User talk:Sport and politics

Template:NoBracketBot

Do not add any forms of warnings to this page unless they are fully justified and are done after the engaging of discussions. Do not jump to adding warnings, and do not add warnings in the first instance, as they are counterproductive, and do not go anywhere near being able to resolve any issues at hand. Warnings are a last resort and not a first resort.

Please do not remove or edit parts of this talk page as per WP:TPO. Drawing particular attention to the following:

Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning....Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection.

This is Sport and politics's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1: 360 days

The following editors are not welcome to comment on this talk page. Any comments left by the following editors will be closed without hesitation, and not responded to. This is formal notification of an avoidance of deliberate interaction with the individual users listed below.

DRN Notice

The following discussion is archived and relates to the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Please do not modify it.

This message template was placed here by Nihlus, a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. You recently filed a request or were a major party in the DRN case titled "User talk:Sport and politics". The case is now closed: the DRN board is for content disputes and not conduct disputes. If you are unsatisfied with this outcome, you may refile the DRN request or open a thread on another noticeboard as appropriate. If you have any questions please feel free to contact this volunteer at his/ her talk page or at the DRN talk page. Thank you! --Nihlus 08:09, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments by volunteer: Please discuss your concerns directly with the other editor or take it to WP:ANI.

- Tried both of those, neither was productive or effective. Sport and politics (talk) 14:46, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just to remind, the AN/I is still going on- it was really the only reason the AN thread was closed- save having two simiar threads duplicating material. Either way, I'm sure your input would be welcom to it. FYI!

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Penalty

The following discussion is archived and relates to Penalty shoot-out (association football). Please do not modify it.

Hey, please see here. Kante4 (talk) 07:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may also want to participate in this discussion here.Kante4 (talk) 20:37, 01 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

You have a serious problem

The following discussion is archived and relates to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Please do not modify it.

‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 21:03, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

The following discussion is archived and relates to 2017 Arbitration Committee elections. Please do not modify it.

Hello, Sport and politics. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Top Gear test track

The following discussion is archived and relates to the Top Gear test track. Please do not modify it.

Please respect WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO and do not edit-war. When an edit of yours is reverted in good faith, don't simply force your edits into an article. Such editing is, at best disruptive and can lead to you being blocked. Please continue to discuss the issue on the article's talk page and seek to gain consensus for your edits. Until such time as consensus is reached, per WP:STATUSQUO, the disputed edits should remain out of the article and the status quo should remain. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Nomination for deletion of Template:Election box supplementary hold

The following discussion is archived and relates to the Wikipedia:Templates for discussion. Please do not modify it.

Template:Election box supplementary hold has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 22:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Ed Davey - views

The following discussion is archived and relates to Ed Davey. Please do not modify it.

I note that you removed my addition/update to the 'views' section of Ed Davey's page. I feel that my copy added the requisite balance. Can you please explain the thinking behind your removal of the addition?

He has argued in favour of both nuclear power and shale gas fracking as potential energy sources[65][66], though he has warned that there should not be an over-reliance on them.[67][68]

MRMRMM (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot just add the information and leave it at that it must have a reason in the article, the addition removed was not necessary for the article, and was not justified in the text it was just in the article because, without context. Additions while welcome, cannot be just because, it must be justified. it must be of an NPOV. Wikipeidia is not a commentary on votes or views of individuals it is only for notable information. The information must net the notability criteria. Having a source does not automatically mean it is notable, or even verified. It is simply from a source. Sources must meet the criteria for quality, and reliability. Sport and politics (talk) 19:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC) [reply]

Closure of discussion which is of no purpose, as it is complete and intentional non-engagement on legitimate policy based issues. Sport and politics (talk) 23:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I agreed with your addition, MRMRMM. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any reasoning as to why there is agreement with the included information? Any reasons to justify up the inclusion of the information? Simply stating I agree is not a constructive addition to a discussion. Please give reasons for the position being furthered. Sport and politics (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've given my reasons at Talk:Ed Davey, which is the most appropriate venue. I invite MRMRMM to also offer their view there. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are no reasons on that page other than guesswork. It is specifically stated in the text given on the Ed Davey page "I would guess most editors would see". That is not a reasoning, that is a feeling, and not a point of discussion. The substance of the problems are not addressed. Simpy having a source does not equal inclusion is justified. Information must meet the other inclusion criteria for being on Wikipeida. Sport and politics (talk) 20:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any problems. The article was fine before you started carving it up. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is obfuscation and no engagement on the substance of the issues being raised. This is not constructive and trying to build a consensus as per WP:CONSENSUS, is not being attempted. At the moment it is just stonewalling being presented, with a repeat of the information being fine because it just is. It is not being reasoned as to why the information is fine, encyclopedic, and acceptable. Sport and politics (talk) 21:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see what other editors have to say. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would also be nice to have constructive engagement on the issues raised rather than i like the information so lets include the information. Sport and politics (talk) 21:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've provided reasons. You've deftly overlooked them. I don't see any radical improvement in the article just by leaving that sourced material out. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you have provided reasons then they have been very well hidden. All that has been presented so far is opinion. Opinion and reason are not the same. Sport and politics (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you revert again, I'll report you. Consider this to be your only warning. Cassianto^Talk 22:34, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Threats are always charming, engage in the discussion and the issues may be able to be resolved It does though seem you and Martin are not interested in engagement of discussions, you just want the information in the article without addressing the policy concerns of synthesis and POV which are being raised. This is a poor way to build a consensus. I have a good mind to report you for making such a threat. There is though no point engaging with you lot all over gain. It goes no where but a dark hole of SHIT and PISS which you are throwing around.`Sport and politics (talk) 22:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very colourful language. What's this "synthesis and POV" exactly? And who is "you lot"? Martinevans123 (talk) 23:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is your typical response, Sport and politics. In fact, closing off discussion you don't like is your habitual response here on your talk page. Happy to discuss at the relevant article talk page. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single answer to a single point raised. Both contributors were intent on shutting down the discussion for reasons unrelated to the article. Detailed issues with the content were raised. The issues have been obfuscated around, with personal opinion and drivel, such as guessing. Censoring claims are an emotive attempt to stifle removal of unencyclopedic information on a biography of a living person, in ignorance of the WP:BLP policy. Threats of reporting contributors in an edit summary, and wild claims of bludgeoning, are both attacks on the contributor, and not an intention to participate in the discussion, This is part of a concerted attempt to have a chilling effect on contributors to cease and desist. Claims of invented issues, are a serious assumption of bad faith, and a total avoidance of engaging in a discussion, or even a veneer of wanting engagement. The standard be bold, revert, discussion cycle is subverted. Except the two contributors are interested only in shutting down the contributor, than engaging in the concerns raised. Sport and politics (talk) 14:45, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion was infiltrated by users who are interested only in politicking, and have no interest in substantive debate. The users are all part of an unconstructive clique. They assume bad faith at every turn and go combative at the whiff of anything they dislike. Sport and politics (talk) 14:45, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sandbox pages deleted

The following discussion is archived and relates to the WP:Sandbox. Please do not modify it.

The following sandbox pages have been deleted as part of routine maintenance, and the cleaning up of superfluous areas which are now spent:

User:Sport and politics/sandbox/Guernsey F.C.
User:Sport and politics/sandbox/greenock
User:Sport and politics/sandbox/London elections 2014
User:Sport and politics/sandbox/Patent court
User:Sport and politics/sandbox/dowler
User:Sport and politics/sandbox/2005 WSCC
User:Sport and politics/sandbox/Bakerloo extension
User:Sport and politics/sandbox/1997 WSCC

This is posted for full disclosure.

Sport and politics (talk) 15:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Notification of a discussion which you may be interested in

The following discussion is archived and relates to Scottish Parliamentary constituencies. Please do not modify it.

You call me a difficult user while simultaneously hiding any negative comments you receive on your talk page. OK.

Anyway, on the point about the layout of constituency seat pages, I've started a discussion on Talk:Scottish Parliament election, 2016#Layout of constituency seat pages to try and establish some kind of consensus on the matter. Brythones (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's also rather funny that you constantly redo edits that are clearly in the process of WP:BRD while simultaneously claiming that I'm trying to "own" those pages. On your part, as you well know, this violates WP:Ownership (I know this because you constantly accuse me of it) and hardly appears in good faith from my perspective. Brythones (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)What are you talking about? Everything is available to read in the archive, and everything is available to read by opening the boxes which have been collapsed.

I also suggest a large go on the ice bucket challenge, as I can feel the red faced angry keyboard warriroir heat coming from your hands and face through the computer. WP:COOL.

Also thank you for beginning the discussion, i have responded to it there. I suggest neither of make long rambling responses to each other on thier, and allow others to participate as well. Sport and politics (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also find the following removal by you to be very hypocritical. You came on here with your keyboard warrior suit on raging about me hiding and removing information, yet you have simply removed what I have written. On my talk page and in the archive you can find it all. Please find the information preserved below. Sport and politics (talk) 17:12, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to take a lession from your book and follow your advice of WP:Cool :-) Brythones (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Original posts on User talk:Brythones removed by User:Brythones Sport and politics (talk) 17:12, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Avoid hypocrisy

It takes two to edit war so by claiming I am edit warring you are too, your warning was removed due to it being nothing more than hypocrisy on your part. Sport and politics (talk) 14:12, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"my talk"

Please be aware that on talk pages of articles, that no discussions are yours, simply because you have started them. This is in the same way the Wikipeidia articles are not owned by those who contribute the most to time, or start them. Discussions and articles can be contributed to by anyone, and yes titles of discussions can be changed to better reflect the content of the discussions being undertaken. Please be careful when claiming things on Wikipeidia are "'my talk" or similar as you may easily fall foul of WP:Ownership. I also recommend a thorough reading of the talk page guidelines.
In particular I draw your attention to the part Section headings which states

Threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better heading is appropriate.

-- Sport and politics (talk) 08:34, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are a very difficult user

You need to stop engaging in poor editing practices, and failing to justify what you are doing based on actual Wikipedia policy. You consistently refuse to allow for information which you dislike even though UK wide politics shows otherwise. if you believe that you are in the right please show a local consensus and Wikipedia policy. Simply going convention supports me is not enough. Stop you are editing very poorly. You are also not engaging in discussion, as you claim you are always following WP:BRD. At the moment you are blindly reverting and not seeing the issues with what you are doing. Sport and politics (talk) 16:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

UK Parliamentary Constituency pages

The following discussion is archived and relates to UK parliamentary constituencies. Please do not modify it.

Hi I assume this is the place I should contact you. Seems we have 2 minor differences of opinion about these pages. In terms of the new seat/existing seat issue I was approaching them in a manner consistent with the various boundary review commission findings as well as the way that the results themselves were reported/archived. In terms of bolding winning candidates is there a template or policy that I am in breach of or is it just personal preference for you to see the winners unbolded?

Appreciate the opportunity to discuss.

Benawu2 (talk) 08:11, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New seats are new seats, it is as simple as that. A new seat cannot be claimed to be held or gained or anything else, when it is first contested. New seats are new seats, they are won the first time. It doesn't matter if a source states it is gained or held. That is just good guesswork. Notional results are made up by academics based on their opinion. They are not based on electors going to the polls. Claiming one set of electors at one election will behave or should behave a set way is just fancy guesswork. Elections are far more complex than the guesswork no matter how fancy or educated an academic makes out. Individual voters will have many factors from the level of the election, to views on a local issue, to incumbency rating. These render claiming new seats as gains/holds to be misleading. A new seat is a new seat end of.

As for the bold of winning candidates, it is overkill, and does not add to the article, is unnecessary and distracting. Sport and politics (talk) 11:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I get your point about the new seats, although my edits are consistent with how others treat them. Be that as it may though I will go back and edit back so that they are treated as new seats. It is only the London constituencies I have been editing of recent times anyway. What you are saying here does make sense to be honest. On the bolding however I do respectfully disagree. I think bolding the winners enhances the pages rather than being overkill etc. It looks like you have been active on wikipedia longer than I have so I am not sure how to resolve this issue. I am not interested in engaging in an edit war but don't know where to from here because I feel reasonably strongly about this.

Your thoughts?

Benawu2 (talk) 12:09, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beginning a discussion on a page like village pump would be a good place for a wide input discussion, due to how many pages are involved. Sport and politics (talk) 13:35, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest it isn’t worth the hassle so any pages I edit I will make them unbolded for consistency.

Benawu2 (talk) 23:03, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Edit warring on WrestleMania 34

The following discussion is archived and relates to Wrestlemania 34. Please do not modify it.

Your recent editing history 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—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. - Galatz ^Talk 12:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no violation, and it takes you as well to act in the way you have to cause such a situation to occur in the first place. This warning is trolling and is wholly rejected as a waste of Wikipeidia space. This is total utter rubbish, and yet another jump to threats first and then talk second wanker who is typical of tiny endowed males on this encyclopedia. Sport and politics (talk) 12:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard Incidents discussion

The following discussion is archived and relates to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Please do not modify it.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Galatz ^Talk 13:14, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive record. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

DRN Notice

Penalty

You have a serious problem

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Top Gear test track

Nomination for deletion of Template:Election box supplementary hold

Ed Davey - views

Sandbox pages deleted

Notification of a discussion which you may be interested in

Avoid hypocrisy

"my talk"

You are a very difficult user

UK Parliamentary Constituency pages

Edit warring on WrestleMania 34

Notice of Administrators' noticeboard Incidents discussion

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.