User talk:Elvisandhismagicpelvis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Rugby league in France

Your additions to the article are nothing but either plagiarism from rl1908 or wishful misinterpretations of french-language texts (in the latter case - prove me wrong! show me the sentences in the texts that back you up). Either way you are, as always, pushing a barrow. Were the content close to true you'd be breaching WP:NOR, as it stands you're just adding tripe. You've already been hosed down for this before by a person who calls himself 'JP' when you wrote:

"After WWII, some rugby union clubs were firebombed by treizantes seeking revenge and percieving rugby union clubs as collaborating elements. Some rugby union officials also felt the wrath of the general anti-collaberationist behaviour of post war France and were promptly shot."

Stop it, it's vandalism.

If you can demonstrate that the additions should be there through appropriate citations then they should stay, but the citations as they are at the moment are a jumbled mess and do not establish the veracity of any claims in the section.

Give some sort of reasonable English language translation of the appropriate bits (I speak a bit of French, but not everyone on en:wp does, and they have a right to see your proof too), or find an English language reference. Dibo T | C 04:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I dont understand any of this??? --Elvisandhismagicpelvis 06:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Give clear references or don't add contentious content! Is it that hard to grasp? TBH, if it's contentious it probably has no place in an encyclopaedia whatsoever... Dibo T | C 07:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism accusation

Please don't call me a vandal when I'm the one following consensus. This has been discussed on the talk page, and you are yet to put forward an argument for why the word football should be in there, apart from claiming everyone who disagrees is biased. I'm not from Melbourne, and I personally enjoy watching both Rugby league or Rugby union. Mark Chovain 20:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not consensus. It is a Melbourne based ip committing a gross POV. Actually there were arguments put forward, the most bleeding obvious is because that is the name of the sport in this country and it is most appropriately presented in that circumstance. Entering Australian rules football on the one hand and rugby league on the other is confusing, biased enourmously and makes a mockery of the sport in Australia by suggesting that one sport is called football and the other isnt! --Elvisandhismagicpelvis 01:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

FFS - you are the only person who insists on putting it in. Everyone else has been removing it. If you weren't so blinded by your barrow pushing, you'd just give up the endless inane edit-warring and edit constructively. Dibo T | C 06:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Constant disruption

Your entire contribution history of 55 edits has been solely to change the name of a sport which has been happily sitting at the existing name for several years. It is purely disruptive. I don't know if you have noticed that all of your edits in this manner have been reverted. It does not benefit Wikipedia in any way to have you continually making these pointless edits. Please stop doing it. The name is not going to change just because you want it to. Any further edits of this nature will result in you being banned. -- Chuq (talk) 12:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually my edits have been devoted to a number of articles including making the effort to find good primary evidence in the rugby league in France article. As to the case of the name, the people arguing against seem to have long and clear case of anti-football bias, as well as the fact that I did not make the first change to the article. A Melbourne based ip did. I am not being disruptive, you can see my arguments on that articles talk page, nor was I the one that changed it originally. Please assume good faith and please also dont make threats to try to intimidate my content input! --Elvisandhismagicpelvis 03:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

But why bother? It's been discussed, and the consensus is against you. You're the only one actively inserting it, and there is a number of editors who want it to stay the way it was. Claims of bias are pointless: Do I have a pro AFL an anti-football bias? If so, on what basis? Mark Chovain 03:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually it was inserted in way before I placed it back in, and there is no real consensus, just a series of accusations from users with a known and recorded anti-football bias, as well as a Melbourne based i.p. The argument for its non inclusion is non sound, and I would be hurting wikipedia by omitting it. --Elvisandhismagicpelvis 03:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Looking back through the history shows that it's been just "Rugby league" for the past year at least (I didn't bother going back any further than 500 edits). Give it a rest. Mark Chovain 04:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sport in Australia

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Sport in Australia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Mark Chovain 04:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] July 2007

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Wade McKinnon. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. My edits were entirely appropriate, with the reasoning explained in the edit summary. If you have a problem with me, take it up with me (rationally) on my talk page. Don't go reverting my edits just because we have disagreements on another page. Mark Chovain 10:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

In response to your accusation of wikistalking: You should read up on what wikistalking entails. It is "the act of following another user around in order to harass them." You referred to your edit history in this post, and I looked at 2 of your changes to confirm your claim. Of the two edits I clicked on, I saw this one (which is excellent), and this one, which while the intention was right, went against the MOS guideline (links in headings). Rather than make a big thing about it, I moved your links down into the text (note, I didn't revert your change - I just moved it to the correct place). I then noticed other things in the article that could be improved (completely unrelated to your changes), so I improved them too. My edits weren't in any way disruptive (I even linked to the relevant MOS guideline for you!) - you reverting my work is disruptive. Please try to work constructively with others - WP is not a big conspiracy against you, but if you continue the way you are, you will end up getting blocked. Mark Chovain 11:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Look mate, I am currently in an edit dispute with you on another page and than you go chasing my other edits, not based on an honest intent towards that article but to annoy the person that you are currently in edit dispute with, than I can only construe it as wikistalking! --Elvisandhismagicpelvis 16:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
How can cleaning up an article annoy you? If I wanted to annoy you, I'd just revert all your changes, or make the same pointless edit over and over again despite everyone else clearly disagreeing with me. You don't have "dibs" on any articles. Mark Chovain 22:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Community sanctions noticeboard

I've put your edit history to the community at WP:CSN#Elvisandhismagicpelvis. I don't even know if that's the right place to raise it, but I'll leave that decision to the Wikipedia community. If you want to comment on my summary of your edits, now is probably the time to do it. Mark Chovain 23:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for edit warring on multiple articles, despite being warned to stop. This is utterly disruptive behaviour. Feel free to return after the block expires if you are prepared to contribute constructively. --cj | talk 11:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

When you return to editing, please keep to the constructive edits I know you are capable of. The whole "football" thing just isn't worth warring over. I look forward to working with you to improve articles on your return. Mark Chovain 00:30, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Chovain, you are the one warring over the whole "football" thing. Look at your contributions to the Piri Weepu page and tell me that you did not make the edit intentionally to disrupt my editing. MOS actually dictated my reverts in that case. I will work with you to improve wikipedia, but it has to based on commonsense, not trying to place a community ban on me when we are in the middle of an edit dispute. --Elvisandhismagicpelvis 03:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I remember making that edit. I reverted your edit because you were spreading disruption to other pages. Can you point to the particular part of MOS that backs up your claim that you edited for consistency with MOS? My understanding of the WP:RL MOS (which is the closest we have to an authoritative MOS in this case) is that the short form "football" should be changed to "rugby league football" if the word football is ambiguous. That's not what you were doing. Mark Chovain 04:15, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Ah yes the "MOS" issue. It's very interesting that the MOS entry you are refering to was written by a user who was banned for running a large sockpuppet farm. This user spent many months making small, POV edits, all about Rugby League being football. This seems to be almost the exact same behavior that caused your current wikiblock.Tancred 09:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Ahh... yet another cowardly accusation! The behaviour that I have been blocked for is edit warring that you have been part of provoking, NOT FOR SOCKPUPPETS. It has become obvious to me that there is a huge amount of anti football POV on wikipedia, and that I certainly have not been treated fairly here, so I am resigning from wikipedia, if the block is not overturned. You yourself have already been accused of it and have certainly engaged in your fair share of edit warring over the football issue Tancred. This can be deduced just by looking through your contributions, so I am sure you will be pulled up soon enough for it. --Elvisandhismagicpelvis 01:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Resigning eh? Much like Licinius, Ehinger222, Factoid Killer and so on... Dibo T | C 03:00, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
One of those guys isnt even blocked. Am I really supposed to be them? Do a sockpuppet check than! --Elvisandhismagicpelvis 03:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
As I wrote on [ another talk page]:

You are the same person who has been making similar POV edits and I've personally knocked off a number of your sockpuppets through the SSP or RFCU processes. You know this, and it was essentially acknowledged above when you wrote (in only your 7th post under this identity) "the other two, User:Dibo and User:Tancred have a well known anti-rugby league football bias" - something which would be very sus in any novice editor (on what would the opinion be based in so little time) but rings major alarm bells when it's an edit following on from a known sockpuppeteer. I totally accept the pettiness of the reverts, but there is simply no need for it, and I don't have any desire to give succour to a sockpuppeteer on a POV pushing crusade. Dibo T | C 06:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Given my complete lack of confidence that you'll actually adhere to the ban, I can't be arsed. Dibo T | C 04:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
What a load of crap. Using your proofs, you could make an accusation against any rugby league football contributor regardless of the actual issue, which by your contributions you have. Do a sockpuppet check or shut up. This "I cant be arsed" stuff is a load of nonsense. I dont know whether you are sincere or just a troll POV warrior that has not had their comeuppance, but I repeat, DO A SOCKPUPPET check. Leaving vague accusations that do not link me with anything other than following a MOS is nothing other than disruptive and needlessly provocative behaviour. I hope the administrator that reviews this can understand now why I was reverting this guy. --Elvisandhismagicpelvis 05:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "What a load of crap! The article in question, Sport in Australia was not edit waring. Let some unbiased observer go through the argument on the talk page. The others were wikistalking where a variety of editors followed my edits in the intention of themselves being disruptive. Take this one for example. That is not to mention unsubstantiated allegations etc. that are at the talk page in the Sport in Australia article. The real question is if any action was taken against me, why was no action taken against those that engaged in wikistalking to start edit wars at other pages? Look through my contributions if you believe that I am going around intending to be disruptive. Than tell me what you would have done on the Sport in Australia page when confronted with the same amount of bias, unconstructive attacks without any evidence etc. --Elvisandhismagicpelvis 03:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)"

Decline reason: "You were constantly reverting because of issues with content. That is the definition of edit warring. Block upheld. — Kurykh 04:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "the block of a week is ridiculous. I was making many positive contributions at the time of the block. I was combatting POV from editors that are totally uninterested in rugby league football. It is completely and ridiculously unfair that I could be blocked, and not the users that took the edit waring to other pages, which can be easily viewed through a geeze at my contributions. I was accused in a cowardly manner of being a sockpuppet for no other reason than implementing MOS. The users involved however refused to do a sockpuppet check, just made the accusation on the discussion page of the article in question and continued to revert based on that deduction(apart from an ip and user:Chovain). I am resigning if I am not unblocked. I dont have time in my life for this nonsense. --Elvisandhismagicpelvis 02:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)"

Decline reason: "See Kurykh above. — Sandstein 05:38, 31 July 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

[edit] Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Elvisandhismagicpelvis for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Dibo T | C 23:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)