User talk:Alwaysrightman

Welcome!

Hello, Alwaysrightman, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Betty Logan (talk) 16:35, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April 2019

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, discussion pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Stephen Hendry, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Larry Hockett (Talk) 19:46, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Stephen Hendry. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Betty Logan (talk) 16:32, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Stephen Hendry 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. Betty Logan (talk) 18:07, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Betty Logan (talk) 18:33, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Block

You've been blocked from editing for one week for (greatly) violating the 3 revert rule. Please be more careful in the future. El_C 18:36, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality violation on Stephen Hendry article

Once again your edits have had to be reverted at Stephen Hendry for violating WP:NPOV. You have been warned about this in edit summaries and here on your talk page. Editors have also raised their concerns about your edits at Talk:Stephen_Hendry#Is_Hendry_the_greatest?, where it is clear there is no consensus for the non-neutral language you keep inserting into the article. By all means contribute and improve the articles, but if you pursue this non-neutral personal agenda I will draw your actions to the attention of an administrator. You have already been blocked once, for a week. If you are blocked again the time period will be significantly longer. Betty Logan (talk) 22:17, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who’s this?

Discretionary sanctions for biography articles

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. Bishonen | talk 16:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC).[reply]

The reason I have given you the alert above is of course your editing of Stephen Hendry, which I noticed from your post on Betty Logan's page. If you continue to disrupt that article, you are likely to be topic banned from it, or otherwise sanctioned. "Arguably the greatest snooker player of all time" is certainly not a neutral phrase, and your expressed attitude to your fellow editors is deplorable ("How to wind up Lee Vilenski...", "Just because you don’t like Stephen Hendry does not mean you should set out to sabotage his page"). Assuming good faith of other editors is one of Wikipedia's foundational principles. Accusing people of setting out to sabotage a bio page because they supposedly don't "like" its subject flies in the face of that. Also, your notion of warning Betty Logan about "continu[ing] [sic] to breach the 3 edits rule"[1] because she has reverted the article once, one time, since April (!) is ridiculous. Bishonen | talk 16:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC).[reply]

June 2019

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Stephen Hendry. Betty Logan (talk) 20:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Betty Logan (talk) 11:16, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

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 ~~~~}}. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Block Lift Request

page:

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).

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

Request reason:

Hi, please can I request that my block is lifted. I am requesting this on the basis that the block is no longer necessary because I understand what I have blocked for, will not do it again, and I will make productive contributions instead.

I fully understand that I was blocked for making disruptive edits to the Stephen Hendry page. Since I have been blocked I have had the time to reflect on my behaviour and recognise this breached Wikipedia’s guidelines and was not to the standard expected of editors. I apologise for this. The reason for my behaviour is that as a new user I did not know how to engage in the talk pages and enter into a discussion with other editors. Seeing my edits repeatedly reverted back by other editors led me to enter into an edit war rather than resolve my disagreement by discussing it on the talk page and building consensus with other editors. Whilst this doesn’t justify my behaviour, I hope it helps provide insight into why I acted the way I did.

I see that Wikipedia has now made it easier for editors to engage in talk pages and I believe I am now capable of entering into a dialogue with other editors on this issue. I can assure you that I will not make anymore disruptive edits and will make only positive contributions where there is consensus amongst other editors.Alwaysrightman (talk) 07:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Declining as this is now a CheckUser block based on your block evasion and lying. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:40, 15 July 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.

Please explain how your edits were disruptive. 331dot (talk) 07:53, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:42 and relate it to your future editing. Dlohcierekim (talk) 08:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: My edits were disruptive as I repeatedly amended the wording on the introduction section of the Stephen Hendry page from “one of the most successful players” to “one of the greatest players”. I did this as I considered it appropriate to make the wording consistent with the Ronnie O’Sullivan page, which uses the wording “one of the greatest”. However, other editors preferred the wording “one of the most successful” in the Stephen Hendry page as it was more independent and objective wording. When I attempted to make the Ronnie O’Sullivan page consistent with the Stephen Hendry page by amending the wording to “one of the most successful” this was reverted by other editors. I therefore repeatedly changed the wording on the Stephen Hendry page to “one of the greatest” as I did not know how to discuss this issue in the discussion page, thereby repeatedly breaching the 3 edits rule. Going forward, I will attempt to resolve such issues through discussion and ensuring articles are referenced with independent and reliable sources. Alwaysrightman (talk) 09:01, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What about MBarness1234 (talk · contribs)? Was that you? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:33, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ominous chords on the organ as POV shifts to show me spin around to stare gape-mouthed at NRP Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:51, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No I don’t know who he/she is Alwaysrightman (talk) 21:19, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can we run an IP check on these two accounts please. If they are technically unconnected I am receptive to giving Alwaysrightman a second chance. The snooker project could always do with more editors to help out. If he truly understands that language must be neutral and encyclopedic then that's a start, and we can always indef him again if he steps out of line. However, if he has been socking and is not prepared to hold his hands up to that then I would be in favor of declining the unblock and reviewing his status in 6 months in accordance with the WP:Standard offer. Betty Logan (talk) 21:25, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would be inclined to unblock, but the MBarness1234 issue is concerning. Well, it's really a total obstacle that needs to be dealt with. Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alwaysrightman and MBarness1234 are Confirmed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:20, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great. Can I now have the block lifted now that it’s been confirmed that other account isn’t connected to me? Neverright 19:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello? Neverright 19:27, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

@Dlohcierekim: Looking back at this, I see that it was confirmed that I am not connected to another user called MBarness1234. Now this has been confirmed, can I have my block lifted? Thank you. Neverright 15:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate: or would you be so kind to help? Neverright 16:00, 8 September 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).

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

Request reason:

Hi! Can I please appeal against my block on the basis outlined above and as it has now been confirmed that I am not connected with this other account. Thank you.

Decline reason:

Nice try. Altering another user's response in the course of an unblock request in an intriguing strategy. Talk page access revoked. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:58, 9 September 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.

Hey Betty

What up? Neverright 17:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: what was the name check for Betty? You’ve lost me on this one!. Neverright 15:49, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]