so as far as I know, you made it all up. If you have a source, just drop the link here and I'll make sure it gets added to the article. The other issue is you created a lot of duplicate links; you need to check out WP:OVERLINK for the policy on this, but basically, you shouldn't link to another page more than once in the body text of an article. If you have any more questions, let me know. – Pee Jay 18:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again you've added unsourced content to the abovementioned article. Are you allergic to providing valid references or something? – Pee Jay 16:07, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]