User talk:GoalsGalore
January 2016[edit]
{{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. m.o.p 17:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
GoalsGalore (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
This is ridiculous! All I did was revert the page I edited to the version where I (YES ME!) added references to all the players on the page and therefore all stats listed are as per the references! What is wrong with that? How is that edit warring? It's Swastik25 that has issues with the references! By banning me with that one edit, you basically telling everyone that you can get banned for making genuine edits with reliable sources. GoalsGalore (talk) 08:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
"All I did was revert the page to my version" - that's exactly the problem. You were blocked for edit warring, and the first thing you did when said block expired? Continued edit warring. Until the contentious issues are resolved, you shouldn't be making changes without talk page consensus. Furthermore, you apparently did not read OhNoitsJamie's previous unblock decline, but please stop insisting it's the other guy's fault. m.o.p 15:46, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
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.
GoalsGalore (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
You don't seem to be getting the point. Yes I reverted to the page..... but the revision was to the last revision where the page follows the references. As I've mentioned time and again, I was the one who added the sources and therefore the stats on the page follows those. I'm not the one going against it. Do you understand? Therefore there shouldn't even be a need for a supposed consensus because my edits follow reliable sources. If anyone else has issues with that, then they should be one to come forward with an explanation why they disagree and not randomly making edits because of their own agenda or whatever and making it look like I'm the disruptive one. GoalsGalore (talk) 09:33, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Per m.o.p above. You clearly don't get what edit warring is. Your "I'm right, therefore, it's not edit warring to make a revert to my version" explanation is extremely misguided. only (talk) 11:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
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.
~The only misguided person here is you (along with Swastik25)! You can label it "edit warring" or whatever else! POINT STILL STANDS. I EDITED THE PAGE TO FOLLOW RELIABLE SOURCES WHICH I PROVIDED TO BEGIN WITH!!!!!!!!!!!! So what the hell now?? You're just gonna leave the page as is that doesn't even follow the references?!?!?!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! If that's the case then this is big a farce!!! Even bigger than Swastik25 himself who has clearly f***ed me over!!! GoalsGalore (talk) 11:35, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
- I highly suggest you read Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. You resolve these kind of disputes by discussing with other users and seeking outside opinions if necessary. The way to resolve a dispute is not to keep on reverting each other. only (talk) 11:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
- Allow me to add on to what's already been said. The trick with edit warring is that everyone involved thinks they are right; the people with sourced information think they're right, the people who think said information is unnecessary think they're right, etc. You may say to this, "But I am right!" No. That's not how this works. Disputes cannot be resolved by strength of will, because people will just revert each other indefinitely otherwise. The only way to resolve such situations is, as Only said, dispute resolution, and forming consensus through talk page discussion with other editors.
- I recommend getting comfortable with the idea that you are not going to get anywhere on Wikipedia by trying to brute force your way through problems. If you continue doing so, or if you continue maintaining that it's everyone else who's wrong and not you, you will find yourself blocked again. Best, m.o.p 18:51, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
- This is obviously old but I can't help myself! You mods clearly don't get the picture and thus just like swastik are being a bunch of muppets!! This isn't about me being right or wrong, it's about following references!! I did that when I put all those references on the page! All I did after my first brief ban was to put the page back to what it should have been, which was a page that followed reliable sources! As far as I'm concerned I didn't violate anything!!! You then tell me that there should be consensus before any editing takes place again which is a load of crap because once again and will reiterate, my edits follow reliable sources and I'm not the disruptive one!!! Because you banned me after my first edit after my first brief ban, you undid my revision and put it back to the last revision where it doesn't follow reliable sources! By doing that, you are also saying that you agree with the actual perpetrator. Brilliant!!
Bottom line though.... I don't give a crap anymore if I'm banned or I stay banned. However, the least you can do, which is also as per guidelines, get the page back to where everything follows the reliable sources which I, yes me, took the time to put in! GoalsGalore (talk) 13:28, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- "I'm not the disruptive one!!!" "By doing that, you are also saying that you agree with the actual perpetrator." "You mods clearly don't get the picture and thus just like swastik are being a bunch of muppets!!"
- I could go on, but I don't quite have time. Your talk page access has been revoked. Best, m.o.p 18:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)