User talk:Simba1409

Welcome[edit]

Hey, I'm not sure if you have been editing under an IP address prior to signing up for this account as it seems you are good at using the talk pages to propose changes, but either way welcome.

If you are inclined, there are a couple of projects you might be interested in joining or just having a look at, Wikiproject Football dealing with soccer/football on a world scale as well as Wikiproject Football in Australia for Australian soccer/football subjects.

Let me know if I can help with any questions at all and I hope you stick around as productive editors on Australian football topics are always very welcome and needed! Camw (talk) 07:24, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lionel Messi's position[edit]

Please join the discussion I have started here. Regards, Giant Snowman 00:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MESSI[edit]

Hi SIMBA, VASCO from Portugal,

Yes, that is what i said to User:Picolotto in his talk page, in my mothertongue which is Portuguese, so don't worry i agree with you!

Main position winger, second position striker, so it should be "Winger / Striker" or "Striker / Winger" in infobox - but not center forward, he can not be classified as that (examples of center forwards are Jan Koller, Julio Salinas, Mário Jardel, Hugo Almeida, etc, etc).

Happy editing, VASCO - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 01:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Simba1409. You have new messages at Talk:List of Ratchet & Clank characters.
Message added 02:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

–Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:15, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3RR[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Association football. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Woody (talk) 10:26, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

March 2010[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Association football. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Darkwind (talk) 22:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Future of WikiProject Association Football in Australia[edit]

There is a discussion on the future direction of WikiProject Association Football in Australia. To view the discussion see here. You have received this message because you are listed as a member of the WikiProject. Hack (talk) 06:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree[edit]

You were right to remove that paragraph in Sport in Australia regarding soccer in summer, etc. It was unsourced, and contained a lot of speculation. I should have separated that from the earlier reverts. HiLo48 (talk) 08:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 08:30, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 2011[edit]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Soccer in Australia. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Calling other editors "no-life idiots" will not further the discussion in any way. Ignorant Armies 11:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of David Donovan for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article David Donovan is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Donovan until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

331dot (talk) 13:25, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

October 2021[edit]

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Donovan) for a period of 1 week for Disruptive editing/bludgeoning. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Star Mississippi 14:44, 4 October 2021 (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).

Simba1409 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

There was no right to implement this block. I have made my case to keep the article from deletion, as is my right. I have responded to reasons as to why the page should be deleted, as is my right. In both these cases I have acted in good faith. The other contributors have attacked me for being a sockpuppet with no evidence, I have responded to these accusations and pointed out that this is not relevant to the discussion of the deletion of the page. I have asked others to not make these accusations and wait for the SPI investigation to conclude (although it actually appears to not even be occurring?) as it is not up to those arguing FOR deletion to judge/investigate me and is really an unfair attempt to delegitimise my argument against deletion. The block now completely silences me from contributing further, having noted that I would look for further sources that I believe to be out there I will no longer be able to add these sources; although I have had no time to do this as of yet and naturally responding to sock puppet accusations and now this unfair block have eaten into my wikipedia time. I find it it brazen that I have received a block (without warning) whilst those attacking me in the discussion (whilst I have tried to keep it on topic) have received nothing. Surely there a rules against making claims against a user in a discussion over and over? I ask for this block to be reviewed impartially with consideration to the fact whilst I have made the most edits in that discussion, if accusations of sock puppetry were not made over and over, these additional edits would not exist. I also ask for the SPI investigation to actually be completed so the false accusations can stop being made. Thankyou. Simba1409 (talk) 06:50, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

"The block now completely silences me from contributing further .." No, you're only blocked from that one AfD. There are a lot of other interesting things out there you might find worthy of your time and more satisfying. Live a little. For now. — Daniel Case (talk) 04:47, 6 October 2021 (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 accepted the request.

Simba1409 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I find it extremely rude that you have denied my unblock request without addressing the points I raised. In fact, you entirely ignore my points, instead choosing to mock me. Is this the standard of which Wikipedia treats users? You know very well that I was referring to that particular deletion discussion and it is entirely true and factual that I have been blocked from contributing to it further - meanwhile one particular user continues to water down the actual article to help make their case.

You also didn't even mention my request for the SPI to actually occur (it appears to be stalled entirely). To be fair you may not have to ability to act on this but you could have at least mentioned it.

I'd like this block to actually be reviewed properly by addressing the points I have made as to why the block should not have been given, rather than an unnecessary condescending response.

Thank you. Simba1409 (talk) 06:11, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

As this AfD has been closed, this block is moot. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:44, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@El C:, @Bishonen: or @Bradv:, would either of you review the lad's second unblock request, concerning the AFD-in-question. It expires on Oct 11, 2021 but he's been waiting three days for a judgement. GoodDay (talk) 13:27, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He's only blocked from one page. He's at liberty to discuss the sourcing issues raised on the actual article, and of course he can continue to make entertaining edits on football pages. --Pete (talk) 21:54, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop stalking me. As you would say yourself 'stay off my talk page'. Simba1409 (talk) 22:06, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Independent Australia (October 10)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Independent Australia and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Independent Australia, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 16:27, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Simba1409! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Theroadislong (talk) 16:27, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

April 2023[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Monique Ryan. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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 and 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. See WP:BRD on dealing with content disputes. ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 13:03, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two edits is not an edit war. Grow up. It was me who suggested we take it to the talk page. Get off your high horse. Simba1409 (talk) 10:26, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Edit warring#What edit warring is. An edit war is when you deviate from the WP:BRD cycle. Rather than re-reverting you should have taken the edit conflict to the talk page. ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 10:28, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Editors who engage in edit warring are liable to be blocked from editing to prevent further disruption to the affected page. While any amount of edit warring may lead to sanctions, there is a bright-line rule called the three-revert rule (3RR), the violation of which will usually be considered edit warring, and often leads to the user engaging in the behavior to be blocked."

I made two edits, get off your high horse, if you were silly enough to edit again I would have taken it to talk. Simba1409 (talk) 10:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, nevertheless, I encourage you to read WP:Consensus, in particular the Consensus-building section and the flow chart. ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 10:39, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I directed YOU to the talk page. I encourage you to not throw around edit war warnings when the criteria has not been met. Simba1409 (talk) 10:42, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But you didn't follow the BRD cycle. There is an ongoing discussion in about the edit here if you would like to participate. ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 10:47, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But I wasn't engaged in an edit war. I obviously don't use Wikipedia as often as you do, when frequent users start throwing around edit war accusations when the criteria hasn't been met, that certainly doesn't help retain editors. Simba1409 (talk) 10:50, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. The warning was meant to be just that, a warning. Again, please see BRD on how to deal with edit disputes. ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 10:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New message from GMH Melbourne[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Monique Ryan. ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 13:11, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Simba1409 This is for your information that GMH Melbourne has requested 3'rd opinion at Talk:Monique Ryan as no one else has taken up yet that one I am about to take that for providing third opinion.

@GMH Melbourne though I have intimated Simba1409 of your request, as per WP:DR and WP:3O you are supposed to convey concerned users for newly initiated WP:DR discussions. Pl keep that in mind next time. Bookku (talk) 08:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Simba1409 3rd opinion has been provided at the article talk page. Wish you happy editing. Bookku (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deprodding of Rugg v Ryan[edit]

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from Rugg v Ryan, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the page. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 11:13, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest[edit]

Hello, Simba1409. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on the page Monique Ryan, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. ––– GMH MELBOURNE TALK 02:28, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is you who has the conflict of interest User:GMH_Melbourne

I have an interest in politics, I edited your input on the Rugg vs Ryan legal case on Monique Ryan's page to remove irrelevant and biased information. You changed it back and accused me of engaging in an edit war despite my edits not meeting the three-revert rule.

Nevertheless, I moved the discussion to the talk page. You requested a third opinion. Another user provided a very detailed analysis in support of my changes. Instead of engaging with the third opinion provider, you put your version back on the page in a brazen bypassing of Wikipedia processes and guidelines.

I reverted back and quite fairly (given your actions and desire to only include the accusations against Ryan in your article) suggested there might be political bias at play on your part.

You then, not satisfied with the outcome created a new page for the legal case. A poorly written article that was not up to date on the interlocutory ruling and once again only included the accusations against Ryan (and none against Rugg).

I put the page up for deletion, suggesting that it does not meet notability guidelines and you (the page creator), removed it. I have now continued on to other deletion processes for your article. Currently, the only other participant in the discussion agrees with me so you retaliate again and come here to accuse me of a conflict of interest.

Your projection is strong. Given your obsession with this court case and desire to only include information from the case that could reflect poorly on Ryan and the amount of Liberal Party pages you have created and contributed too, it is quite clear to me that your input on Ryan's page and the creation of a new page for the legal case comes from a place of political bias.

You have every right to create and contribute heavily to topics that interest you (such as Liberal Party politicians) and your work on Victorian politics more broadly is a credit to you. Your work certainly exceeds my minor contributions but you do not have the right to use Wikipedia to express your political bias.

And you certainly don't have a right to project a conflict of interest onto me, when in this situation it is you who has the conflict. Simba1409 (talk) 03:53, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After weighing in on the AfD, somehow I'm only now reading this thread as well as the lengthy saga at Talk:Monique Ryan. I have two questions:

User:Simba1409 can you answer definitively whether there is any substance at all to the allegation of conflict of interest (in any form, including paid edits)? You skirted the issue above.
User:Simba1409 do you object to putting information garnered from the secondary coverage of the trial (subject to WP:RS, WP:BALANCE WP:UNDUE, WP:OR, all the policies.) onto either or both of Monique Ryan's and Sally Rugg's pages? There's a short bit on Sally Rugg but it's not up to date.

I am not here to mediate or weigh in on the inter-editor friction evidenced by your interactions. My goals are:

- not to get dragged into one part of a dispute while the two of you fight elsewhere about it in other ways; and

- to suggest, in a small way, User:GMH_Melbourne's near-term interest in having this dispute documented on Wikipedia could be met on the person-pages. Oblivy (talk) 09:59, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have a conflict of interest on this matter. Simba1409 (talk) 12:25, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Oblivy (talk) 12:38, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]