User:LightningMan/Edit Blocks

PBL
Why do you continue to undo my hard work? I spent a lot of time and effort redoing the PBL page. You have no justification to do that.(Sportslogo (talk) 18:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC))

ABA
Again, I'm trying to make the pages more organized. The work you put out there is all over the place and pretty much boring. My work is neat, organized, and cited.(Sportslogo (talk) 18:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC))
 * Either try and fix the errors or fix it. You continue to delete citated work. For example, Detroit Panthers owe money. You continue to the delete that.(Sportslogo (talk) 20:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC))
 * The Detroit Panthers are in the PBL now and whether or not they owe money to people is not relevant to the ABA or PBL article and I would charge not even relevant to the Detroit Panthers article. And I did fix your errors, by reverting your edits. LightningMan (talk) 21:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Why can't you keep the tables, and fix the errors? For example, you keep on insisting the current teams with ABA pasts. Reading Railers? Really? Quad City? Really? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sportslogo (talk • contribs) 21:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not my fault the league still lists both as members of the league. Take it up with them. LightningMan (talk) 21:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Show me a example of error that I made on PBL and ABA changes? Please, I added the arenas and cities. I broke down the year by year teams. Why can you not keep these changes and fix the errors or at least point out the errors?(Sportslogo (talk) 21:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC))
 * I have already pointed out one error: you contracting the league before the league has announced the contractions. Next, your year to year breakdown was incorrect.  Next, the league venues are handled in template associated with the arenas and on the individual page of the individual teams.  And it's not up to me to fix your errors.  It's up to you not to put erroneous information up in the first place.  And your charts make the page way too long adding no benefit to the page. LightningMan (talk) 21:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, so I fixed the errors. Why can't we have the team and arena breakdown like every league? (Sportslogo (talk) 21:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC))
 * Do one, do it in one edit, and don't change anything else. LightningMan (talk) 21:27, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

And fix the errors in your table! LightningMan (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What errors in the table? Please explain, I'm willing to fix the errors, I sent you email too(Sportslogo (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 21:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC).
 * You misspelled Augusta and most of your arena links don't work. Attack Athletics is the only arena that shouldn't be able to be linked.  Review your work and correct it if you want it to stand!  And don't change anything else!LightningMan (talk) 21:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We need teams year by year, I have done many leagues and I have followed their examples. Help me this part. We need the ABA to have table as well for the teams, I will add the information in one edit. We also need the team year by year. It's interesting to see how many teams folded in one year. (Sportslogo (talk) 21:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC))
 * No, we don't need the year by year table and if you insist on it, I will revert it. LightningMan (talk) 21:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Explain to me why we do not year by year table because you don't want it? Be honest, you don't want a year by year table.(Sportslogo (talk) 21:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC))\
 * How about you explain to me why we do, hmm?LightningMan (talk) 22:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1. It's pretty interesting to see how many expansion teams the ABA has per year, how many folded 2. It's history 3. It's important information 4. I'm not the only one that thinks so. (Sportslogo (talk) 02:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC))
 * 1. There already is a page that covers how many teams have passed through the ABA over the years. They are alluded to in the article.  2. There are a lot of things that are history that don't make an article.  3. It's information that is covered elsewhere and if done on the ABA page in a table as you suggest would make the page so long as to be useless.  4. And I'm not the only one who thinks as I do either.  So?  What are you, six? LightningMan (talk) 13:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I love your how you reply "it's the longest page in wikipedia". Well, it's not the longest page. Not even close, the NFL's wikipedia page is much longer, almost double in size of the ABA2000 wikipedia page. The table listing ABA's team, nickname, arena, and city is accurate. I double checked the table, source abalive.com. Why do you feel you are the mouthpiece of PBL, ABA, and all of minor league basketball on wikipedia? I don't understand why you need to result to name calling, "pest", "what are you, six", that is uncalled for and you should take the high road. Someone of your status shouldn't lower yourself to name calling, you are better than that. There is no reason to remove the table, every league has the same table, there is no reason the table should be removed and no reason the ABA should be treated different just because you don't agree with the decision or look.(Sportslogo (talk) 16:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC))

Blocked for edit waring
in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text  below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

May 2010
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule&#32;at Premier Basketball League. 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. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   15:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I blocked the other party as well, but you both broke the 3RR. Three times! By my count you made 10 or 11 reverts each just today. That's massively disruptive to anybody else who wants to edit (or read) the article. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   16:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur on that point. But the user in question is unlike any Wikipedian I have ever encountered.  I was edit blocked last year tangling with this person, as a much similar thing occurred.  As you can see, I have tried much differently this year, trying to get page protection, consensus, and mediation.  In my entire time at Wikipedia, I have never had to deal with someone so disruptive.  I have been trying to get people to help with him, but it seems the only way I can have that happen is to get edit blocked.  Please review the talk page for the page in question and see if you can see what I am talking about in regard to this person.  If there are no further avenues for appeals, I will take this suspension. LightningMan (talk) 16:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I can understand your frustrations, but if you have a problem with another editor, you should try to resolve it after the second revert or the third at the latest. If discussion doesn't work, there are multiple noticeboards, like WP:ANI and WP:ANEW where you can seek the help of uninvolved administrators and editors, but requesting page protection after your 9th or 10th revert is too late. As I say, I've blocked the other guy- and I hardblocked the IP so he can't edit even if he has an account but there's no excuse for that kind of disruption. Take a look at the history of the article with the default 50 most recent edits shown and tell me what you'd do as an admin in my position or how you'd feel if you were trying to edit the article but kept getting edit conflicts with 2 edit warriors. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   16:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't blame you and I will use the noticeboards next time. As I have said, I have had reverted edits and I have reverted edits and the response has never been like this.  Thank you. LightningMan (talk) 16:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually minded to reduce the block to ~48 hours, considering that this is the second 3RR violation, and despite the large number of reverts on both sides, I think the IP is the one being disruptive. Tim Song (talk) 16:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * LightningMan, I'm happy for this block to be reduced to 48 hours provided that you agree to seek 3rd party input, for example from noticeboards, before you get to 3RR in future. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   17:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I protected the page the first time- I tend to agree the IP was the instigator here, and would concur with reducing LightningMan's block. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 17:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've reduced the block to 48 hours, then. LightningMan, please adhere to the condition above. If you have difficulties in future, feel free to contact me via email. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   17:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * To HJ, first, thank you. Next, I have already put this dispute before the  Mediation Cabal, as I said.  We haven't yet been assigned a mediator and Bradjamesbrown's block expired today.  I created the page History of PBL teams as a compromise.  I'm trying to make this work but we obviously need some help.
 * To Bradjamesbrown and Tim Song, thank you for posting your thoughts. LightningMan (talk) 17:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)