User talk:D Gums
LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS! LEEDS!
D Gums (talk) 07:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
March 2019
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. DMacks (talk) 08:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Yo. What edit was disruptive? D Gums (talk) 08:25, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Nearly every single one of your edits. WP:RS is not optional, your opinions and personal analyses are not welcome. DMacks (talk) 08:27, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- And neither are yours. And when you delete me, you are entering your own. D Gums (talk) 08:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Feel free to file a report at WP:ANI. Someone there will likely just block you for WP:EW and we'll get back to writing our encyclopedia here. DMacks (talk) 08:34, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- And neither are yours. And when you delete me, you are entering your own. D Gums (talk) 08:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
- Nearly every single one of your edits. WP:RS is not optional, your opinions and personal analyses are not welcome. DMacks (talk) 08:27, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
EW warning
Your recent editing history 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 BRD 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.Icewhiz (talk) 08:45, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
March 2019 - BLP DS
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Icewhiz (talk) 08:57, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
March 2019
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Doug Weller talk 10:00, 31 March 2019 (UTC)- You even linked to Yid, and being a football is not an excuse for antisemitism. See the section in that article on its use in football ("Fans of other clubs use the term as a pejorative because it is perceived that many Tottenham Hotspur fans are Jewish.")and also at the Tottenham Hotspur article "It no longer has a greater Jewish contingent among its fans than other major London clubs (Jewish supporters are estimated to form at most 5% of its fanbase), it is nevertheless identified as a Jewish club by rival fans.[138 This has led to much antisemitic provocation with chants of "Yids" or "Yiddos" against Tottenham supporters."] Doug Weller talk 10:07, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
April 2019
Please stop adding unreferenced or poorly referenced biographical content, especially if controversial, to articles or any other Wikipedia page, as you did at Nigel Farage. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Valenciano (talk) 07:19, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- WOW. What are you trying to insinuate? That Farage loves migrants and is some kind of liberal? Someone pro-EU? Wakey wakey dream-boy, why not join the real world. D Gums (talk) 07:21, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. -- Scott Burley (talk) 08:18, 26 April 2019 (UTC)Scott Burley, to what do you refer when citing "disruptive editing" and what brought this to your attention? --D Gums (talk) 08:36, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- Primarily, editorializing on Nigel Farage after being warned not to ([1]), but also general incivility such as this edit summary [2]. -- Scott Burley (talk) 18:41, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
- Scott Burley, on the subject of Nigel Farage, I believed based on mainstream evidence that what I was adding was correct. I wasn't so much warned not to but was simply reverted with the reverting editor citing policies. Those policies looked like a matter of opinion. But when he stated "editorialising" in a later revert, I did stop and this was long before you blocked me. On the subject of the incivility, this I admit was in error. It was a tense moment where we were reverting one another in three or more places and so I overreacted. For that I make no excuses. As such when the block ends, I'll take more care not to be insulting to other editors. D Gums (talk) 08:04, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
- Primarily, editorializing on Nigel Farage after being warned not to ([1]), but also general incivility such as this edit summary [2]. -- Scott Burley (talk) 18:41, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Leeds in Premier League
Valenciano Hi. I'm blocked so I need to make this point here. Now we've calmed ourselves and normalised our ties, I'll just explain to you why I added this info on the article in question. First, I'm not proud so to speak of winning the league and then playing a full season without an away win and finishing 3 spots above relegation (it was 22 teams that season), but from what I've seen on how the articles are written, it's as with pundits and Radio 5 Live commentary - people just LOVE statistics, people love to mention them, people love to absorb them, and our articles are just full of them. I agree that the example I gave is very much hanging on the edge of the clifftop for relevance, it's sort of one foot in and one foot out. Part of it happened IN the premier league, but continued on from something that began OUT of it. On a lighter note, we often joke about being the first ever Premier League champions in that we played the first Premier League as defending champions. In reality we knew by mid-September 1992 we were not going to compete for the league (we'd just have been happier if Man U didn't win it either). The first time I heard this meme was back in 1985 when Everton fans were doing something similar - but, those Evertonians had a sliver of substance to their momentary madness. They have just won the league (Division 1) convincingly in a one-horse race and were preparing to face Man Utd in the FA Cup Final - as DEFENDING CHAMPIONS from the previous year (2-0 against Watford), so yes, they kind of held the double even if they were never credited as winning the double, and don't forget, they won the European Cup Winners cup the same year so it was a treble. Anyhow, glad we're sorted! :) D Gums (talk) 08:32, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of User talk:Decoder oh
A tag has been placed on User talk:Decoder oh requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Cahk (talk) 08:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of User talk:Kar93ola
A tag has been placed on User talk:Kar93ola requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Cahk (talk) 09:00, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of User talk:Dailicklink
A tag has been placed on User talk:Dailicklink requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Cahk (talk) 09:00, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of User talk:Tnc boy
A tag has been placed on User talk:Tnc boy requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Cahk (talk) 09:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of User talk:S M Anwar Shah
A tag has been placed on User talk:S M Anwar Shah requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Cahk (talk) 09:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Sockpuppet investigation
An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/D Gums, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.