User talk:Sparhawk85

Welcome
Hello Sparhawk85 and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your contributions, such as the ones to the page Dion Phaneuf, do not conform to our policies. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can write   below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.


 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ; this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! —C.Fred (talk) 21:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014
Hello, I'm C.Fred. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Dion Phaneuf because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! —C.Fred (talk) 21:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

February 2017
Hello, I'm XboxGamer22408. An edit that you recently made to National Hockey League seemed to be a test and has been removed. If you want more practice editing, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks!  XboxGamer  22408 talk to me 22:42, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on National Hockey League. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. oknazevad (talk) 16:52, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Your recent editing history at Toronto Maple Leafs shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 17:21, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. Keri (talk) 19:38, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

February 2017
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. 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 request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. 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. S warm  ♠  19:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)


 * If three different editors revert and warn you, that's a good sign that there is no consensus to support your changes. That's when you should have discussed the matter on the talk page and worked toward a new consensus rather than continue to edit war. —C.Fred (talk) 21:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That's what I did. 2 of the editors were not even involved in the debate. While I do admit, I hadn't fully read all the rules yet and did revert the content 3x, the fact of the matter here is, I made the changes, 1 editor changed it back and left me a message. I spoke to that editor and I explained to him the difference between a Franchise and a Team. He read what I wrote and told me I could re-apply my changes. Then a few hours later, another editor came along and undid my changes, I re-applied my changes and left a short edit summary explaining that the Toronto Maple Leafs are a "Team" and not a "Franchise". He undid my revert and said a consensus should be reached on the talk page. I posted my explanation on the talk page, I thought this guy would be smart and understanding like the 1st editor I dealt with, he wasn't, he was a complete asshole who questioned my intelligence, in a "polite" manner. I think I got mad and maybe made 1 more edit, and that was when I got a warning that I could be banned if I continued making edits. So I STOPPED MAKING EDITS and I tried to talk it out on the talk page. And while I was talking it out on the talk page and NOT EDITING anymore, some other admin, who never even got involved in the discussion on the talk page, comes along and decides to warn me as well. And then, again, still NOT EDITING, a 3rd admin comes along and decides to escalate the case and ask for an Admin to ban me. And that ban was superfast. I don't know how it normally is, but this editor reported me and then I was banned less than 5 minutes later. A warning system is supposed to be progressive. If you give me a warning and I don't stop, then that is on me and I should be banned. But if you give me a warning and then I stop, a 2nd warning and then a ban seems way over the top for someone who listened to the warning and stopped making edits to that page. So again, a warning system is useless if you just skip the warnings and straighout ban he person, even though they were obeying the warnings and trying to reach a new consensus, since a couple of editors were IGNORING THE OLD CONSENSUS. All I'm saying is, a group of editors didn't like the change I was suggesting, even though it was common sense, factual and already approved by another long time Wiki Editor, and when insulting my intelligence in the talk page didn't work, they decided to keep reporting me until I got banned instead. All you have to do to see that I was trying to reach a consensus and kept explaining my factual argument to them, over and over again, is look at the talk page. I started a new heading for this debate and I explained the difference between a Team and a Franchise multiple times. I was actively talking on talk pages to try and a) Show people the consensus that was reached the last time this came up and b) reach a new consensus with people. You will see I wrote on the talk page of the 3rd Admin who warned me. I wrote on your talk page, and I wrote on the talk page for both Toronto Maple Leafs and National Hockey League. I was done editing and hadn't made any new edits in a while, when all of a sudden I started to get more warnings and then a ban and if you look at my edit history and look at the talk pages, you will see that I was no longer editing and trying to talk to people. Sparhawk85 (talk) 23:28, 12 February 2017 (UTC)Sparhawk85}}


 * The noticeboard report happened after the fact, after the fourth revert occurred. The admin who reviewed the report determined that you had reverted after you received a warning about the three revert rule. That's a bright-line rule, so if the reviewing admin saw you break it after the warning, they're within their rights to block you. —C.Fred (talk) 01:26, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Fine. I see how it is. I have to be part of a special clique on Wikipedia and have a bunch of friends to back me up after everything I say, is that it? Admins don't work that fast. The Editor who reported me definitely had a direct line to the Admin and he chose an Admin whom he knew would block me right away. What is the point of having a 3 strike rule if you ban someone after the first strike? I'm pretty sure I didn't revert any edits after my first warning, but even if I had, I definitely did NOT revert any after my second warning. Pretty sure when I got my second warning I hadn't even done any editing on that page anymore and was engaged in talk page discussions. But again, since it's clear Wiki Admins/Editors stick together and if you aren't part of their clique, you won't get anything done. But believe me, this is far from over. The minute my ban expires, I'm taking this to Moderation. And I WILL win moderation, as I have faith that the system isn't that royally screwed up that they ignore common sense and FACTS. Also, the rules state I'm supposed to get a NEUTRAL 3rd Party Editor to review my case. You are far from neutral in this case, as you were one of the editors who undid one of my edits, I believe on the Toronto Maple Leafs page, that was in direct correlation with the argument that started on the National Hockey League Page. So if you're the editor who is looking over my appeal case, then I request a new appeal, as you aren't entirely a neutral 3rd party in this case. The fact of the matter is, in this case, there was a consensus reached 2 years ago. This was talked about in the talk page for Toronto Maple Leafs, it was disputed once, and all the comments afterwards disagreed with the person who disputed the original argument and then no one else disputed the argument. The rules do state that when you reach an editing conflict you should try and get a consensus. Well a consensus was reached and it was ignored. Sparhawk85 (talk) 01:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)Sparhawk85}}
 * The way it is, actually, is that the definition of consensus is "Other editors have registered their opinions in support of my POV," not "I'm right and everyone else is wrong." It's unfortunate that you're laboring under the impression that no one could possibly disagree with you unless they're part of a sinister clique or are Out To Get You personally, but we get that sort of nonsense quite often here on Wikipedia, and those who espouse it don't prosper.  I warned you before this happened that further edit warring put you at risk of a block.  This remains the case, because further edit warring -- and the definitions of edit warring are Wikipedia's, not yours -- will only result in longer and longer blocks.  It's rather up to you how to proceed from here.   Ravenswing   02:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey look at that, one of the "special people". I wish I had as many friends as you to agree with everything I say, no matter how right or wrong it is. You consistently IGNORED me when I told you to go to the Toronto Maple Leafs talk page. There was a consensus there. And it's also not my fault that your apparent intelligence level is too low to understand the difference between "Franchise" and "Team". So again, I WILL be taking this to moderation tomorrow, and as I have faith in the fact that the larger part of the community has more intelligence than you and your friends, I WILL win and get a SECOND consensus. Sparhawk85 (talk) 02:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * So how's that "moderation" going for you, sport?   Ravenswing   18:23, 2 March 2017 (UTC)