User talk:PellèLong

Hello Southampton man and a Southampton fan! More to follow...

License tagging for File:David Attenborough Portrait by Rocket01 Sheffield.jpeg
Thanks for uploading File:David Attenborough Portrait by Rocket01 Sheffield.jpeg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 17:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Ongoing discussions with User:Mattythewhite (March 2015)
How exactly do I go about updating the TIMESTAMP for the Wilfried Bony article on Wikipedia EN?
 * See WP:5TILDES that is what you add in "pc-update" or "club-update" parameters in the infobox when updating player infoboxes after matches. QED237&#160;(talk) 23:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If you look at a footballer's infobox, you'll see it says at the bottom "Senior club appearances and goals counted for the domestic league only and correct as of" and then a date or date/time. The way to update the stats is:
 * wait till the game's finished, to be sure it doesn't get abandoned, in which case the player's appearances and goals would get abandoned as well;
 * don't just add 1 to what's already there: stats aren't always either up-to-date or accurate, so check with an appropriate reliable source such as Soccerbase or Soccerway to see what the correct figures should be;
 * update the timestamp parameter, which is called club-update or sometimes still by the old name of pcupdate, to a date or date/time unambiguously after the end of the match. The easy way is to replace the contents of the parameter with five tildes, so the row reads
 * which the system will automatically convert to the current date/time.
 * Hope this helps, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Hope this helps, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:45, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Bony

 * Hello. I don't know what BBC page you're getting 4 PL appearances from, but it's wrong. See e.g. Soccerbase, Soccerway, the Premier League, and the BBC match reports for the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th Premier League matches he's played in. I'll change it back. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * My apologies, it seems I'd made an error when tallying up his appearances for Manchester City so far. PellèLong (talk) 17:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * By not updating timestamp you create many problems so those updates are disruptive and may be removed. First of all you introduce factual errors to the article as the player had not scored any goals "as of 14 March". Secondly a reader may look at stats and say "oh, not updated" and add the goal again from last match so now player has two goals in stats". The fact that you saw my edit summary (obviously) and still ignored it and not added timestamp, while at the same time questioning me as a editor (instead of asking kindly at my talkpage) and being agressive has now earnt you a warning. Next time update the timestamp or risk being reverted again (and if it goes on you risk being blocked). QED237&#160;(talk) 23:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Your grammar isn't the best User:Qed237. Frankly, I do not understand why you have posted this comment at 23:15pm when I have already apologised for my mistake to User:Struway2. User:Struway2 I request your help User:Qed237 is adamant that Bony has not scored any goals since "14 March", which we know is wrong because we have both seen the evidence on BBC Sport and secondly I am being issued a warning for questioning an editor's ability which surely it must be open to debate when a reviewer such as User:Qed237 wrongfully removes Bony's first ever Premier League goal for Manchester City and that's not even the worse part. There are several mistakes in the grammar and obviously spelling mistakes and yet the user that is issuing me a warning has trouble with spelling. I cleared all of this up with you earlier but now User:Qed237 has hit back at me and I'll probably end up with a ban even though I am completely justified to say what I have already mentioned.


 * I will try and answer as good as possible so you can understand, it is the middle of the night so excuse my poor grammar (you can still understand right).
 * You may have apologized to User:Struway2, but not to me. You can not attack other editors directly in an edit summary. If you have any questions about my editing, come to me and discuss kindly at my talkpage, and if you still dont think I am an appropriate rewiever after talking to me, go to a relevant noticeboard. Also you apologised for having wrong caps, not for failing to update the tmestamp.
 * A reviewer checks pending changes for vandalism, this has nothing to do with those rights and this was not vandalism, just incorrect info to a BLP.
 * I write this late because I was of wikipedia this evening and did not see you questioning me until then.
 * When you had made your edits (see diff) the timestamp in infobox said "14 March" and 1 goal. This is wrong, he scored 21 March so you created a incorrect stats in infobox, that User:Struway2 had to correct (see diff) by fixing the timestamp.
 * All I did was to restore the stats so they were correct as the date i the timestamp.
 * You will not be banned for this, but I suggest a bit more listening and discussion instead of reverting and questioning the ability of other editors.
 * I have probably missed something and if you dont understand dont hesitate to ask. Have a nice day! <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">QED</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 02:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * To add, the warning was not because you dont think I am suitable for being a reviewer it was because you reverted without updating timestamp and used agressive tone in edit summary instead of taking it to talkpage and ask me why I did it. Also I never said he did not score after 14 March, he had not scored BEFORE 14 March, and when you left it at 1 goal at 14 March that was incorrect as he had not scored yet, Bony scored 21 March. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">QED</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 02:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)


 * In the infobox, the stats and the timestamp come as a pair. Without the timestamp, the reader can see that at some point the player had scored x goals from y matches, but what they can't see is whether those figures are up-to-date or not. The timestamp tells them when the stats were correct as of. But, like a lot of things on Wikipedia, it isn't particularly intuitive. The relevant parameter is often several rows below the current stats, and even if an editor knows where it is and is willing to update it properly, it isn't obvious exactly what they have to do.
 * Personally, I'm not keen on undoing an editor without explaining why at the time. But that's no excuse for misusing edit summaries to criticise another editor, or for making comments here about 's grammar and spelling. I have now spotted the thread above where you asked how to update the timestamp: thing is, few people would see that request here. Another time, if you want to ask a question about what a specific editor has done, try going to that editor's talk page, or to the talk page of the article concerned. If it's a more general football-related question, try the talk page of the football project. Or for a general Wikipedia-related question, try the Teahouse.
 * The reason I corrected the Bony page was because everybody was getting it wrong. Those editors updating were getting the number of infobox appearances wrong (4 rather than 5) and updating stats-table league apps/goals without doing all the relevant totals as well, and those editors reverting were taking the stats table back to an equally incorrect version (3 PL appearances as of 18 March).
 * I'll add my stock explanation of infobox-timestamp updating to the query above. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:42, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
PellèLong (talk) 18:04, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015
Please do not attack other editors, as you did on Federico Serraiocco. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. ''Edit summaries like this is not acceptable. '' <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">QED</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 17:45, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm going to be blunter than Qed237 - if you continue to attack other editors, act aggresively, or edit from IP addreses as you have done at GiantSnowman 17:52, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for personal attacks. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice:.

Actually no, after seeing this from 2 days ago and then your behaviour today, I believe a block is warranted now. I suggest you use your time away to research what it actually means to be part of Wikipedia, and get ready to come back and edit collaboratively as part of a community. If you cannot do that then your block will soon become indefinite. GiantSnowman 18:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
 * FYI, you cannot remove active block notifications. And also many thanks for your super polite e-mail (calling me a muppet, plonker etc.), I would strongly advise you to stop personal attacks against anyone because if I see it again against any editor I will block you indefinitely. GiantSnowman 13:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes but my point is that if I'd not contacted you today after logging in to find I was blocked I would have been none the wiser ... and when I did eventually discover the block notice it could have been another 4 days away. P.S. if I am blocked, could you at least extend it for a day or two? PellèLong 14:23, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Replying here for the sake of openness rather than via e-mail - I sent you a final warning for personal attacks; I was then made aware of a slightly earlier edit where you called another editor a "cunt" - I deemed that serious enough to be instantly blockable i.e. there was actually no need for any final warning. I hope that makes sense.
 * You have now sent me three e-mails - in the first two you continue to be aggressive and offensive; in the third you seem to recongise your behaviour was inappropriate. I hope that is genuine.
 * If you wish to be unblocked, then I suggest you follow the unblock request instructions above. I will not accept or decline - I think we should leave that for another admin to decide - but I will comment on any unblock request so that the reviewing admin gets a full picture. If I feel your unblock request is genuine, I will support it.
 * You clearly have a lot to learn about how to interact with other users on Wikipedia; you have a history of edit warring, disruptive/POINTy editing, and personal attacks. But you have also made a number of constructive edits, and I hope that over time the former comes to be replaced entirely by the latter. If you need/want any help with how Wikipedia works then I am more than happy to assist, however I will repeat again - personal attacks or disruptive edits will not be tolerated. GiantSnowman 16:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Blocked
Hi, you have been indefinitely blocked for being a sockpuppet of - if you want to challenge the block I suggest you log back into your original account and use unblock. GiantSnowman 19:32, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I am not a sock puppet! Log back into my original account, this is my original account! Oh I just love this bit - User talk:GiantSnowman[edit source]

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Archives

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Contents

[hide]

1 I'm surprised it's taken me this long to notice

I'm surprised it's taken me this long to notice[edit source]

but this editor is obviously this indefblocked editor. Apart from similarity of interests, their edit summary is unmistakable. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 8:02 pm, Today (UTC+1)

Well very observant of you User:Struway - you're unbelievable! Okay so there are similar interests shared between myself and User Pablo is that a crime, does that automatically give you an incentive to go ahead and immediately block my account no! Right so one user isn't allowed to share interests of another user ... you are way in over your head because what happens if there are some twins that register an account on here ... if they share similarities between each other (music), writing style etc. and one becomes a problem user but the other is the complete opposite you are then telling me that you will block the GOOD twin (from a Wikipedia point of view to spite the vandal twin) - now you have done that you have alienated this user from Wikipedia, and the better twin not only resents Wikipedia but they have also lost all faith in the encyclopedia and will NOT be recommending its services to his / her friends! Another scenario could be that a friend or relative has seen how the account user writes and has decided to hack into their account and perform some very inappropriate edits under that person's username ... meanwhile the owner of the account is completely oblivious to this and only when they log in or just take a look at their user talk page find that they have been either issued a warning (s) or have been BLOCKED for something they did NOT do as a result of the nastiness caused by the vandal (hacker), the person that has USED their account to create problems with other users and to ultimately get them in a lot of trouble with the Wikipedia Community.
 * Both British-Italians with links to Southampton and Cornwall; both edit mainly in football and especially Southampton FC; both fans of the Beatles/Queen and other classic rock; both use near-identical edit summaries. Clear WP:DUCK. GiantSnowman 17:18, 7 May 2015 (UTC) So what!? Sorry I didn't realise you can't come across two different individuals with near identical interests ... and the situation is this whether you believe or disbelieve me either way you deliberately set the punishment to be as harsh as possible and I've go to say if you don't believe in changing for the better then there is no hope for anyone! 'Cause it's like I said if I wanted to turn things around and cut out all the swearing (even though the user I am angry is a right so and so / whether people like you are coming down hard and issue death threats in the form of Wiki tellings off but at the same time are ignoring my frustration and ultimately end up doing nothing about the real issues I am seeing which is User:Matthew hk and all the lesser known articles which are being cast aside and left to rot ... meanwhile I step in to lend a hand because you're obviously not going to as you've already done so much creating those 4,000 + articles using your career and qualifications to your advantage which gives you a huge sense of authority, throwing your weight around and blocking whoever / whoever you see fit ... ALIENATING other users and making us resent your organisation ... besides when you are in a position of power it doesn't necessarily mean you are to be constantly enforcing your laws ... YOU ADMINS RUIN WIKIPEDIA and you absolutely go overboard with the blocking of other users! QED237 only cares about consensus even if the consensus is a complete load of bs - such as with the Billy McKay article WHICH EVERYONE SENSIBLE ENOUGH WILL KNOW THAT Mckay is actually the ERROR!!!

Oh and by the way that Lukeno guy who was naive enough to believe Portsmouth had won the Premier League (some editor they are)! had posted an abusive comment in which they either told another user to f-off or said you f*doing idiot something along those lines! That's why it was no surprise to see that NOTHING had been done about this whatsoever! Why don't you search through their revision history ... I really could not care about your oh this person swears a lot on here, better get rid of them post haste ... but Lukeno can get away with it because we're sticking to ONE RULE FOR ONE AND ONE FOR THE OTHER as we'll let Lukeno off and probably won't even flag it up because it's a one time thing in their situation. Meanwhile the Wikipedia rules and regulations specifically state that you should not be abusive towards another user is a rule that has completed been shoved aside and has gone straight out the door! I'll await your apology and unblocking even though you'll reply with a bunch of rubbish about how I am not ready to edit or that I don't have the right mindset for Wiki acting like a hypocrite! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.179.111 (talk) 22:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Do you know what really gets me? The Wikipedia is a FREE encyclopedia... Ahem no it's not it is a censored encyclopedia and a place where corruption is rife! Don't see why I have a life ban from Wikipedia?

SUPPOSING I WANT TO CLEAN UP MY ACT AND VOW TO NEVER SWEAR NO MATTER HOW IDIOTIC THE SITUATION IS EVER AGAIN, CAN'T CAN I ACCOUNT CREATION BLOCKED ... WHY DON'T YOU BELIEVE IN A CHANGE OF FORTUNE!? GIVE PEACE A CHANCE!


 * A few things - firstly I will not respond to you via e-mail. If you continue to send me ranting e-mails I will remove your ability to send e-mails. Secondly, you were blocked under this account because you violated WP:SOCK i.e. you have created a second account (and now third, as well as editing from a non-registered account) to evade your block. might be able to clarify the exact reasons behind your first block - but until such time as that first block is lifted, all subsequent blocks remain in place i.e. any account you as a person control are not allowed to edit. If you continue to evade your block by creating additional accounts then we will have to consider a ban and that is much, much harder to overturn. Thirdly, as I have previously said you do do some good work, but that is no excuse for your attitude/behaviour towards other editors. If you want to come back and edit then you need to learn how to speak to people on here. GiantSnowman 17:05, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The original block was for disruptive editing, including removing protection templates culimating in moving the user page of an editor he had a disagreement with into mainspace . Rlendog (talk) 18:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Why'd you block me? I try so hard to repair all the damaged articles, that were either created by User:Matthew hk or have been co-edited by this user. So much for caring about the quality of articles on Wikipedia. It just goes right over your head otherwise you would make it known to Matthew hk that their editing style is jeopardising football articles on Wikipedia. You would first investigate the user in question as you have done with yours truly and if like me you actually realised the extent of the damage done to these articles by Matthew hk you would go along the process of blocking their access to the encyclopedia altogether. I don't care about what you think of my grammar, as I'd never once claimed to be a scholar I just wish that you would actually give a damn about the state of these articles, associated with Matthew hk. Anyway at least you can understand my English. You're kidding yourself if you truly believe that branding a user as being illiterate is launching a personal attack against an individual, because you can't hide from the facts and the fact is User:Matthew hk contributes with a very poor standard of English, which is not helped by the fact they're not a natural speaker of English. I am not editing Wikipedia articles for the sole purpose of WP:BLOCK EVASION, I am however continuing to edit articles which I have deemed to be unfit for submission as a result of individual actions by users like Matthew hk. User:PellèLong 12:20, 11 July 2015 (UTC)