User talk:TeaLover1996/Archive 16
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 10 | ← | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | → | Archive 20 |
I see you're still misunderstanding the seriousness of your problems. You are disrupting things. You are wasting other people's time by making tons of mistakes. You will not be allowed to continue. This is not going to be a slow motion train wreck where you get blocked for a week, and then 2 weeks, and then a month, and then 2 months, all the while having half a dozen patient people explain what new thing you've done wrong.... I can block you if you use STiki again, and I will. For a year. Do you understand? --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:45, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Floquenbeam: Yes I understand, but you could only block me if I continued to use STiki and kept making mistakes, where as if I continued and were making good edits you couldnt block me then. TeaLover1996 (talk) 02:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- Do you want to bet? If there was a technical way to block you from using it, I already would have. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Floquenbeam: No I do not want to bet. All I am saying is you could only block me if I made bad edits. TeaLover1996 (talk) 02:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- You are free to believe anything you want, but just so I'm crystal clear: if I see you using STiki again, I will block you for 1 year, immediately, without waiting for you to make a mistake. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- You cannot just block someone if they haven't done anything wrong, you should know that. Keep in mind that you are not above other editors just because you are an admin. Yes you can block and I respect that, but you can't patronize other editors. TeaLover1996 (talk) 03:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Floquenbeam: Forgot to ping. TeaLover1996 (talk) 03:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- It's true I can't block someone if they haven't done anything wrong. However, that does not apply to you. You have done a lot of things wrong, including an 80% error rate one hour after being given a very specific warning to be careful. That is incompetence, and it needs to stop. Step one is do not use STiki. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia in other ways, then you'll be warned and blocked for those too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Floquenbeam: Imagine the scenario, my editing improves, and I become a good editor with lots of good edits, then I resume my use of STiki and make sufficient edits with the tool, surely that wouldn't be a problem as long as I wasn't making constant mistakes, yes there would be times I would make mistakes, but not as many as I used to. TeaLover1996 (talk) 03:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Floquenbeam: and @TeaLover1996: It just happened I was at Qed's page , so read whats going on, so thought about helping you both (explaining/understanding) it. Tea..Floquenbeam is following a wikipedia rules. if you use STiki and even if you make mistakes by good intentions you are still responsible for your actions and mistakes, so stop using it for few months so you can get more experience with wikipedia then you can ask to use it again otherwise wikipedia allows and actually requires admins to interact by preventing users who doesn't know how to use STiki from using it, and it goes all the way to even block them if they don't stop using it my friend. step by step you can get to know how to use it and ask about it, for now concentrate on improving your editing skills using the basics features, you don't really need STiki for now trust me. focus on improving articles not gaining more rights and tools at wikipedia just take it step by step my friend Adnan (talk) 03:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Floquenbeam: Imagine the scenario, my editing improves, and I become a good editor with lots of good edits, then I resume my use of STiki and make sufficient edits with the tool, surely that wouldn't be a problem as long as I wasn't making constant mistakes, yes there would be times I would make mistakes, but not as many as I used to. TeaLover1996 (talk) 03:08, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- It's true I can't block someone if they haven't done anything wrong. However, that does not apply to you. You have done a lot of things wrong, including an 80% error rate one hour after being given a very specific warning to be careful. That is incompetence, and it needs to stop. Step one is do not use STiki. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia in other ways, then you'll be warned and blocked for those too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 03:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Floquenbeam: Forgot to ping. TeaLover1996 (talk) 03:02, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- You cannot just block someone if they haven't done anything wrong, you should know that. Keep in mind that you are not above other editors just because you are an admin. Yes you can block and I respect that, but you can't patronize other editors. TeaLover1996 (talk) 03:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- You are free to believe anything you want, but just so I'm crystal clear: if I see you using STiki again, I will block you for 1 year, immediately, without waiting for you to make a mistake. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:53, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Floquenbeam: No I do not want to bet. All I am saying is you could only block me if I made bad edits. TeaLover1996 (talk) 02:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- Do you want to bet? If there was a technical way to block you from using it, I already would have. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
The info in a box on top of Wikipedia:STiki says Warning: You take full responsibility for any action you perform using STiki. You must understand Wikipedia policies and use this tool within these policies, or risk losing access to the tool or being blocked from editing. TeaLover1996 it can be seen as you have not used the tool correctly and you have "lost access" since you are not allowed to use it, and if you use it you could probably be blocked. I would not be suprised if in the future STiki would have a list of editors that can not use it. Just focus on normal editing for a while instead. Qed237 (talk) 09:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Can you explain your motives for this edit? Why did you revert me? 77.130.202.128 (talk) 15:50, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
Shay given removed content
Hi I'm pretty new to this could you please re add my content with this reference I work at gazette and can confirm he has signed we are just waiting for article to be wrote by our sports editor then it will be published Thanks http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/shay-given-boro-set-wrap-9610047 Adak14 (talk) 08:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker)@Adak14: That source says he's "set to sign", until he's actually signed, and that's supported by reliable sources then it shouldn't be edited, before that you're still just guessing that it will happen. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:10, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Theroadislong and Joseph2302:, Theroadislong, again you have reverted me for a bad reason, I removed the content because it was unsourced, then you have reverted my edit saying I should add a reference, but you have been told that according to WP:VERIFY that it is the responsibility of the editor who added the content that is likely to be challenged should find a reference to back it up, otherwise it will be removed, it is not the job for other editors to look for references, please assume good faith, please take time to think about what you are about to do before reverting, yes I have reverted badly, I admit that, but you need to be more careful, if you keep doing it, other editors may regard it as disruptive, and I don't want to see you blocked, you have made good edits, focus on that. Thanks. Joseph, again cheers for your recent input. Cheers TeaLover1996 (talk) 13:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- I will take more care in future. Theroadislong (talk) 14:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Theroadislong: When I made bad edits with STiki, you advised me to be careful, and I am just doing the same here. Thanks TeaLover1996 (talk) 14:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- I will take more care in future. Theroadislong (talk) 14:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Theroadislong and Joseph2302:, Theroadislong, again you have reverted me for a bad reason, I removed the content because it was unsourced, then you have reverted my edit saying I should add a reference, but you have been told that according to WP:VERIFY that it is the responsibility of the editor who added the content that is likely to be challenged should find a reference to back it up, otherwise it will be removed, it is not the job for other editors to look for references, please assume good faith, please take time to think about what you are about to do before reverting, yes I have reverted badly, I admit that, but you need to be more careful, if you keep doing it, other editors may regard it as disruptive, and I don't want to see you blocked, you have made good edits, focus on that. Thanks. Joseph, again cheers for your recent input. Cheers TeaLover1996 (talk) 13:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
"consensus is to not display club at beginning"
Hello. Please could you point out where I could find confirmation of this consensus, which isn't one I'm aware of? The most recent discussion I remember is this one, which seems to agree that there is no such consensus. thanks, Struway2 (talk) 07:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Struway2: Hi, I edited an article a week or two ago, and Mattythewhite reverted it, putting an edit summary saying that the current consensus is not to add the division in the lead section of a footballers article, I left him a message on his talk page, asking where is the consensus, but I did not receive a reply. I'll try asking around, and get back to you. TeaLover1996 (talk) 14:44, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Since I was asked about this on my talkpage I will reply here (to keep discussion in one place). I am one of those in favour for writing nation and not league for several reasons, but as Struway2 says, there is no consensus for it (and no consensus for using only league either). This has to be decided from article to article due to lack of consensus. In my mind teams can be relegated/promoted without the "league" being updated and if we avoid league (and just have nation), we dont have to update every player article of teams that has changed division. Also sometimes teams do not only play in league but also Champions League and such so they are not only "Premier League club" (as an example) but an English club in many competitions. However as said, I dont think there is a current consensus. Qed237 (talk) 14:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Qed237: I left Mattythewhite a message saying could you tell me where the consensus is but I didn't receive a reply. TeaLover1996 (talk) 14:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- I kind of agree with @Qed237:, adding the league adds extra complications (like when they get promoted/relegated, every player needs an update to their article). As for listing the country, from what I've seen, it's only been done when players have been playing in a foreign country (e.g. Sébastien Bassong, Steven Gerrard), but I wouldn't object to it being added to other players e.g. Player X is an English footballer ho plays for English club Y. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Joseph2302: Yes, in discussions it has been said that mentioning of nation twice is unneccesary if the player plays in his "home" country. Qed237 (talk) 15:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Joseph2302:@Qed237:@Struway2: so does this mean there isn't a consensus about it ? I agree it is extra loaded work but I wouldn't revert someone if he does it also. anyway so is there a consensus or not then ? thank you Adnan (talk) 16:27, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Adnan n2: No consensus. Qed237 (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Qed237: Ok thank you :) , Mattythewhite should't then have reverted and stating it is a consensus while it is only a personal preference then, especially when he is an Admin, anyway thank you for clarifying this :) . Adnan (talk) 17:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- As far I am aware this has been consensus/accepted practice all the time I've edited here, for the reasons stated above. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Qed237: Ok thank you :) , Mattythewhite should't then have reverted and stating it is a consensus while it is only a personal preference then, especially when he is an Admin, anyway thank you for clarifying this :) . Adnan (talk) 17:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Adnan n2: No consensus. Qed237 (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- I kind of agree with @Qed237:, adding the league adds extra complications (like when they get promoted/relegated, every player needs an update to their article). As for listing the country, from what I've seen, it's only been done when players have been playing in a foreign country (e.g. Sébastien Bassong, Steven Gerrard), but I wouldn't object to it being added to other players e.g. Player X is an English footballer ho plays for English club Y. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Qed237: I left Mattythewhite a message saying could you tell me where the consensus is but I didn't receive a reply. TeaLover1996 (talk) 14:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
- Since I was asked about this on my talkpage I will reply here (to keep discussion in one place). I am one of those in favour for writing nation and not league for several reasons, but as Struway2 says, there is no consensus for it (and no consensus for using only league either). This has to be decided from article to article due to lack of consensus. In my mind teams can be relegated/promoted without the "league" being updated and if we avoid league (and just have nation), we dont have to update every player article of teams that has changed division. Also sometimes teams do not only play in league but also Champions League and such so they are not only "Premier League club" (as an example) but an English club in many competitions. However as said, I dont think there is a current consensus. Qed237 (talk) 14:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
FWIW, the player article template has always (since its creation in 2005) included the division. Some relevant discussions (I've done my best to search neutrally):
- In July 2007, there was agreement among three editors against inclusion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 11#...currently playing for club in division
- This was referenced in September 2011, in a discussion that seemed to conclude there was no consensus: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 60#Should the club's league be included in player articles.
More recent discussions/mentions:
The discussions tend to start with someone wanting reassurance that consensus is to exclude, followed by people expressing preferences pro/anti/don't care, and ending in no-one confirming existence of any such consensus.
Personally, I'm in the "don't care so long as the sentence is grammatical, well-structured and helpful to the reader" faction, which leans towards inclusion. But I honestly haven't been able to find enough consensus to justify removal.
@TeaLover1996: Sorry for hijacking your talk page. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)