User talk:Ehinger222/Archive 1

John O'Neill
G'day Ehinger,

Feel free to look at my comments regarding the John O'Neill (sport administrator) page. Cheers, Jpeob 06:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Unjustified Reverting
Ehinger, it seems that you have just reverted John O'Neill (sport administrator) back to your version of 01:59, 12 August 2006, before my and other's' changes to the page due to legitimate concerns. This is unacceptable without discussion on the talk page as you have previously advocated. Such action - "Look I can think that we can all agree that this version is better, and O'Neil is a fat cat" - is not in the interests of Consensus. Jpe|ob 12:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * ^ What he said. Dibo 01:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * adding to that - please go to the talkpage to justify your revert. i made a comment jutifying my edits. i'm endeavouring to act in accordance with the five pillars, and and to ensure we don't breach Biographies_of_living_persons.Dibo 01:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

general purpose tips
Ehinger, it's good that you want to help out on Wikipedia and build a better encyclopaedia for everyone, but you might find it easier to produce high quality content if you perused Wikipedia policies to get a feel for some of the ground rules of what is and isn't acceptable in articles.

in particular, the Content policies are a really good guide on what should and shouldn't be in an article.

Cheers, and happy editing! Dibo 07:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

vandalism user:dibo
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to User:Dibo, are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thanks. Dibo 06:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

vandalism Alan Oakley
Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Alan Oakley, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Dibo 12:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Dibo, it was not vandalism, it was following on from the wikipedian protocol as you explained it. If you would like an impartial resolution I am content with that, but it seems unfailingly clear to me that that material requires citation. So therefore I removed it until the neccessary citations are provided. I left a message at the talk page explaining this. Please at this moment I am assuming good faith, so lets get this right. Ehinger222 09:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stop your vandalism!
Your edits of Ultras was petty and totally uncalled for. You childish edits on the Central Coast Mariners FC pages and News Limited pages are not in called for. If you contine to do this you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Tancred 14:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Tancred I will assume that you are not a troll and send these messages in good faith in spite of your bizarre claims about football. If the neccessary citations are provided, I will not remove it, until they are, I will because it is uncited and highly controversial considering 7/8 of those soccer clubs are only one year old and would dubiously inspire the same sentiments s the grand old European football clubs. Ehinger222 09:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

cool it
i wasn't that impressed to find you had tracked through my pages reverting a whole bunch of my edits. i'm less impressed that you think that this was somehow consistent with wikipedia policies. i'm not here to have an edit war, and i don't care whether my stuff gets edited (that's why i continue to contribute to an open encyclopaedia) but i do care that that encyclopaedia is as good as possible. this means that the content that goes in must not be original research, in particular you cannot provide multiple references in order to support a position. this is both original research and a breach of NPOV.

so what you can put in includes things of a factual nature that can easily be verified. what can't be put in is statements of opinion or arguments towards a proposition (i.e john o'neill/alan oakley/the sydney morning herald erc. are anti rugby league). this is why i've reverted multiple edits of yours. i don't apologise for this, i'm acting in accordance with policy. i am sorry that you've apparently taken personal offence to it where none was meant in the slightest and serially vandalised pages i've edited.

i suggest that maybe you cool it for a bit, and just relax a little rather than picking fights. if you don't, your vandal warnings will stack up and you'll eventually be blocked.

your edits on articles related to the shire have been pretty good, and i'm sure that with your strong interest in the subject you could contribute much to Rugby league in Australia and other related pages. so lets ditch the biffo and get back to wiki.

cheers, Dibo 00:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Dibo,

It is not a matter of opinion that John O'Neill is against football. It is clearly outlined here. This link was already at the talk page of O'Neill so I cannot understand what point you are trying to make that he is not anti Rugby League. There is no argument against his opinions (i.e. "If the International Rugby Board could pump a fair bit of money into the ARU to combat rugby league, and rugby league folds, what a wonderful thing for rugby union," (he was chief of union), "And if rugby league goes in Australia it goes around the world." He was therefore anti RLF in such an obvious fashion that it is not opinion or proposition in any way shape or form. The strangest April's fools message  Ehinger222 05:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Page protection
Hi. I've removed the sprotected template from the John O'Neill (sport administrator) article because adding the template does not add protection. If you want the page protected please contact an administrator or list the page at WP:RPP. Please don't put the template back unless the page is actually protected. See WP:SPP for more information. Thanks. zzuuzz (talk) 10:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi again. (Of course I meant to say protected above, but the concept is the same). You asked me how to convey the message, "It is recommended that no user edit this as there is currently a vigorous discussion taking place". There are very few articles on Wikipedia that should not be edited - virtually all of them should be edited so they can be improved. I haven't looked through the page history in great detail - I can see there are issues involved. If you are having problems with specific edits or specific editors you should use the talk page(s) to identify and resolve the problems. If there are specific bones of contention (specific facts that shouldn't be changed) you could place a HTML comment within the page, explaining. For example, look at the comments you can see if you edit the page United States or Republic of Macedonia. Don't over-do it though. I can tell you from personal experience that nearly every problem can be resolved by presenting appropriate references. Does that help? -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Blanking vandalism of Alan Ramsey
Please refrain from removing content from Wikipedia, as you did to Alan Ramsey. It is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Jpe|ob 06:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand that you wanted a citation for the "liberal" comment, which is justifiable. I have removed that comment and replaced it with information as to him being a journo at vietnam. the other info is verified by the source i have supplied from the Whitlam Institute. Overall, though, I think you could have achieved your ends by talking things through on the talk page and making small edits - or just Being bold and removing the liberal comment and replacing it with sourced career-based material. Blanking the page helps no-one and just makes it look like you're blatantly vandalising the page. Cheers, Jpe|ob 09:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

'anonymous' edits of yours
i've noticed a pattern of edits appearing in pages to do with football, the smh and sutherland shire which seem to be aimed at either pushing certain points of view or simply to annoy other editors. in particular, Frank Lowy, John O'Neill, helensburgh, football (word)... they're either under this username or under a set of anon ip's:

these are just the ones i've bothered to c+p into this page. they follow a pattern common to your edits when you log in. you appear to be starting up edit war after edit war, and while i'm sure you're having a great time and all you're not contributing as constructively as you could to wikipedia.

i suggested above that maybe you cool it. i reiterate that suggestion - just because you're not logged in doesn't mean that people can't tell it's you. it's annoying, and makes wikipedia a less fun place to be.

on Alan Oakley we're having an edit war over the tags. i don't reckon they need to go in because simple biographical details tend to be pretty simple things and not worth offering citations for every last thing, while i insist that when statements i consider to be pretty contentious (in particular those ascribing biases, motivations or desires) need the  tag or else they're in breach of the biographies of living persons policy. on other pages we're having similar 'free and frank exchanges of ideas'. you've vandalised my user page by redirecting a couple of my userboxes, and you've reverted a whole lot of other edits i've made.

i'm completely over it - i'm going to leave your edits untouched for a week. for that week, i'd be surprised if your edits are left untouched (there are more than a few editors who've noticed your "unique" brand of editing) but i suggest that you make an attempt to really closely follow WP:5P - read it, take it seriously, and work on your editing.

i reckon that if after the week you're still getting people tagging your edits for being npov breaches then maybe you've got to consider the possibility that they're right. maybe rather than wikipedia a blog is more your style - go post on stoush instead. but don't keep launching into edit wars with myself and others because you've got some barrow to push. Dibo 12:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

No sorry Dibo, this editor was not me but has stalked me too. The person left messages here about pulling in a soccer editors which I thought were highly uncalled for and deleted. They also followed my initial edits, presenting them in a deliberately inflammatory light when I was trying to help the encyclopedia. They are trying to provoke an unneccessary edit war with others constantly. Oh, sorry about your userboxes, I am sure that that was just a joke.

As for the Helensburgh edits, I just read them and they are particuarly notorious. The mention of socialism is a little bit dubious and trying to blame Iemma for the crash should be scrapped(which I am about to do).

On Alan Oakley, provide the citations that he is an editor of the Herald, an editor of a minor fairfax newspaper and an editor of the age. Those citations were designed to increase the quality of Wikipedia. It makes perfect sense for them to be cited.

The John O'Neill as it stands is pathetic. Obviously, as you displayed the policies to me, the earlier content cannot be allowed, but now the pages mentions him particuarly as a soccer administrater when his career and reputation are all from the ARU. I cannot help but think that troll Tancred has ruined that article.

As for examining your edits, you have done the same to mine. Mutual examination creates a better quality of content but excusive examination creates only a bias. What evidence is there to suggest Australian soccer has ultras? Provide citations for such a remark and than it will be believable.

Finally, I will also not edit(after the next two) for the next week and see what comes from articles- my prediction, there will be no content improvement and that will show who the real editor warrers are. Ehinger222 05:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Resignation
This editor has resigned as a contributer to Wikipedia. All further messages left here will be deleted. This does not endorse the position the editor takes that in regard to edits to with Sydney that Rugby League Football is football and that soccer is soccer and that this ecyclopedia has lost its innocence and fun due to trolls asserting otherwise. Ehinger222 07:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)