User talk:Masterpasa

Masterpasa, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Masterpasa! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Please join other people who edit Wikipedia at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space on Wikipedia where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Doctree (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your friendly neighborhood HostBot (talk) 02:30, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect mourinho revert

Please do not revert the element of the Jose Mourinho article that you did again. All the point raised in that small section are covered directly in the source provided, as I will now show:

Point 1: Two real players were carded for time wasting. Covered in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the source.

Alonso, who had been booked halfway through the second half, then took so long over a free-kick in his own half that he was shown a yellow card for time-wasting and sent off. In the first minute of stoppage time Ramos, already booked in the first half, took over goal-kick duties from Casillas but delayed so long that he too was booked for time-wasting and sent off.

Point 2: This was allegedly done to ensure that the missed the meaningless final game and would be available for the knockout rounds. Covered in paragraph 7 of the source.

Suspicions were raised by the similarity of the dismissals, as well as their unusual nature in a game that was effectively over. The calculating aspect of Real's behaviour lay in the fact that Ramos and Alonso would only be suspended for their final group game with Auxerre, a dead rubber as Real had already won Group G.

Point 3: That instructions to this effect were allegedly communicated by Mourinho. Covered in Paragraph 9 of the source.

Allegations of instruction from the Real bench were furthered by footage of Mourinho in discussions with substitute goalkeeper Jerzy Dudek during the second half of the match, and Dudek's subsequent discussions with both Alonso and Ramos. Moreover, Mourinho was seen speaking to Alonso in the technical area minutes before the dismissal of the former Liverpool midfielder.

Point 4: Mourinho and four players charged with improper conduct. Covered in paragraph 1 of the source.

Mourinho, Xabi Alonso, Sergio Ramos, Iker Casillas and Jerzy Dudek have all been charged by Uefa with unsporting conduct and will face Uefa's control and disciplinary body on Tuesday.

There is no POV issue here at all, the source itself might be deemed to be subjective (show me a source that can be said to be undeniably objective!), but there is no issue here at all with theeditor who originally included this. If you have additional sources to indicate that later this was shown to be false then please add them, but there is no need whatsoever to remove these widely publicised allegations. Fenix down (talk) 09:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but you do not understand the point here. This mourinho controversy is not listed in a single website, news, papers, articles etc except than independent which is not a official source of uefa nor is WP: RELIABLE. I have done enough research on this issue and this controversy is wrong and a lie. Please stop further reverts.Masterpasa (talk) 09:34, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, are you kidding? You can't have done any research at all, a simple google search for "real madrid ajax mourinho controversy" (not in inverted commas) shows up several more sources:

this in the Mirror newspaper
This in the Telegraph, comment by Wenger
and most clearly of all this also in the Telegraph which clearly states UEFA opened a disciplinary investigation into the matter.

Now all this may have come to nothing and ultimately may not have been true but the section of the article delas with controversy and these reports, all in national newspapers of good standing which are valid sources to say that actions that may or may not have been taken by Mourinho caused controversy. Not necessarily any actual offence in the laws of the game but clearly controversy that was reported in numerous national newspapers at the time. As such I will revert it again as your statement above is simply not born out by available sources. If you continue to disagree with what seems to me pretty clear cut, might I suggest that rather than simply starting an edit war an continuing to revert, that you take it to WT:FOOTY where there can be a proper discussion. If consensus shows that there was no controversy, then I will gladly back down however the sources clearly show that there was controversy in my eyes.

Your comments on WP:RELIABLE are also disingenuous, there is nothing in there to state that newspapers are inherently unreliable. The sources I have quoted are all major national newspapers. I also do not understand your comment on them not being a UEFA source. I do not see why having a source from UEFA is a prerequisite for reliable sourcing of controversy. Fenix down (talk) 23:42, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The line I have removed, they are backed by only one and one source. you are talking about all the sources. find me a single more source that says the thing that I removed.Masterpasa (talk) 02:21, 16 November 2012 (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).

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

Request reason:

User:Elockid has blocked me claiming I abused someones account based on no evidence. I have the right to appeal against it as clearly I just started editing articles recently and have no connections with anyone.

Decline reason:

Comments and evidence below indicate block was justified. — Daniel Case (talk) 18:27, 16 November 2012 (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.

Hmmm, if I start here and then look at the individual edits, it does appear quite clearly that there is a connection (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:35, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand. Almost all of my edits are related to spanish football, players, managers etc. So if any user edited pages that i edit, then it means i am that user? Ridiculous.Masterpasa (talk) 12:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I said. Your edits and the topics are virtually identical to the other account. As well, User:Elockid is a checkuser who has technical means to compare editors as well. You would do well to read the guide to appealing blocks before commenting further as you're currently lowering your opportunity for future unblock (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:36, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I said either. All the edits I made are related to spanish football. So if some user edits similar pages, then thats me? Why dont you become a fan of spanish football and start editing pages and I will show in a similar way you are a sockpuppet of dbsshasper?! Ridiculous!Masterpasa (talk) 17:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Note: This isn't a CU block but a block that was based on behavioral evidence. Looking at the CU logs, it indicates that you were in fact editing from the same ISP, same ranges and from the same location as DBSSHASPER. Elockid ^(Talk) 16:33, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thats too much of a hypocrisy and a blatant lie. same IP? same location? I am editing from Nagdesh, in Bhaktapur, Nepal. The DBSSURFER is editing from USA. How can that user and I be same!Masterpasa (talk) 16:59, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish, I can release the IPs you have edited from publicly. But you must clearly state this. Elockid ^(Talk) 23:39, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please release it. I just dont understand why I am blocked in the first place. I just started editing in wiki and now I will have to create another id for nothing until you unblock me.49.244.125.32 (talk) 02:02, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You MUST state that you are giving me permission on your account, not while logged out. Again, this information will be released publicly. So I advise you to consider the consequences carefully. Secondly, creating another account WILL also result in that account being blocked (this goes for any other future accounts as well). Also note that continued evasion of your block will decrease your chances of getting unblocked and may lead to an eventual community ban. This means that your edits may be reverted by any user without penalty. Finally, I advise you to stop playing the charade that you are a new user. Continuing to lie to us will further decrease your chances in getting unblocked and may further increase your chances of getting community banned. Elockid ^(Talk) 02:56, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All I have to stay is I am definitely not the User:DBS.. or anyone who is a veteran user. And, I dont unnderstand what you meant giving permission on my account?49.244.140.244 (talk) 06:05, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To fully insure that you are giving my permission to release your private data, you must state this while logged in, not while editing through an IP. Elockid ^(Talk) 13:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know what you mean by private data and I will immediately login and give you the permission. I am unsure what this private data means and what it will give you?49.244.2.177 (talk) 17:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Private data as in the IPs you have used on this account. Elockid ^(Talk) 13:17, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]