Hi Realgonerocket88! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 20:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC) |
Your recent editing history at Tottenham Hotspur F.C. 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. Hzh ( talk) 23:51, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
@ Hzh:Hello. I just want to add a few things in closing:
First, can I ask that if you respond to me, please just send the message to my email address once, not four times in four minutes?
Second, as you seem to want to talk down to me with comments such as “you appear not to know what is happening,” I must point out this is not just impolite but baseless. I have edited and published more than 90 reference books, have a PhD in the English language, and have considerable experience in editing reference entries for the benefit of the user. I am professionally trained and experienced in selection criteria, and I take them seriously.
Third, yes, I realize Wikipedia has policies and guidelines on editing. For example:
1.. "’Go for it’. The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold when updating the encyclopedia. Wikis like ours develop faster when everybody helps to fix problems, correct grammar, ADD FACTS [emphasis mine], make sure wording is accurate, etc.” -- That’s what I did.
2..”Fix it yourself instead of just talking about it.” -- That’s what I did.
3..”Be bold again, but after a reversion of a bold edit, you might want to be bold in an edit on the talk pages so as not to start an edit war.” -- This is what I attempted to do with you on this talk page.
In conclusion, I will point out that my edits were entirely in keeping with the “Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs” for which you yourself just sent me a link -- and which, I must point out, you misstate. It clearly says the “Honours” section is for “Achievements of the club including wins and second places.” The word "major" does not appear in that criterion; the guidelines here do not include the stipulation that the section is only for “major” trophies. The word "major" is only used specifically with regard to the suggestion that "For clubs with a large number of major trophies, it may be appropriate to omit second places." Even this is not stated as a rigid prohibition but rather offered as a suggestion for, one can reasonably assume, clubs such as Man U and Liverpool, who’ve won more doubles and trebles than most clubs have won titles--so adding second places to their lists would be unwieldy and overkill. Regardless, as you tell me I "appear not to know what is happening," I feel it is reasonable to point out that the guideline you cite here in fact supports the edit I attempted to make, and which was censored.
I have tried, and am still trying, to discuss this with users in Talk. (I also will gently point out that you wrote “You have to give better reason why Audi Cup or International Champions Cup should be included in the Tottenham article”; so I responded to you thusly with supporting evidence, which you then failed to acknowledge.) But if you don’t want to consider my points, then I agree there’s no point for me to discuss further here with you. My best of luck to you. Thanks. Realgonerocket88 ( talk) 21 August 2019
Hello, Realgonerocket88. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:
In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.
Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. 73.186.215.222 ( talk) 16:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. 73.186.215.222 ( talk) 01:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi Realgonerocket88! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 20:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC) |
Your recent editing history at Tottenham Hotspur F.C. 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. Hzh ( talk) 23:51, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
@ Hzh:Hello. I just want to add a few things in closing:
First, can I ask that if you respond to me, please just send the message to my email address once, not four times in four minutes?
Second, as you seem to want to talk down to me with comments such as “you appear not to know what is happening,” I must point out this is not just impolite but baseless. I have edited and published more than 90 reference books, have a PhD in the English language, and have considerable experience in editing reference entries for the benefit of the user. I am professionally trained and experienced in selection criteria, and I take them seriously.
Third, yes, I realize Wikipedia has policies and guidelines on editing. For example:
1.. "’Go for it’. The Wikipedia community encourages users to be bold when updating the encyclopedia. Wikis like ours develop faster when everybody helps to fix problems, correct grammar, ADD FACTS [emphasis mine], make sure wording is accurate, etc.” -- That’s what I did.
2..”Fix it yourself instead of just talking about it.” -- That’s what I did.
3..”Be bold again, but after a reversion of a bold edit, you might want to be bold in an edit on the talk pages so as not to start an edit war.” -- This is what I attempted to do with you on this talk page.
In conclusion, I will point out that my edits were entirely in keeping with the “Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs” for which you yourself just sent me a link -- and which, I must point out, you misstate. It clearly says the “Honours” section is for “Achievements of the club including wins and second places.” The word "major" does not appear in that criterion; the guidelines here do not include the stipulation that the section is only for “major” trophies. The word "major" is only used specifically with regard to the suggestion that "For clubs with a large number of major trophies, it may be appropriate to omit second places." Even this is not stated as a rigid prohibition but rather offered as a suggestion for, one can reasonably assume, clubs such as Man U and Liverpool, who’ve won more doubles and trebles than most clubs have won titles--so adding second places to their lists would be unwieldy and overkill. Regardless, as you tell me I "appear not to know what is happening," I feel it is reasonable to point out that the guideline you cite here in fact supports the edit I attempted to make, and which was censored.
I have tried, and am still trying, to discuss this with users in Talk. (I also will gently point out that you wrote “You have to give better reason why Audi Cup or International Champions Cup should be included in the Tottenham article”; so I responded to you thusly with supporting evidence, which you then failed to acknowledge.) But if you don’t want to consider my points, then I agree there’s no point for me to discuss further here with you. My best of luck to you. Thanks. Realgonerocket88 ( talk) 21 August 2019
Hello, Realgonerocket88. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:
In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.
Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. 73.186.215.222 ( talk) 16:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you. 73.186.215.222 ( talk) 01:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)