User talk:2A02:C7F:14EE:F00:1D5B:7B97:E427:BFBA

WP:3RR violation

Hello, Please undo your latest edit to Chalfont St Peter A.F.C., as you have broken WP:3RR rule (as well as violating the behavioural expectation, WP:BRD). If you do not revert, I'll be requesting you're blocked from editing. Thanks, Number 57 19:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Who do you think you are [[User talk:Number 57|. Your level of arrogance knows no bounds. I have refrenced players/managers as i have said to you 5 times.I have also asked as to why it cant be used as it makes no other logical sense. If not please provide how details on how it can be refrenced so it stays in place? If you revert again, you will be will be reported and blocked from editing. Please refrain from reverting once again as previously mentioned.

Whether it's referenced makes no difference; the inclusion of the material is disputed, and you are expected to gain consensus before reinserting it if you are reverted. Anyway, you've been reported for violating 3RR, so a block is probably on the way. Number 57 19:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

That makes no sense at all Number57. If it is refrenced it therefore it proves that the infomation is correct. It also provides more infomation for the club. How do you gain consensus on fact? There is no need to debate if it can be proved? I have also raised a block for yourself for A making no sense and placing reverts on sourced infomation. Do you know the club or how to obtain the data? I am just perplexed by your interference on a club you know nothing about?

Again, something being referenced/correct does not mean it has to be/can be included on Wikipedia. Please see WP:ONUS. Number 57 19:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I dont wish to visit an article that makes no sense. Your logic is not correct. If it's refrenced it shows its correct. How else therefore would it be correct? I'm trying to end the dispute here, but please refrain from just posting links and instead provide logic or infomation on how it can be resolved? Why cant it be listed for Chalfont but it can for Wealdstone or Northwood? Now been refrered for assistance

References

• Not only is this your fourth revert to Chalfont St Peter A.F.C., but you made this revert after reporting Number 57 to the edit warring noticeboard. I strongly suggest that you either self-revert or explain what mitigating circumstance exists to justify not blocking your account for edit warring. —C.Fred (talk) 20:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Is no one going to explain how to resolve this dispute? I will ask again, how the players and managers who have been fully refrenced. I have only reverted back to my first edit as no one has been able to explain how to resolve the dispute. This is now nearly the 10th and all i get is a refrence to a random page. How can you block me for displaying infomation that is correct? How would mitigating circumstances help? If you wish to resolve this, please email me where i can provide my credentials for my data.

The issues expressed are two-fold: first, whether the information is accurate, but more critically, whether the source will be updated so the page may be kept accurate. Otherwise, at some point in the future, when the roster is some months out of date (3? 6? 12?), the list will get deleted as stale.

The correct way to proceed is to discuss the matter at the article's talk page. Make sure to indicate where updated rosters will be available for continued verification. —C.Fred (talk) 20:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, let me state this to be clear: "displaying infomation [sic] that is correct" is not an exception to the three-revert rule. Whether the information is correct or not, you are subject to being blocked if you continually revert to re-add the information. —C.Fred (talk) 20:40, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

One other thing: what is your source for the roster? I only see three or four players who are referenced; the rest of the list has no citation. —C.Fred (talk) 20:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

From what I'm seeing. The best way to end this dispute, is to have you blocked, IP. GoodDay (talk) 20:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Really? Goodday? How does that solve anything? At least bring something to the table, not pointless comments!

The information is accurate, how can you accuse of it not being? It's a programme by the club? Why would a fake be produced? Makes no sense. As i am a researcher for the club on FM, i am responsible for keeping it up to date. Just like i do on various other clubs i research in Non-league.I have discussed on the article's talk page and Number 57 making irrelvant posts as usual. It should be, how can you revert infomation that is correct? Number 57 gave logical reason is cant be used? If it is done again and i am blocked i will have to taken legal action. You ask what the source is? Have you checked the document refrenced in the file? It is a programme from a game in October 2020. I would advise checking referenced documents before making such comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.24.222.82 (talk) 08:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

First, nowhere did I see where you said the information used was a programme published by the club.

Second, I am concerned by your comment that you are a "researcher for the club on FM". Does that mean you are an employee of FM who is paid to keep the club roster current, or that you are an employee of the club who is paid by the club to keep the roster current in FM? If it's the former, the relevant policy for your roster information is WP:No original research. If it's the latter, then you are a paid editor and must make required disclosures.

Finally, do not make legal threats. If you would like to address this matter according to Wikipedia policies, then focus on those policies. It's clear as a new editor you're not (yet) familiar with our requirements of verifiability, reliable sources, and no original research. However, once you threaten to take legal or other off-Wikipedia action, then it has a chilling effect on discussions—so, editors who have made threats of legal action are blocked until they retract the threats. —C.Fred (talk) 15:27, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Also, having been to the article talk page, I did check the program, and at best, it supports about 40% of the information that was in the roster. —C.Fred (talk) 15:46, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

The programme was refrenced 10 times in previous discussions points, so it's unclear how you missed this. I employeed by the game, this can be checked in the credits page for the game from 2015 onwards and my role is responsible for squad lists being updated in the game, CA data and club data. You may wish to familarise yourself with the game. Legal action was only issued in that instance of being blocked for providing correct infomation. The roster, yes it has around 50 per cent and was in the process of sourcing the rest. However the management/coaching staff is correct so why was this not allowed to stay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.24.222.82 (talk) 15:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

No one was ever going to block you for adding correct information to an article. You were going to get a potential block for edit warring/breaking the three-revert-rule as well as making legal threats. It’s also not clear if you are being paid to edit Wikipedia, if you are then you need to read the policy on paid editing. Please clarify this. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 16:12, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm reasonably happy that there are no concerns with paid editing, as the edits aren't being made on behalf of the club or in a client-type relationship. I am concerned about legal threats. Do you acknowledge that it is inappropriate to threaten legal action as a result of on-Wikipedia actions, and do you retract the threats you have previously made? —C.Fred (talk) 20:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

No legal threats

Your recent edits could give Wikipedia contributors the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that making such threats on Wikipedia is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a dispute with the content of any page on Wikipedia, please follow the proper channels for dispute resolution. Please be sure to comment on content, not contributors, and where possible make specific suggestions for changes supported by reliable independent sources and focusing especially on verifiable errors of fact. Thank you. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 13:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

---