User talk:L1265746

List of football clubs in England by major honours won
The accepted format on the table can be seen here:

June 2013: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_football_clubs_in_England_by_major_honours_won&oldid=560333804

Sept 2012: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_football_clubs_in_England_by_major_honours_won&oldid=511571017

June 2009: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_football_clubs_in_England_by_major_honours_won&oldid=293712127

Please edit the page to ensure that this remains the case, keeping the page relevant and accurate. At present the page includes non-major trophies which disrupts what the table is for as there already exists an all trophy page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_records_in_England

The major trophies in English football are the Premier League, FA Cup, League Cup, Champions League, Europa League and Club World Cup and the table has accurately reflected this since 2009.

August 2013
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistent disruptive editing, as you did at List of football clubs in England by major honours won. 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 adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Tiptoety talk 15:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Reviewing administrators: This is not a new account. They have edit warred on List of football clubs in England by major honours won using another account before. Tiptoety  talk 16:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I think if you actually read the talk page of the page under dispute, you would find in fact it cannot be resolved through discussion, especially as the person changing the page to a new format is driven by football rivalry, thus continues and continues to edit the historically accepted format...which I simply reverted the page to...protecting the page, not destroying it. L1265746 (talk) 19:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

undefined

undefined

undefined

I have been advised by an administrator to use this code to address the situation above which I have been told was misusing the unblock template.

Please can you consider reverting the following page to its original format. I believe otherwise there will simply be more editing wars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_football_clubs_in_England_by_major_honours_won

Historically accepted version:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_football_clubs_in_England_by_major_honours_won&oldid=560333804

You'll find this edit on the View History of the page at 18:42, 17 June 2013 Widr (talk | contribs)

You will also notice that before this there are no significant structural edits to the format of the page. This is because it is the accepted version. The current version is new, inaccurate and causing the wars. I do not believe that I was engaging in disruptive editing. As you will see my edits were simply attempting to restore the status quo of a format for the page which has been accepted for 3+ years. One user has piped up to say different, and this is what is causing all the issues.

Thanks
 * It seems you believe that you were blocked while the wrong version was in place. Rather than fixing this with a help me request, it's a better idea to discuss the issue with the editors you disagree with, rather than reverting back and forth. This is rarely useful. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes I was blocked, the page was reverted by the other editor soon after, and then he was blocked. The issue has been debated at length on the talk page, you can see that. However I don't see how an article which was fine for 3 years with its structure should be edited just because one user out of hundreds disagrees. The talk goes round in circles, it needs someone to step in and revert it to the original. L1265746 (talk) 18:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Without intervention by an admin to refer the page to its historical structure you can guarantee there will be substantial edit wars in future. L1265746 (talk) 18:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Misuse of the unblock template
L1265746,I've commented out three of your unblock requests. One request at a time is sufficient. Additionally, the unblock template is not meant to be used to request editorial assistance or, in most cases, to discuss article content. I am willing to accept that these situations have been misunderstandings on your part, but if you demonstrate that you cannot make proper use of the unblock template you jeopardize your ability to edit this page.  Tide  rolls  18:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Please rethink your action
Your continuing to request the edits being made that resulted in your block appears to be a misuse of your user talk, especially since an administratoe has advised you that this is not a good idea. I'm requesting that you remove your latest help request so that I can ask for other opinion on the matter.  Tide  rolls  22:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Well please advise me how I can get the situation adequately resolved. So far none of what I have said has been listened to. There is clearly an accepted format. That is not the one currently in place.

The correct format is clearly

June 2013: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_football_clubs_in_England_by_major_honours_won&oldid=560333804

Sept 2012: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_football_clubs_in_England_by_major_honours_won&oldid=511571017

June 2009: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_football_clubs_in_England_by_major_honours_won&oldid=293712127

Yet you all ignore this. L1265746 (talk) 22:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Your perception that you have not been listened to is incorrect. Persisting in requesting the edit be made just demonstrates that you are experiencing difficulty in accepting the concept embodied in Edit warring.  Tide  rolls  22:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I completely understand warring, and I can see how this can be considered warring. However I dont see how the new, incorrect and inaccurate table (many of the figures for honours are incorrect, i.e. Aston Villa has only won the CL once) has been kept. This situation cannot be resolved with discussion because the new person who started editing the page last month doesn't accept the format as it puts a rival team above them. I simply want it restored to how it has always been, since 2009! We have discussed clearly on the talk. Just have a look at it. Also have a look at the contributions from earlier users, not just those over the last month. Look back to 2009. If it ain't broke, dont fix it. L1265746 (talk) 22:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've requested help here. That being said, one thing that is true about Wikipedia is that change is inevitable.  If you're so tied to a format that it gets you blocked, you may want to take a step back and attempt to find some way to modify your approach.  I'm not saying you're wrong; I'm only saying that all of us have to realize that our edits are subject to unlimited change and even deletion.  Tide  rolls  22:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I accept that and I accept good change is necessary and a lot of change is good. But I refute change that is clearly inaccurate and unnecessary. As I have always stated, the page is titled "major" honours, not all honours. There is already a page for all honours: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_records_in_England

The major honours is meant to be maintained as such and this is why I dispute having a table including all the extra honours which are already represented elsewhere. The perception of a major honour in football does not change over 4 years so dramatically to include pre-season friendly tournaments, one off tournaments, and the like. I hope you can see where I am coming from, but many would say that there is no point in even having the page if it is going to include every trophy under the sun.

Thank you for your help in this matter though. I hope it comes to the rightful conclusion. L1265746 (talk) 22:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)