User talk:Gunnlaugson

airports

Please actually look at and edit a wider variety of articles. LibStar (talk) 01:42, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear LibStar, could you please tell me how this information can be inserted to the OTP airport page? It is important because ride sharing is a new service in Romania and the regular taxi service has big issues - therefore passengers should be informed about this alternative. I am insisting on this topic because I am a regular user of OTP and I know the pros and cons of this airport. Please advise as I can see that you have a great experience as an editor. Gunnlaugson (talk) 13:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:NOTTRAVEL. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a travel guide on how to use an airport. Please look at other airport articles. LibStar (talk) 14:23, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, LibStar, for explaining. However, there are many airport pages that contain this information. Just to provide one example, please see Indianapolis International Airport. In my opinion, it is only fair to include information about ride sharing as long as other ground transportation services are provided, such as train, bus and taxi. I kindly ask you to take into account input by local editors - I am a local of Bucharest and I strongly consider that it is very important to have equal representation for all means of transportation for this airport. Gunnlaugson (talk) 11:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for pointing out the other airport. I disagree that all means of transport is required. We don't put car rental nor often walking or cycling. LibStar (talk) 14:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LibStar, I value your opinion, but I have to emphasize that you are using general guidelines in a specific case, removing valuable information from local sources and discouraging edits by new, less experienced editors. Instead, I would like to ask you to find any acceptable solution to have the information on the page. Gunnlaugson (talk) 08:09, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has guidelines for this exact reason. I have to emphasize this. Wikipedia does not include everything. See WP:NOT. LibStar (talk) 09:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LibStar, I agree that we should follow the guidelines and I'm not opposing this. In my opinion, your removal of my edit is not applying the guidelines, but a personal interpretation of the guidelines - however, I am only asking for you to take different opinions into account and suggest a better solution other that just removing the information.

guidelines are to be interpreted. I have made 10s of 1000s of edits and edited over 50 airport articles. Come back to me when you have edited a wider range of articles. I strongly recommend you do. LibStar (talk) 13:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion your attitude towards new editors is demotivating and makes it less likely for newbies to continue contributing. Being an experienced editor does not give you the right to interpret guidelines as you please. Gunnlaugson (talk) 17:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to motivate you to edit a wider range of articles. Then you can learn more about how wikipedia and its guidelines rather than solely focussing on one airport article. If you have a dispute about a guideline bring up your concerns on the talk page of that guideline. Again as a new editor I want to motivate you to contribute as much as possible to a wide range of articles. LibStar (talk) 18:22, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

Since you have now closed your own RfC on the Talk:FCSB page (which is not allowed), since the RfC itself had only been running a few days, and since it wouldn't be closed that way by an administrator since most of the support votes are from clearly suspicious accounts, I have blocked you from editing the page for disruptive editing. Please find something else to edit about, there are 7 million other pages on Wikipedia. Black Kite (talk) 17:55, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to investigate this. I closed the RfP as there were no more responses coming for a while and the only accounts that opposed the changes were from clearly biased (suprisingly, more senior) Wikipedia editors. To be honest, I read the guidelines and I thought this is the way to do it when the decision seems clear. Apologies it this was wrong @Black Kite. I would appreciate your help with closing this RfP when appropiate. I'm looking at you @Tgeorgescu as I'm very dissapointed with your clearly biased and unconstructive approach (not mentioning any WP:RS at all in support of your outrageous arguments and not to mention the language you used) but overall lack of tolerance for more junior editors like myself. I believe my edits have merit (on FCSB Honours nonetheless), we should not keep this clearly incorrect information published for much longer as it's making Wikipedia part of the problem. Gunnlaugson (talk) 09:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the statement of the RFC is clearly biased, which is not allowed as per WP:RFCST point 4. In my opinion, this RFC should be closed and another one could be started by someone else in a compliant manner. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:57, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to appeal this decision.

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).

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

Request reason:

I was unfairly blocked from editing the FCSB page, although I did a mistake and I take ownership for it. I understand why I was blocked for, but consider the outcome excessive. I will not do it again, and I will make productive contributions instead. I also understand how to write a correct RfP statement now.

Decline reason:

Confirmed sock puppetry via Fener8819. Blocked site-wide now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 15:51, 9 August 2024 (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.

I understand this is a topic that creates a lot of discussion as I was clearly wrong about the RfP statament (yes, I am not an experienced editor) but this is unfair. There is a big mess in treating the CSA Steaua București (football) and FCSB dispute which puts the former at a clear disadvantage. This requires a good RfP and senior editor involvement. Gunnlaugson (talk) 10:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]