User talk:Coloursred1

November 2017

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Australian Open, 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. Thank you. Nthep (talk) 20:56, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced info

I see you have added some player withdrawals to articles without sources. That is not proper and I tagged them as such. In the future would you please add a wikipedia appropriate source when adding data. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:58, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Keroks. 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. Wolbo (talk) 23:56, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who do you think you are? If that user has a problem with me then he should just say it and by the way I was stating facts, he couldn’t back up anything he said. Coloursred1 (talk) 00:03, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at 2020 Australian Open 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. Wolbo (talk) 01:18, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at 2020 ASB Classic 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. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:26, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ——SN 54129 14:14, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. -- Deep fried okra 14:29, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard, you may be blocked from editing. I don't suppose you'll listen to this though; you haven't listened to anyone else! ——SN 54129 14:30, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had sources and references, Keroks had personal issues with Sharapova’s doping case and didn’t want her on the list. You should take up an issue with him and not me. Go check it all, it all has sources. Back off Coloursred1 (talk) 14:33, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will copy your response over to the notice board.-- Deep fried okra 14:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the noticeboard it was moved to is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:31, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have acknowledged "Keroks side of the discussion wasn't that much better." Can you please unblock me and apply the block where it belongs, with the true source of disruptive edit warring? Novacrux (talk) 03:02, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That was one persons opinion. I see nothing wrong with Keroks wording in the given example compared to your edit warring. And now something even worse... you have used a sockpuppet account to further your disruptive editing while you were blocked. There is almost nothing worse on wikipedia than sockpuppetry which you just did with your Novacrux account. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:55, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that you were impersonated by a long-time blocked wikipedian. I apologize for suspecting you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:40, 1 January 2020 (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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:35, 31 December 2019 (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).

Coloursred1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

My reason is that all of what I said came to fruition and was official, look at the brisbane international 2020 page for instance, Sharapova did receive a wildcard. My “abusive” language was however not true. I never used any curse words or threatened any user on here. There was no level of abuse. Check the chats that were had, you’ll see then. Coloursred1 (talk) 13:26, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You're blocked for abusing multiple accounts. You'll need to address that, and only that, in future unblock requests. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 14:36, 31 December 2019 (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.

{{unblock|reason= This is ridiculous, where’s your evidence that I’ve “abused” users, I never used swear words or threatened any user on here. Show the evidence.}} Coloursred1 (talk) 14:48, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(watching) Hi Coloursred1, if I can just clarify—you're (innocently)—misunderstanding what JJMC89 wrote. When they said "abusing multiple accounts", I think you understood them to mean "being rude to a number of other editors' accounts"? What was actually meant by the phrase—it's a very English-Wikipedia-specific one that new users wouldn't automatically know—was that you are known to have created multiple accounts for yourself, and used them illegitimately. It is that which you should address in your next unblock request. ——SN 54129 15:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I should probably also pointed you to WP:DUCK as well; there's very little point in denying the obvious! :) ——SN 54129 15:39, 31 December 2019 (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).

Coloursred1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

What multiple accounts? Name the accounts. I have one account that I set up 2 years ago and this is it. You’ve no proof whatsoever because there’s only 1 account to my name and this is it.

Decline reason:

One unblock request at a time, please. You are confirmed against Novacrux. This is established and is not in doubt. Yamla (talk) 15:51, 31 December 2019 (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.

Denying the obvious? Denying what? I DON’T HAVE MULTIPLE ACCOUNTS. I have ONE account. Coloursred1 (talk) 15:47, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what your on about. I have never heard of the account “Novacrux”. I certainly did not create it and it has nothing to do with me. Show me the evidence that this account belongs to me. It certainly doesn’t. How dare you. Coloursred1 (talk) 16:27, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|reason= This is ridiculous for accusing me of owning another Wikipedia account. The account “Novacrux” is not mine. It has nothing to do me, I’ve never heard of the account. You’ve no evidence that this account is associated with me and as I’m in Ireland I wouldn’t be up at 2:30 in the morning creating an account that was created 14 hours ago, as shown on the so called “sockpuppet” page. You can check the email associated with the account and you’ll find that it won’t be any email associated with me because I DIDN’T create the account and have no associations with it. This is a false blocking of my own account Coloursred1 and might I add an unlawful blocking too. Coloursred1 (talk) 16:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Coloursred1 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This is ridiculous for accusing me of owning another Wikipedia account. The account “Novacrux” is not mine. It has nothing to do me, I’ve never heard of the account. You’ve no evidence that this account is associated with me and as I’m in Ireland I wouldn’t be up at 2:30 in the morning creating an account that was created 14 hours ago, as shown on the so called “sockpuppet” page. You can check the email associated with the account and you’ll find that it won’t be any email associated with me because I DIDN’T create the account and have no associations with it. This is a false blocking of my own account Coloursred1 and might I add an unlawful blocking too

Accept reason:

I'm unblocking. This feels like a joe job. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 19:09, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coloursred1 (talk) 16:36, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a private website. We can block whomever we wish. Saying this is an unlawful block is skirting the edges of WP:NLT and you will likely see your access to this talk page revoked if you continue down this path. The reason behind the block may be illegitimate (though I don't believe this to be the case) but it is most certainly not illegal. --Yamla (talk) 16:40, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So your admitting that this is a illegitimate block? This needs to change, you can’t just block someone without the right proof, the account “Novacrux” is not mine and I don’t want my name associated with this account. Coloursred1 (talk) 16:54, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was very clear. "The reason behind the block may be illegitimate (though I don't believe this to be the case)". --Yamla (talk) 17:16, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your not giving me any response that’s different. You need to get the proof. I shouldn’t be blocked, temporary probation is fine until you find any evidence which you won’t but I shouldn’t be permanently blocked, that isn’t fair. Coloursred1 (talk) 17:38, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not need to do anything of the sort. I didn't block you, I simply declined your unblock request. You have an open unblock request, another admin will be along shortly to review it. --Yamla (talk) 17:39, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you decline the unblock request. You know I’ve done nothing wrong, as you said for about a million times, that the block is illegitimate. Coloursred1 (talk) 17:52, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As you cannot understand what I've written, let me restate. I believe your block was legitimate. I've now said this three times. Let me say it again. I see no reason to lift your block, because I believe the block was appropriate. This will be my last message to you. --Yamla (talk) 17:54, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you believe the block was appropriate? Coloursred1 (talk) 17:56, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Answer that question because so far nobody can provide me, the person that was blocked, with any evidence as to why I was blocked. It’s a joke. Coloursred1 (talk) 17:57, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence is this; you'll need to explain how this isn't you, when it indicates quite clearly it is you. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 18:33, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t write that at all, it was at 3:02 in the morning, why would I waste my time creating a fake account when I already have one, whoever that account is it’s not me,,, provide me with the email associated with that account because I can 100% guarantee that it’s not me. Coloursred1 (talk) 18:37, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coloursred1, I know this is going to sound patronising, and I'm sorry for that, but you need to calm down. Demanding that admins unblock you and saying this is all ridiculous isn't helping your situation, and nobody is going to give you the e-mail address associated with an account you are saying is not yours. What might happen is that a checkuser could check the IP addresses associated with the your account and the other one - I'm not a CU, and I'm not 100% conversant with the policies surrounding when they're allowed to check that kind of thing, but if it's your contention that someone else created the account and edited your talk page while you were blocked in order to discredit you, then they someone might be willing to check. Is that what you are saying has occurred here? GirthSummit _(blether) 18:56, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course. I didn’t create that account or have anything to do with it. I don’t know who created the account or anything. Coloursred1 (talk) 18:58, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jpgordon has unblocked you, so it looks like the checkuser will be unnecessary. Please take it easy though - your original block was for disruptive editing, not the socking, hopefully that won't happen again. Happy new year... GirthSummit _(blether) 19:16, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have unblocked without running a CU; a CU can't prove innocence, of course, but this one was as

Unrelated as I've seen. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 19:18, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Coloursred1 (talk) 19:20, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Jpgordon, I hadn't realised you had that tool in your box. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 19:26, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]