User talk:PukeHoopster81

July 2024

Your recent editing history at Counties Manukau (National Provincial Championship) 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; read about 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. —C.Fred (talk) 21:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

excuse me, there is no "edit" war, The information the are reverting to is incompete.

So is one not allowed to correct things anymore? please advise on how best to move forward, as the verison I have created is the full historical version of the teams history.

Has this other user also been flagged? I'd like to be made aware of that situation before its only labelled to me.

Please explain this further as I'm concerned. the other users information that are replacing mine with is not correct. PukeHoopster81 (talk) 21:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the message stated, the way to proceed is to discuss the situation at the article's talk pages and only move forward with changes after consensus is reached there. —C.Fred (talk) 21:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted that with the user and the response from them I am getting is "Your disrupting the page". they are not even attempting to respond with an agreement as such.

The page should be used or seen as a historical page for the team. The history goes back to when the said team started, this other user saying I'm disrupting the page - based on what?

they are using this idea the team as such was formed in 2006, that is not correct, nor did the compeition start in 2006. I for one am not "disrupting" anything. I am adding factual data of the teams history. is that not something expected by wikipedia, I don't understand how I have got a block for doing so. The revert as you correctly put it, is to place the full factual information of teams history back on the page. My intention was not cause a problem, but as a user who follows the said team, make sure its correct statisical wise.

There is a link called rugbydump or rugby history that I have sourced statistics from, however when trying to refence this link - wiki actually states it can't be used. are you able to explain that further? as this is a correct database for stats. Much like how for basketball or soccer you'd go to fiba or fifa as such. PukeHoopster81 (talk) 22:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to follow up - your reinstatment of the orginal topic - is factually wrong. I give up on wikipedia, its full of people who don't even understand the topics they are editing.

People such as myself have blocks applied or information reversed, even though we attempt to source it PukeHoopster81 (talk) 22:02, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not it's factually wrong, it's the status quo ante version of the article. Until there is some discussion about the article—like the scope of the article (all CM sides, CM sides in the NFC from the formation of the NFC in 1976, or some subset because of the two incarnations of the NFC). —C.Fred (talk) 22:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no longer interested in this page, the status quo your going to use contains information that doesn't alinge with the page.

The top point scorer and top try scorer as such, if they stick with status quo, have never played for the 2006 team so it should be removed. PukeHoopster81 (talk) 22:13, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been refered to as obtuse by another user, I really don't appreciate this kind of talk in such an environment. Its totally uncalled for. I would hope something in future is done about this kind of slander or were I come slur talk. PukeHoopster81 (talk) 22:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As it appears my account has been suspended or banned, is one able to enquire how long a request to be unbanned can take? I have attempted to contact the user / mod (what ever the correct saluation is required) to no response. I appreciate there is no place to pester them with repeated requests, but it would be helpful to note, the initial reverseal of my information I added was not supplied a talk page topic asking me who I was or where I got the info of. its clear has you have stated above repeated attempts lead to a ban as such. My intention has has been from the start, is to place information on the said page to provide it with more data. Nothing more. in the process I have been blocked and words used against me that are not ok in a public space. PukeHoopster81 (talk) 02:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What sources did you attempt to add with this edit? I see no references added in that diff. – Pee Jay 22:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of hard to add anything sourced when you keep removing it.

I'm sure if I tried to add the 2024 team when its settled in two weeks time, it will just be removed too.

You've done a great job at shunning away a person trying to get the correct information on the team out there. PukeHoopster81 (talk) 22:18, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't added any sourced information to the page. None. If you'd ever provided a link to a published source that supports your edits, we wouldn't be having this problem. Instead, you're just coming in and making unsubstantiated changes based on your own personal feelings. – Pee Jay 22:23, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again - really hard to do anything on this page when your information is being removed before your even finished editing it.

The information provided has nothing to do with "feelings" once again using a buzz word to suit your narative.

https://www.rugbyhistory.co.nz/player/alan-j-dawson

never played for the 2006 team as your suggestng this page is - yet listed on the page as the teams top try scorer...how, never played for the team your attempting to navigate this page to.

https://www.rugbyhistory.co.nz/player/daniel-a-n-love

never played for the 2006 team your refering to on this page - yet is listed as the teams top point scorer ...how can a person that didn't play in 2006 or after be the teams top point scorer?

also labelling me as a slur of obtuse - please keep your comments to yourself. PukeHoopster81 (talk) 22:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should provide sources at the same time as you make your edits, not after. It's very easy to say "I'm not done yet" when you get called out, but when you do get called out, the remedy is not to restore your faulty version but to go back to the drawing board and provide the sources in your very next edit. Instead you're just throwing your toys out of your pram and crying that people aren't letting you edit the way you want. And no, I didn't call you obtuse, I said you were acting obtuse, neither of which is a slur. I suggest you look up that word before using it again as it has some pretty strong connotations. – Pee Jay 22:43, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

again buzz words "faulty".

i didn't use the word in refering to as a slur - you did. its totally uncalled for. I suggest you perhaps seek some medical help, rather heap your issues onto another user. Nobody was called out, you've only done this after you were citied for changes. I had already started a chat, which you didn't respond before making your own personal edit again. As mentioned to c.fred one of the sources I had used appears to be blocked by wiki and I'm still awaiting an answer as to why this is has been done. In the meantime, before you arrived on the scene, my information was pulled and no talk was started by another user.

In future - you don't need to label me any kind of word you feel in your head describes me, keep your opinions about how you feel about another to yourself. your now simply back tracking.

Your label of "the right version" when you first changed my edit - based on what grounds exactly? never listed as a talk topic on the page, just removed data and moved on. PukeHoopster81 (talk) 22:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You were called out by User:Rugbyfan22 and me for making bad edits. And the word I suggest you look up is "slur", since you clearly don't know what it means. I'll also point @C.Fred in the direction of your suggestion that I "seek some medical help". I doubt that will go down well. – Pee Jay 22:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I've made the suggestion you should, because it concerns me your actions in terms of words labling me a slur which was obtuse, suggests to me your projecting something that is possibly bothering you personally on to me. I'm not sure why your doing this, therfore i "suggested" maybe find some assistance for that issue.

already assuming something "won't go down well" - again using buzz words for someone to check up on something that isn't actually happening. PukeHoopster81 (talk) 22:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're just proving time and time again that you don't know what a slur is. No one has used a slur against you. – Pee Jay 23:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trying taking an actual step back and understanding that there is no need to use any term in the first place. PukeHoopster81 (talk) 00:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You were being obtuse. If you find it offensive that someone identified your conduct as such, that’s your problem. – Pee Jay 00:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no its not, its an uncalled for term that isn't needed in the space of people working together. as "suggested" you seem to know have a personal issue of labling other users. You can actually refrain from using it toward myself or other users in future. PukeHoopster81 (talk) 00:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also the edits you suggest are "bad" is your opinion only. Adding the full historical scope of the team isn't bad. Another buzz word wrong used.

I'm sure if I go start another page titled Counties or such their of "before 2006" you'll attempt to have it removed. It's clear what is happening here. PukeHoopster81 (talk) 23:00, 1 July 2024 (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 review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 00:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted to explain the situation to you below. I will await your outcome. Its really disapointing to have this happen, given that the edits I have placed on there are not at disruptive, given the history of the team and my started discussion topics. I was also labeled a term by a user that I don't feel has a place in this shared community. I wasn't aware at the time that reinstating such edits was frowned upon. I'm aware now after discussion with moderating users its not best practice. But i don't feel a blanket ban is required. I have appealed and hope this ban is over turned. I'm only trying to add factual data that I am waiting references on. thank you for your time. PukeHoopster81 (talk) 01:10, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The IP address that has now also been banned on here, in the ban logs contains a situation where something about the PM or president of India has been changed and the topic has been challenged. I'm quite happy to suggest I have no connection to such page or any interest in changing a political page in a country I have never visited, Thats very concerning to me its been listed against my IP address and I would ask that, that detail is please removed. I'm not sure why i'm having that pinned on my ip? It would be great if someone can explain that. PukeHoopster81 (talk) 06:49, 2 July 2024 (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).

PukeHoopster81 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Suggestive edits

Decline reason:

This request is incoherent; you will need a much more expansive and explanatory request than this. 331dot (talk) 08:01, 2 July 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'm in current discussion with a user to fix this solution has uncalled suggestive words have been used toward me.

I was in conversation with user C.Fred whom has laid out some guidelines for me moving forward. PukeHoopster81 (talk) 01:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

is it possible to ask in terms of something being overturned how long this process may take? mod user Fred.C has outlined to me what is required moving forward and I'm aware of the actions made and what its trigged in terms of a response. I would only hope that moving forward I'm able to have my account reinstated, but I'm also not ok with other users making suggestive derogatory comments towards my person as such. I did point this out as not being ok and they continued to use it several more times. I would only hope this user has also been cautioned. I don't believe the space of wiki is one that users alike should be subject to such comments anywhere. thank you PukeHoopster81 (talk) 02:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a volunteer project, so it can take days or weeks to have an unblock request reviewed. It strikes me as extremely unlikely that you'll be unblocked for the request reason of "suggestive edits." You really need to read WP:GAB as Bbb23 suggested above.

And no, someone saying that someone is "acting obtuse," is not all that serious, especially in the context given. PeeJay was clearly discussing the consensus/history of the page, and you then angrily demanded to know who "we" was, when it seems to be quite clear. You then described consensus, a basic part of how Wikipedia works, as a "folklore group," and if anyone has upped the hostile atmosphere of those exchanges, it's primarily been you. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 05:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, in response to your comment - the "we" was not made clear at all until I asked who it was and again "Angrily"? so asking a simple question now is also being taken out of context.

How in what context does one assume "we" means a group of people or anything specific? I did describe it as folklore you are correct, perhaps for a lack of a better word. Sure the user is not wrong about citing and sources, no drama. But given the orginal topic I started was not even replied and then suggested describing word to my lack of whatever is used, but of course as per usual I'm wrong again. I've noticed since joining wiki in May, there seems to a lot of action toward new users to really pile on to them they are wrong. So here have a user that repeated uses a term towards me that is actually degrading (make what of it you want, respectfully I don't care) and is able to use it several times.

Its been made super clear this space is not for everyone and anyone new attempting to do something, gosh don't dare make a single mistake or you'll get burnt. The page continues to habour information that doesn't pretain to stated history and by the looks of things if you attempt change it it will be just be revoked back. Always good to know wikipedia is so welcoming and the use of degrading terms is widly accepted.

of course someone will skim read this taken into some context I somehow no longer want to be here and wont change the ban. hecitc.

For whats its worth a ban with no end insight is pretty extreme in the context. but of course I'm sure my pov will be knocked back. PukeHoopster81 (talk) 06:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since you appear to want to continue down this path, I don't really think I have anything to add. Best of luck to you. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 09:00, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Im not really sure what "appears to continue with said path" exactly points to? you asked me to explain more - what more would you like to see me write in response? The responses are either so open ended there is nothing that can match it or like your reply "best of luck to you" dead ended? Luck has nothing to do with anything. Someone / said mod will either unblock me or not, it would be better to understand what is required in terms of a response to be unblocked. My comments towards how I've been treated - great so a person is now to allowed to express how they being treated? so your also surpressing my claim? is it just normal for people to go around using describing words to belittle people when the please? ands that just accepted practice is it? noted.

Short and clear answer is you've blocked me or which ever mod has blocked me and no matter what argument I present - factual, wrong, right, inside outside upside down it really doesn't matter does it - I would ask apart from getting amusement but most probably arosed by the control you feel you have over another user your simply not going to unblock me regardless.

I'm sure though you'll find some topic that will again be cited / flagged or "suggestive" comments toward said mod or some other situation you can use. PukeHoopster81 (talk) 09:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think their point is that you don't seem to realise how you are not blameless for how this situation has panned out. Unless you acknowledge what you've done wrong, there's no point in them engaging any further with you. – Pee Jay 15:13, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The request to lift the ban placed on this account has nothing to do with you and you can refrain from commenting on page in future. I don't appreciate the terms / describing words you used against me in previous messages, they are unwarranted and not required. I have not applied to you as a user to remove the ban, thefore again your comment is not required. thanks PukeHoopster81 (talk) 20:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, if you want to wallow in your own ignorance, feel free. But if you want your unblock request to be considered, maybe open yourself up to other people’s way of thinking and the possibility that you’re wrong. – Pee Jay 21:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

PukeHoopster81 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

One would only hope that after reading the guildlines C.Fred provided to me and that the information that was attempting to supply was only factual they would see that my doing were an error of not actually knowing till it was already to far gone a ban could be placed. I started a topic chat as suggested, the said user then used words to describe me which them attempted to belittle me (obtuse and a "kid" I don't believe there is any place for this. I'm more than willing to provide sourced and reference material for the edits, but im more concerned that not matter what is added, factual or not it will just be removed. C.Fred started another great chat topic, which I responded to and was met with answer from the other user that didn't assist it. The other user spoke of a group of between, im still unbeknown to that apparently agreed how to edit said page and other said pages listed on the site. I see no evidence of this agreement and when I questioned it, this is the derogatory term against me was used. I really don't have anything more to add. Im aware in terms of adding data with no references I made a mistake, what I was not aware of at the time, was that it trigged an issue or reversing information is not how to do it. However I did start a chat topic and the replies were dead end. So your now your left with a page that has incomplete information about a topic its very clear the said editor isn't really familiar with at all, historically wise. I called upon the issue of the top points scorer and most tries holder to be removed because they don't play for the in the said time frame the page is listed to explain. They replied saying they haven;t got a clue what I'm talking about - 100% correct answer, because they simply don't understand the history of the page. Are they going to create sub pages for the teams history before this agreed date they've made for themseleves? I noticed on another page I was editing they've moved the data there. How is that able to be moved if as they say its unsourced and not referenced? there seems to be a lot of do what I say and not do what I do on here. Its truely sad and I feel my energy will be better used on a different platform. I really don't feel that an unlimted or no ends ban is really something that was needed to be applied in the first place. If the ban is to stick, then I would like to seek information and guideance as to how I can extract the info I have uploaded on here. there are many other platforms that could use this information, are more welcoming and would like to use it. this has been a really terrible experience as a newish user to be labelled a derogatory term / slur / suggestive mental capicity term and its embarrasing to be in the mix with people who think that its ok to write these kind of messages to people. There is no angry intent as also suggested about my reply. When someone says to you "its clearly obvious who we is" and you ask who we is, why is a derogatory term then needed to be used?

Decline reason:

This is not an unblock request. See WP:GAB; this wall of text does not help fresh eyes (i.e., other admins) determine whether your block should be lifted. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 16:36, 2 July 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.

PukeHoopster81 (talk) 08:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock

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).

PukeHoopster81 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I've attempted several times to have this block lifted, I've not provided info and then have provided info, each time the follow up has been a different set of rules. I simply have no idea what your asking of me in terms of what information you want me to supply. I understand now after the fact what I was doing was not how to go about it. However I did raise a topic and got replied to with words that belittled me and described things about my person that didn't need to be spoken about. So at this point I'm unware of what I'm suppose to write. I realy dont need any more input from said user PeeJay, they have nothing helpful to offer my page. If the ban is not to be lift, then I have no further need to be on this page. I simply don't understand what exactly it is your looking for. I have it explained to me by mod C.Fred, what more do you want? thanks

Decline reason:

You could start by addressing your edit warring. PhilKnight (talk) 18:45, 4 July 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.

PukeHoopster81 (talk) 20:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is not an unblock request and a continued waste of our time. TPA revoked.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]