User talk:Sportspop

Suburbs and edit warring
Hi there. I realise you're new here, so I'm going to try and be polite. Please stop adding your own definitions of "suburbs" into articles. The facts are that West Bridgford is near but not in Nottingham, it's across the river in Rushcliffe borough. Likewise, West Bromwich is not in Birmingham, it's in neighbouring Sandwell.

By the way, edit summaries such as this accusing editors of vandalism are not acceptable. Remember to assume good faith and do not accuse other editors of being vandals except in very obvious cases. Also, your comment here advising me to look at the West Bridgford page drew my attention to your recent edit warring there. You may be aware of the three-revert rule which you and the other editor both crossed. That edit war seems to have finished so I won't block you right now, but I will keep an eye on the page and won't be so lenient next time. Cheers, BigDom (talk) 15:24, 13 June 2022 (UTC)


 * . Why is it not editwarring regarding the IP? Don't you think that restoring SOURCED information that an IP keeps removing is not an exception to the rules given it is battling disruptive behaviour? --Sportspop (talk) 23:25, 13 June 2022 (UTC)


 * PS "Two" editors doesn't mean diddly squat. I editwarred with one. Or rather, one editwarred with me - one who hides behind an IP and is still being allowed to edit, one who made three reverts the same as me, and one who hasn't even been warned. If my edit was wrong then I accept that. But somebody new coming along to settle the dispute in the IP's favour only means that I was mistaken in my opinion. End of the day, the IP was just as relentless as I was and showed no signs s/he wasn't. You have to give me the benefit of the doubt when I am watching recent changes and an IP triggers the "references removed" filter (tag). Did s/he have a consensus? Did s/he use the talk? Can I really be blamed for not distinguishing it from vandalism? --Sportspop (talk) 23:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

One more thing. 3RR is one thing. But what does it take to violate WP:EW? At which point did I "violate" this? When reverting the first time? The second? or the third? What does 3RR even mean if one violates WP:EW before s/he can even reach 3RR? Are you sure you're not making the rules up as you're going along? --Sportspop (talk) 23:37, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL
Please note that your recent edit summary was not very civil. Wikipedia requires that contributors be civil to make collaborating to build the encyclopedia possible. In future please use more polite edit summaries. Thank you. - Ahunt (talk) 11:12, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You understand that when I reported him I was obliged to advise him according to policies. I did nothing wrong here, so I have no reason believe that this was WP:CIVIL. --Sportspop (talk) 11:31, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You seem bitter about your own recent block, which you seem to have a lot to say about here and here, and are taking it out on other editors. Furthermore, you feel obligated to advise more experienced editors according to policies, yet you insult an admin for enforcing WP:KEEPDECLINEDUNBLOCK, ironically stating that the admin has a double standard.  While you may not have technically broken any policies or guidelines by reporting BilCat, that does not make your actions civil.  And if that wasn't enough, you included a personal attack in this edit summary as well.  I suggest that you stop and learn from your mistakes before you dig yourself into a hole you can't climb out of. -  ZLEA  T \ C 14:37, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yamla is not justified in burying his head in the sand when presented with an uncomfortable question, and nor was the blocking editor justified in going commando with me and letting the IP removing 1000's of characters of text from an article off scott-free. You have no excuse for an editor deleting my noticeboard template claiming it to be "harassment" when you know full darn well that if he dared go to to AN/I claiming to be harassed because a fellow editor issued a compulsory (yes it says "must") template then it would have been laughed off the project-page. Then again, I don't know. All I am seeing as I look around is one rule for one set of editors and another for those less appreciated. Already I have a case here and there is no way you're going to be able to convince me that some rules-based policy takes precedence and admins are all neutral and dedicated to the project. No they're not. Sportspop (talk) 14:58, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not the template itself that is harassment, it's the fact that you are making retaliatory reports to AN/EW that is problematic. I'm not going to try to convince you that all admins are neutral and dedicated to the project (I've certainly run into a few problematic admins myself), and I'm not going to try to convince you Yamla is either of those things because it's not worth my time.  If you truly believe Yamla is displaying behavior unbecoming an admin, feel free to bring it up at WP:ANI. -  ZLEA  T \ C 15:41, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean by "retaliatory" since it is Yamla and BigDom I would wish to see sanctioned ultimately for issuing an unfair block and refusing to unblock based on dogshit reasoning, and giving a vandal IP free reign in the process. But sorry, let me see if I have understood you properly. "It's not the template itself that is harassment, it's the fact that you are making retaliatory reports to AN/EW that is problematic." So an editor violates 3RR after himself warning his initial opponent (so clearly someone somewhere is having a laugh, I steal, you steal, and I accuse you of theft). An editor who was blocked for editwarring then reports another editor for what he identifies as a violation of the same policy, and you are saying that is harassment? Are you claiming that if an editor has been once blocked for editwarring should ever report a violation by someone else that it is harassment? Or are you saying that anyone at all who reports a 3RR breach is harassing the editor who violated Wikipedia policy? Do I take it that I was expected to keep my mouth shut (which essentially would have made no difference)? Or have I totally misunderstood you? Sportspop (talk) 17:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The fact that you refer to yourself as BilCat's "initial opponent" shows that you see BilCat as an enemy, which doesn't really help you in this situation. People make mistakes, and BilCat has acknowledged his mistake and stated that it won't happen again.  I understand your frustration with the block, but you don't need to take it out on others.  It's not too late for you to acknowledge your own mistakes and learn from them. -  ZLEA  T \ C 20:22, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * By "initial opponent" I was referring to 78.63.5.217, not myself. See the page history. Sportspop (talk) 22:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Peace Dove
 For making the right choice. We all make mistakes, but a good editor makes attempts to fix them. Best of luck to you moving forward. - ZLEA  T \ C 03:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Most kind!!!!! A billion thanks to you!! --Sportspop (talk) 18:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

June 2022
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and 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. -- Local hero  talk 19:23, 23 June 2022 (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.
 * All right. I'm only using the talk page/s from now on, but you're editwarring as well. I can't see anyone else coming down on your side. --Sportspop (talk) 19:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

no need
to be completely rude in your edit summary, I was trying to fix what a disruptive vandal was messing around with on multiple articles and made one mistake that I was in the process of fixing. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:12, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * All I saw was you changing the status of a world famous Italian tennis player into a "rugby player" which came across as vandalism to me. The IP was right to make the change from earlier vandalism. You need to be more careful when running around reverting people because not everything is always vandalism, especially from IPs. --Sportspop (talk) 22:16, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * The IP is the same one who made the earlier vandal edit, so no. I'm aware of how to use rollback and anti-vandalism work. In any case, whether I was an experienced editor or not, your edit summary was wholly inappropriate. PRAXIDICAE🌈  22:16, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes I was wrong to have spoken the way I did. But regards the rest of your statement. Really??? So you're claiming that you can use Rollback to vandalise are you? Wrong. You can't even use "undo" if your intent is to vandalise. So by having used rollback you were doubly wrong. I am not interested in other contributions from that one IP which I see date back some time, I don't know it is being used by the same person, and I am not qualified to remark on his or her other contributions. But no. You abused rollback no question. Sportspop (talk) 22:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't vandalize anything, so stop. I accidentally restored their previous vandal edit in my attempt to undo the rest of their vandalism. I suggest you cool it on accusing good faith editors of vandalism. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This is vandalism, and misuse of rollback. Nobody forced you to go off your rocker reverting and not taking a few seconds to fact-check, so you have no excuses. Bye. --Sportspop (talk) 22:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Seriously, stop. If you think I'm vandalizing anything take it to WP:AIV or WP:ANI, otherwise you need to redact your ridiculous accusations. PRAXIDICAE🌈 22:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Seriously, get off my talk page. Omitting to check whether an edit is in good faith and whacking the rollback key because of a personal gripe you have with one or two other edits by a person is ((NOT)) in good faith. I am not going to AIV because it is obvious what you did was an accident, however, insofar as you try to justify your behaviour with external arguments and you claim that you were right to do as you did, I will tell you a thousand times if I have to, that ((NO)) that is not the case. Bye. Sportspop (talk) 22:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppet
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts&#32;as a sockpuppet of &#32;per the evidence presented at Sockpuppet investigations/Evlekis. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has been revoked. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC)