User talk:Panhead2014

Sergio Busquets

Panhead2014, there is an extensive discussion on the article's talk page regarding the section you have repeatedly deleted. I have also re-commenced the discussion as a new item and you are encouraged to engage. If you continue to blindly reverted sourced edits without seeking consensus you are likely to be blocked which is no good for anyone. Please enter into a meaningful discussion on the talk page. Flat Out let's discuss it 00:32, 15 July 2014 (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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Panhead2014 reported by User:Chris troutman (Result: ). Thank you. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article talk

Please stop using article talk page posts to make personal attacks on me as you have now done at Míchel Salgado and Sergio Busquets. Please comment on contributions not contributors. There is a process for reaching consensus at articles and you will not always disagree with other editors. At Sergio Busquets you made an edit I disagreed with. You will see I started a conversation on your talk page and after a second revert I started a conversation at the article's talk page. The matter was also taken by another editor to AN3 for discussion; I also contributed there and your position at the article remains intact. I did not seek to "have you blocked," I have not "followed you around," I do not have a "personal vendetta" against you. Please read WP:CIVIL and WP:BRD. If you have an issue with how I am editing please take it up on my talk page not in article talk pages. Flat Out let's discuss it 00:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are no personal attacks on you, merely astute observations about you behaviour and cyber bullying. It's very clear that after you failed in trying to get me warned and blocked from removing the biased content on Sergio Busquets page, you then decided to prowl through my other contributions and reverse them out of spite and to satisfy your vendetta after being rebuffed by Bbb23. You were the one that started to make this personal. Panhead2014 (talk) 01:00, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my edit at AN3. I did not open the AN3 discussion, I did not seek to have you blocked. I changed my position at Sergio Busquets after reading the discussion at AN3 and my edit summaries clearly show that. My edit at Míchel Salgado was made well before another editor raised an issue at AN3 and well before the outcome was decided. Your failure to assume good faith is troubling. Flat Out let's discuss it 01:16, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like i said in Salgado's talkpage, Mr. Panhead: please, without beating around the bush (i only see you saying this is biased and irrelevant, without the "because" addition), please tell me why 1 - it is biased to talk about an injury to another player in which he was involved; 2 - it is irrelevant for his sporting career.

If you revert me again, good news, i'll leave article in peace (having heard that, of course you will), but please don't add the "he returned as first-choice right-back at Celta" to go with it because, if other people are biased and irrelevant, that would be also irrelevant (the sub-section is called CELTA). --AL (talk) 15:24, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BETTER news now: screw it, i have reverted myself, have it your way. I added something in its place which i trust won't be considered biased, him scoring some goals. But in Busquets i'll "use all my wikiforce" to see that the contents are reinstated. Goodbye --AL (talk) 15:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And what did i do in Busquets to be accused of having an agenda? I did not reinstate Motta's incident, i only REPHRASED one paragraph! --AL (talk) 15:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per your last reversion in Salgado, i am also accused of vandalism, "thank you" for that. --AL (talk) 15:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was no need to rephrase the paragraph. You've taken it upon yourself to follow me around on Wikipedia reverted and altering my edits unnecessarily. You have therefore now been reported. Enjoy your day. Panhead2014 (talk) 15:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, i will defend myself to the best of my abilities. I have "followed you around on WP when we have "bumped" in two articles, don't understand it. --AL (talk) 15:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you notify me on where must i go to defend myself against the vandalism and agenda accusations please? Thank you --AL (talk) 16:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear to be evident that your agenda to pursue me on Wikipedia deliberately and necessarily reverting and deleting edits I have made, confirmed by your conversation with Flat Out, who himself attempted to have me blocked from making edits to suit his personal vendetta against me but failed. Panhead2014 (talk) 16:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I conversed with FO because he was involved with you in those two articles, i did not report anything or suggested action (i apologize for the word "annoying", but maybe you are calling me "annoying" right now too, i don't mind - heck you're doing worse, you called me a VANDAL! And stop saying i am stalking you in WP, i am reverting you (and being reverted) in ONE article!

Now, again: please where am i going to be reported so that i can defend myself? --AL (talk) 16:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you reverted me again in Salgado even though i provided an explanatory summary, classic WP:OWNERSHIP. You may not think it (i am a vandal and a stalker to you, me who have never met you in real life and have wiki-known you for ONE WEEK), but i was actually trying to work as a team in Salgado's article, removing the Juninho incident altogether to please you and improve piece more with further refs. Sad you see me under that negative light (vandal, stalker).

Don't worry, now i stay true to my promise, i leave article in peace forever --AL (talk) 16:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the Salgado article I added clarification to a disjointed item that, in its briefness, didn't offer much to the reader, particularly those unfamiliar with the person.

You, pursuing your agenda against by following me around WP, editing and removing my contributions, made wholly unnecessary deletions that simply made no sense. It may make sense to you being a non-native English speaker, but this is an English WP. Please remember that. Panhead2014 (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know if that is really what you think (i am stalking you) and then you need to have that checked or you're just taunting me, but it's getting really annoying. I repeat, then leave you at peace forever and go directly to Busquets' talkpage and WP:FOOTY (please provide an opinion there, at least i redirect you, you are telling me you are going to report me and refuse to tell where is it going to happen so i can defend myself): i am not pro/anti Busquets/Juninho/Motta/Salgado, i support only one club (and not with all that fervour), Athletic Bilbao), i don't have any agenda against you i am only trying to improve pieces and it so happens we have different opinions, an iron-proof evidence i am willing to work with you is that I REMOVED the section in Salgado you did not want, replacing it with more "neutral" content (the other being "biased" in your opinion). Think what you will of me now!

Goodbye --AL (talk) 16:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I really can't understand a word of this. Panhead2014 (talk) 16:32, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A WORD? Sorry then, goodbye --AL (talk) 16:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've already said goodbye. Please stop your harassment unless you are prepared to discuss and justify why you feel the need to follow me around antagonising me by unnecessarily edited and deleting my valid contributions to WP. Thank you. Panhead2014 (talk) 16:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I break my promise to notify you of the discussion i have created at WP:FOOTY, please drop your opinion there (see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Sergio_Busquets_and_M.C3.ADchel_Salgado). --AL (talk) 16:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did not want to create this situation at all, only wanted to help not harass anyone. Sorry you do not believe me, now i stop writing i promise (please report me if i fail to comply with this promise). Sorry for any inconvenience --AL (talk) 18:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Míchel Salgado. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. Gringoladomenega (talk) 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Athletic Bilbao. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. Gringoladomenega (talk) 23 July 2014 (UTC)

The edit clearly is constructive and you're issue is with the contributor, not the content, You offer no justifiable reason for deleting my comment, which leads me to believe the purpose is related to another member contacting you about a problem he had with me. Panhead2014 (talk) 19:56, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop breaking the rules of Wikipedia 3RR [1] in Article.Gringoladomenega (talk) 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I request that you do the same. Panhead2014 (talk) 20:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3rr warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. --Gringoladomenega (talk) 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Please use Talk to discuss the necessity in removing the additions that I have made as it appears the only reason you do so is due to a personal vendetta you have against me. Thanks. Panhead2014 (talk) 20:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Recent unexplained edits

First of all: I explained EVERYTHING in the edit summary. If you don't agree, it's not my problem.

Second: I'm not the only one who thinks your additions are the unnecessary ones, AL and Gringoladomenega also share the same opinion as mine.

Third: Stop acting like everyone is against you, we only want a better WP, and you're trying to impose your opinion in Míchel Salgado, as you were doing in Sergio Busquets too.

MYS 77 ^✉ 20:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Salgado has 343 La Liga games in 14 seasons, not 342, did not understand that edit. But don't worry, your version stays, if the others want to revert you then that's not my business. --AL (talk) 20:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to impose my opinion, merely adding to the articles, you and you clique have taken exception and decided to strike up a vendetta against me, purposefully starting edit wars on articles i have contributed to.

Re: Salgado's appearances. 378 in total during his time in Spain, 36 were in Segunda. Panhead2014 (talk) 21:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BDFUTBOL.com is as reliable as it gets for Spanish footballers, they say 379 (343+36) in Spain but like i said your version stays. Regarding your umpteenth personal attack (now you say i have a clique (thank god WP for that, inserted word in the engine and voilà - you say i have a posse, a gang, to conspire against you)....note in the end of this message.

I was an editor of eight years, and contributed 99,999999% of the time on Portuguese and Spanish football. You have very few edits in comparison (nothing wrong with that, you edit as much as you want), not my fault two of those coincided with my field of choice (Spanish football). Please see how many edits and/or reversions i had in both Salgado and Busquets before i even had come across you, that'll show how much of a vendetta i have against you.

Final note: you say (verbatim, so i won't be accused of putting words in your mouth) "I am not trying to impose my opinion, merely adding to the articles, you and you clique have taken exception and decided to strike up a vendetta against me, purposefully starting edit wars on articles i have contributed to". So when you erase things you are adding to articles without imposing your opinion, when others re-add contents and/or akin they are harassing you and imposing their opinion, this is beyond any logic reasoning! You also say, in the discussion, you are not here to pay compliment to loonies like me (i can read between the lines), did not want to get a pat on the back, but would it harm you horribly to say "Finally we agree that that Salgado section is not needed, thanks for understanding my point of view" instead of repeatedly insulting me (and other users saw that too, but of course you'll say "they defended you because they're your clique)?

User MATTY007 also kindly asked of you to provide diffs on where i harassed or degraded you, of course of provided none. Please, no need to bother reporting me for breaking my promise and contacting you again, i have already followed the instructions at WP:VANISH but did not follow them properly, hence have asked for admin assistance (more clique-like behaviour right?). While i wait, now you can be confident i won't drop another line here (or at WP:FOOTY or at the discussion (like you say, harass). --AL (talk) 22:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No one has asked you to leave, or forced you to leave. Also, I have never said your comments "degraded [me]", whatever that is supposed to mean.

I have no interest in arguing with you, and have asked you to stop antagonising me, yet you still persist in instigating arguments and quarrels. Why? Why cannot you not understand that I just wish to contribute to WP articles and not argue with other members?

Please, you have, many times now, claimed you have nothing more to say and will drop it, so for once do it. By all means discuss the merits of edits through the appropriate channels, but please stop harassing me. Panhead2014 (talk) 22:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re: QED237 - I have sought an explanation from those who have pursued an aggressive campaign to edit my contributions, but none seem prepared to debate exactly what they oppose and why my contribution needs to be removed. Gringoladomenega seems to have deliberately sought to have me blocked over an edit I made at Athletic Bilbao. Replacing the word "Its" with "Athletic Bilbao" seems to really have perturbed him to the point where he continually reverts the edit and, despite the request for explanation, offers none other than to conspire with others. His "issue" with me seems to only have manifested after Always Learning contacted him for support.

Also seeking an explanation as to why the edits made on Michel Salgado upset members Gringoladomenega and MYS77. Panhead2014 (talk) 22:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Answered your "need of explanations" in WP:FOOTY. And if we have a "vendetta" against you, why we don't reverted ALL of your contributions? We just reverted three articles, but you continue to claim that we are "against you" and you "sees that everyone has a campaign to remove your contributions". Also, at least you stopped to offend other people, like you did to AL earlier today. MYS 77 ^✉ 23:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at Míchel Salgado. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:34, 24 July 2014 (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).

Panhead2014 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

There was nothing wrong with the addition a contributed to the Michel Salgado article. It was well written, well structured, valid and professional. It appears a group of "Wiki friends" have singled me out for a vendetta and pursued aggressively to revert and delete my contributions, often without explanation. They instigate edit warring then play the innocent party, what is it I have done that is different to "MYS77". It would be most welcome if you could offer further explanation as to why certain members are allowed to essentially bully contributors into submission simply because one of their allies is upset because they cannot have what they want, and further explanation why I have received a block. Thanks. Panhead2014 (talk) 01:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You were edit warring. You were warned not to. You continued to do so. Thus, you are blocked. The content of your edits in this regard is irrelevant. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 02:14, 24 July 2014 (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.

.

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).

Panhead2014 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Yes, interestingly the other parties have escaped punishment despite their aggressive edit warring on a variety of articles in their pursuit to antagonise em. Why is this? My behaviour was no different. Panhead2014 (talk) 02:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Despite the suggestion that you should read the guide to appealing blocks first, you failed to follow WP:NOTTHEM in your request reason. I see no reason to believe this block is not appropriate.—Bagumba (talk) 05:55, 24 July 2014 (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'll leave this for another admin to decide on, though the edit warring is pretty much a fact (on Sergio Busquets as well). I've been looking at your edits here, and I'm a bit shocked. Especially your comments on Talk:Sergio_Busquets#Champions_League_Incident_Revisited are ridiculous and over the top. I don't know where you usually hang out, but your kind of commentary is not acceptable here--it's one personal attack after another, adding a touch of irony to your complaint about bullying. If this unblock requested is accepted, or if the block expires, and you return to the same kind of behavior (in short, edit warring and personal attacks), you will find that a next block can be indefinite. Drmies (talk) 02:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As has been explained previously, there are no personal attack, please by all means point out what you consider "personal attacks". I will also point you in the direction here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive250#User:Panhead2014_reported_by_User:Chris_troutman_.28Result:_Declined.29

I would also request an unbiased admin be involved as you have a friendly relationship with "Always Learning" and I feel you haven't put that aside. I will point out this is not a personal attack, but an observation supported by the lack of action meted out to people like "MYS77" and "Gringoladomenega" also involved in what you call "edit warring". Thanks. Panhead2014 (talk) 02:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your first unblock request was denied by an uninvolved admin: I have taken no administrative action in regard to you. "As has been explained previously"--no, nothing has been explained previously, though you may claim it has been. Your very first comment on the Busquets talk page is already a personal attack: "suits your own personal agenda". On the FOOTY talk page, you say "Interesting to note now, that after Always Learning has taken it upon himself to contact other members to fight his corner, these same members are now purposefully making wholly unnecessary edits and revisions to the contributions that I have made"--even though the other editors there have pointed out a time or two that no personal attacks by AL were to be found. Au contraire, you have accused them of stalking you, and I presume it's him you're talking about when you said "hysterical over-reaction". I saw the AN3 report, but that's from over a week ago. In the meantime, on Athletic_Bilbao you're on--8R? 10R? Yes, your opponents don't look so great either, but that MSY editor has in the meantime been warned; you already were warned and should have known better--and your behavior was much worse in all those articles. If you're being reverted more than a couple of times by two different editors, it's probably time to stop. Drmies (talk) 02:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where I said AL personally attacked me, so I have no idea why you have invented that claim, nor do I see stating that I believe someone may have an "personal agenda" against me is a personal attack, and I have explained that previously on the various Talk pages where this accusation has been leveled at me, perhaps you should read everything rather than bits and pieces of your choosing. I really think that would help paint a more accurate picture of what has happened, but then I'm not sure you want to do that given AL has been knocking at your door proclaiming how outraged he was before his long drawn out self-indulgent exile. Also, it's interesting that you claim my behaviour was worse than two individuals who participated in an edit war, especially when they only started needlessly deleting my contribution after being alerted to the edits in the articles by AL, but that's another fact ignored. Enjoy your day. Panhead2014 (talk) 03:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Attacks aside, your entire contribution history is one of reverting wars with other people. As for their actions, it is irrelevant for your block, for you were blocked for your own actions and that should be your focus. Keep in mind, you do not have to revert 4 times to get blocked for edit warring, and if you return after your block and start reverting back without gaining consensus, even if you don't break the 3RR rule, you will be blocked again. Wikipedia isn't your personal battleground, and battleground behavior won't be tolerated. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 09:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So in summary; certain people are allowed to participate in edit warring, violate WP's 3RR, continue to delete references and ruin articles with disjointed English as long as they are part of a clique of non-native English speakers who believe they have exclusive contributory rights to certain articles? Thanks for clearing that up. Panhead2014 (talk) 00:44, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your behavior is extremely uncooperative and not in the spirit of WP at all. If you don't change that, you're heading full speed towards an indefinite block. --Randykitty (talk) 12:52, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My intentions and motivations were good, I was only interested in contributing towards the articles. There was no agenda or desire to "wikihound" or argue or bully as the others were, but as I have now discovered; the rules do not apply to certain individuals on WP. Panhead2014 (talk) 13:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Randykitty (talk) 18:01, 27 July 2014 (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).

Panhead2014 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Drmies identified that the contributions I have made since returning from the previous block were good and valid. If I am prohibited from contributing to certain articles then please make this clear as I can't see why cleaning up links, language and facts constitutes as "edit warring", particularly when certain others insist on ruining these perfectly fine contributions I have made. Ideally the opinion of an admin that hasn't previously been involved would be appreciated and clarification as to which article this edit warring violation occurred. Panhead2014 (talk) 18:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Unfortunately, you are again not leveraging the wisdom of the guide to appealing blocks, much like in your appeal from your previous block. Per Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks#Edit_warring_.28.22Three-revert_rule.22.29_blocks, "Being 'right' is not an exception to the three-revert rule, and claiming that your version is the 'better' version is not a reason that will get you unblocked." I suggest you become familiar with Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, and return as valuable contributor.—Bagumba (talk) 22:29, 27 July 2014 (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'm involved but have no opinion on the unblock. I will say, from experience, that if you have questions, you do better not asking in an unblock template and use the unblock template only for a request, following the advice in WP:GAB. Any unblock request that doesn't address the block itself will just be declined out of hand. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, DB, I presume this is the correct manner:

re: Bagumba and the block/appeal - Well thanks for responding, although I did request the opinion of an admin previously not involved. And just to make clear I have already read those links you've provided. Any chance you could inform me where this edit war occurred and this violation of the 3RR, as requested in the appeal? I don't believe either has been committed upon my return from the previous block, but if the admin could direct me to these violations then I may be able to reflect appropriately on it. Thanks. Panhead2014 (talk) 22:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Your view of "involved" differs from WP:INVOLVED. AFAIK, I have only interacted with you in your previous unblock request i.e. "purely in an administrative role". Feel free to seek another opinion if you must.—Bagumba (talk) 23:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So any chance you, or another admin, can clarify where these violations that resulted in my current block occurred? I believe this is now the third time I have requested such information. If I'm being blocked for edit warring and 3RR then I'd appreciate being directed to where it happened.

I accepted, upon reflection, my first block, the appeals were unwarranted as I can see my behaviour in participating with others in edit wars were wrong. Fine. This time seems excessively harsh. The reason about "seeking a consensus" and "discuss controversial changes" makes little, or no sense in the context of what I added or changed in the articles since returning from the previous block. Thanks. Panhead2014 (talk) 23:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm involved, I won't review but let me offer you this: No links, no wordy policies, just a common sense view on how we view "edit warring". We do have a policy that says if you revert 4x in 24 hours on the same article, you can be blocked. It is considered a "bright line rule", blah blah blah. The common sense view is that if you revert a bunch of times back and forth with someone, you are edit warring. Sometimes one gets blocked, sometimes both, sometimes neither. It is complicated, but there are usually reasons why it is that way, but that isn't the reason for this discussion. Once you have been blocked for edit warring, you can expect a bunch of people are watching your edits very, very closely for a while after you get unblocked. Think about it, it makes since, if you are known for a problem, we want to make sure you don't continue doing the same thing. If you DO go back to reverting back and forth, we don't wait until the magic count of 4 or whatever, as we see it as a continuation of the previous reason you got blocked. Whether someone thinks it is right or wrong doesn't matter, that is simply how it is.

Now, we don't block for multiple reverts just because we are jerks that like reading policy and blocking people. I know, it might seem that way, but really most of us aren't. We do it because all this reverting is very frustrating for people who are just trying to edit and discuss, have a good time while improving articles on people they like. It is a hobby, and one that is ruined when people are fighting over edits. So the more a person edit wars, the less we tolerate it from them in the future. Keep that in mind.

The way to get unblocked and stay unblocked is to pledge and live up to the ideas of 1RR. If you want to revert an edit, ok, revert, but don't ever revert that edit again. Go to the talk page, present your case, invite the other editor whom you were warring with. If they revert you back, live with it until the discussion is over. If you must be the bigger man, then be the bigger man. It takes more time, but less time than getting blocked and waiting a week. One of three things will happen: 1. You will see his point of view, and leave his edit in. 2. He will see your point of view, and leave your edit in. 3. You will not agree, and decide to take it to WP:3O or WP:DRN and get outside opinions. This is an encyclopedia, not a personal blog, this is how we do things, by community consensus. We are part of a family of contributors. People who can't work with others, they don't last long and eventually get indef blocked. People who make mistakes but learn from them, they become helpful contributors, whom other editors will listen to as they gain experience. It is that simple. Not always easy to do, but it is that simple. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:37, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So basically, any article I was a contributor on before my first block for 3RR violation, I need to seek discourse in the Talk section to edit things like damaged links or bad grammar? Panhead2014 (talk) 23:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You seek consensus when someone has reverted you, regardless of reason. If you make edits, and I revert you, it means I disagree with you, and policy says that you and I are equals, so neither is automatically right. If you go to the talk page and present your case in a paragraph and revert it back, then I go and just revert you yet again without discussing it, then I'm the asshole, not you, as you have shown you are trying to work on consensus and I haven't. I would risk getting blocked. Regular edits that aren't reverted don't need explaining via WP:BOLD, although a good edit summary is a good idea. If no one reverts you, you can assume that means they agree by their inaction. Most of the time, that is the case, so we don't worry about it at all. Or maybe they agree, but tweak your edit just a little and fix the grammar. That is cool, that is what a Wiki is for. Edits that are reverted, however, should be discussed via WP:BRD. Even though I'm an admin, my edits are worth no more than yours, so if you and I disagree, we are equally obligated to make a good faith effort to discuss the disagreement instead of just reverting each other back and forth, hoping the other person tires out. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted you

You have uploaded a copyrighted image claiming that it is "Public Domain". Just because it appears on Facebook does not make it "Public Domain". That was a copyrighted image, and you may never upload copyrighted images to Wikipedia or elsewhere as it's theft. I have removed the image from the article, but you must delete the image from Wikipedia Ciao Mane (talk) 00:41, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, apologies. I will delete this photo and find a suitable one. Panhead2014 (talk) 00:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

August 2014

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Edit summaries like you used here when erasing comments placed by MYS77 are unacceptable. Randykitty (talk) 21:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yet acceptable to label people "idiots"? Panhead2014 (talk) 22:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removed commons link for Dafne Schippers

Why did you undo my edit of the Dafne Schippers article? – Editør (talk) 13:22, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, Editør it was a mistake, I edited the wrong thing. I went back later to reinstated it, but one of my fans had already done so. Panhead2014 (talk) 13:53, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, no problem. Thanks for clearing it up. – Editør (talk)

Disambiguation link notification for August 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2014 European Athletics Championships, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pierre Vincent. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mo Farah

Hello. Rather than continually deleting the source I provide to back up the content I wrote, can you explain why you feel the need to remove it as it appears to me you are trying to instigate an edit war. Thanks. Panhead2014 (talk) 20:36, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You added a bare url that only mentioned half of what was actually ailing Farah. It wasn't just a tooth problem, but a stomach ailment as well. I fixed both that bare url and his actual ailments with a new ref, yet you re-added the same bare url. That is not helpful and also goes against WP:CITEKILL. I'm assuming you didn't know this, but now you do. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 20:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. I should point out to you though, as it was something else you deleted without explanation. Mo never had an infected tooth, the infection occurred after the tooth was removed. The edit you made to my contribution is very misleading and incorrect. I have adjusted this accordingly, I trust you will not feel the need to remove this again.

I have also added a reputable source of information from the BBC which includes the interview he gave explaining his decision to withdraw from the CWG, including quotes from the man himself. I have therefore removed that piece you have added from Gulf Daily News using the WP:CITEKILL regulation you stated. If you feel this is a problem then perhaps it would be best to start a discussion in Talk. Thanks. Panhead2014 (talk) 21:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually the Bahraini Gulf Daily News that indicates that Farah pulled out due to a stomach illness, not me [2]. That said, the BBC piece is ok. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 21:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]