User talk:Snackbag

--Snackbag (talk) 20:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beckingham Palace

We know he doesn't live there any more, that's why the infobox says 1999-2012. – Pee Jay 14:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at David Beckham. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. QED237 (talk) 17:25, 13 May 2015 (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:Snackbag reported by User:Qed237 (Result: ). Thank you. QED237 (talk) 17:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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. only (talk) 22:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have very deceitful double standards. Qed237 kept on reverting on the very same page without providing any opposing evidence and breached the very same 3 revert rule, yet you did not block him at all. I always substantiated my amendments but he never did. You are obviously not fit to be an administrator of anything. Most Wikipedia admins are of a very poor standard and poor ethics --Snackbag (talk) 22:45, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Qed237 has 3 reverts on the article....that doesn't break the rule. You have six reverts on the article today...that does break the rule. only (talk) 22:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've got obvious double standards. 3 or more reverts breaches the rule, and now you've tried to lie your way out of it. The standards of Wiki admins is SO remarkable low. --Snackbag (talk) 23:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me quote the policy: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." The key here is "more than three" which is different from your "three or more" interpretation. I've made no attempt to lie here. only (talk) 23:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has ended up opposing the reverts I made, which were 100% justified and factually correct. The reverts were necessitated by people who were being purposefully obstructive without good reason. Nobody should be blocked when they are entirely correct. --Snackbag (talk) 10:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the fact that three separate editors reverted you (and no one reverted those users but you) and the discussion at Talk:David_Beckham#Malaria_no_more, I'd say your categorization of your edits is incorrect. But, regardless of your edits being "correct" or not, you're not allowed to engage in edit wars and break 3RR. If you find yourself in an edit war in the future, step back and discuss on the talk page or seek outside opinions through dispute resolution processes. Don't continue to revert, regardless of how correct you think your edits are. only (talk) 10:54, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Beckham obsessives reverted without any factual justification as is very apparent from what they wrote. They reverted solely to try to maintain a positive and delusional view of Beckham. Most of my reverts are no longer being challenged, p[roving that I was entirely right. The only remaining dispute has already been proven to be correct in my favour. Going to talk page usually means some twat at the end simply not agreeing without reason. YOu did not decribe what they did as edit warring - it was only me. I gave reasons they did NOT. I adhered to the facts. They did not. One of them even inexplicably claimed that Beckham IS a footballer even though he retired 2 years ago ! --Snackbag (talk) 14:13, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

what?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=North_American_Soccer_League&diff=665471077&oldid=665471049

The comment you made is odd. The anon is edit warring and three editors have reverted the anon's changes, yet you reverted to the anons edits: the person who was edit warring. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the box containing championship GAME information, the number of total teams in the league is not relevant. You are not justifying your edit while multiple users have reverted back to the correct format where total teams is not shown. Kevinkwc (talk) 15:21, 4 June 2015 (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:Snackbag reported by User:Lukeno94 (Result: ). Thank you. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:51, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015

Your recent editing history at David Beckham shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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 your 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. Qed237 (talk) 14:57, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are being deceitful. I don't see opposing evidence at all on the article or on the talk page. The edit warrers are not me !!--Snackbag (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for continued edit-warring at David Beckham and continued personal attacks. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 16:17, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]