User talk:Abcmaxx/Archives/2017

January 2017

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Zawisza Bydgoszcz. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Merely asked a question, or we censoring those now too? Abcmaxx (talk) 18:00, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

No, but calling another editor names is not okay. You should know this by now. Sir Sputnik (talk) 18:17, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

What is this primary school? I merely asked a normal question, there is no insult in there, the very use of the word lazy does not constitute name-calling. Q: Are you lazy? A: Yes/no. Q: Are you wasting your time even bothering with this crap? A: You choose Abcmaxx (talk) 19:11, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

When asking a question serves only to disparage the person of whom it's being asked it's a personal attack. There have problems the incivility your behaviour for some time. You responses only continue that trend. Keep this up, and it will get you blocked. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

No-one seems to mind when the edits are done merely to disparage except I seem to have a bit thicker skin rather than get offended at everything, that article has been consistently attempted to revert to stub status by that user, even altering/deleting reliable sources at one point. You could block me, but then which Wikipedian will you pointlessly lecture? Like I said before, this a) a hobby b) I don't get paid, I do not owe anything nor do you have a moral high-ground nor police/teacher/higher deity privileges. Just leave me the f**k alone and stop needlessly deleting every single input I make unless there is a valid reason that has been stated. Abcmaxx (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

February 2017

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Kevin Amankwaah, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Unsourced content. Mattythewhite (talk) 20:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Mattythewhite You taking the piss or what? The Sutton United page has a Ghanaian flag next to him and judging by surname, he is likely to be of Ghanaian descent Abcmaxx (talk) 20:11, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

May 2017

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at FC Montana, you may be blocked from editing. The criteria you added were clearly not met by a number of players in both articles you edited. A simple check of the players WP articles would have confirmed this. Furthermore, where players do not have an article, claims to meet such criteria should be fully referenced. Please also do not use criteria such as "left a good impression with the fans" as this is clearly subjective. If you continue to add false inclusion criteria, you will be blocked. Fenix down (talk) 17:03, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@User:Fenix down I know common sense eludes you but a) try reading the definition of vandalism b) they did have inclusion criteria at the top c) if you bothered to check the edits I removed "left a good impression with the fans" bit and d) why can't you just remove the payers that do meet the criteria? because from I see they all did. But I guess that would actually mean actual editing rather than just trying to pull one over Abcmaxx (talk) 17:33, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Well three of the players in the Montana article, Eduardo, Ivanov and Ibramov meet none of the criteria and six are just unreferenced redlinks so I think you need to be a lot more accurate in your checking and provide more references for those who don't have WP articles. Fenix down (talk) 17:51, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Or you could just delete these and keep the rest?! Abcmaxx (talk) 19:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

It is the job of the contributing editor to ensure they have checked and adequately sourced their contributions; this means it is your job. I'm going to be blunt with you because my patience is at an end after some time dealing with you off and on. You have been repeatedly requested and warned not to do things over the last 18 months and you're stock response is "Not my fault, not my problem". Whilst you may be here to contribute to an encyclopedia, you are nowhere near doing so in an acceptably collaborative way.

You should take this as your very final warning that any further behaviour like this will result in you being blocked. Specifically, though not limited to this, you should not create any lists of players without fully checking blue linked players meet the clear inclusion criteria provided and when including red linked players you should include a clear reference to a reliable source to confirm they meet the inclusion criteria.

If I see you acting against these suggestions I will block you, if I see you continuing to act in an uncollaborative manner I will block you, and considering the number of times a number of editors have had to speak to you over the last year or so that block will be relatively lengthy. Fenix down (talk) 22:35, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I am not the contributing editor, I didn't make the list in the first place therefore I did not add it, and so it is not "my job", I merely reverted your deletion as you said it didn't have inclusion criteria even though it clearly did and corrected it. I never said I never make mistakes nor everything I do cannot be subject to criticism, unlikely yourself who believes any flaw in your editing is a personal attack and you are backed by some imaginary higher Wikipedia power. I also point out that Wikipedia isn't my workplace nor do I get paid for it so none of this "is my job". I'm not sure how blind deletion can be construed as "constructive", in fact anything you do on here is mostly anything but; rather than barraging me with pointless threats and accusing me of vandalism and a host of other fantasy violations, in the time you wrote your "high horsed speech" on here you actually went through the effort of checking all those inaccuracies, and instead of correcting it and be done with it you proceeded to make some bizarre tirade full of threats and still refuse to actually add anything even though you could have done so but you refuse on the principle that I should re-do what you have already done. I suggest you drop this "Wikipedia Stasi" type policing approach, I find it laughable that I am somehow seen as the uncollaborative one when it is you that just slaps on a whole host of stupid warnings and threats and who knows what else every time something doesn't go your way. Abcmaxx (talk) 09:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

You changed the inclusion criteria to ones that were demonstrably false. It is your job to ensure that that contribution is correct and it is your job to check each and every person on that list when you do change the criteria and add references to those where ready verification through other WP articles cannot be done. This is simple, your failure to understand this is the problem. Again you completely ignore your faults and errors and make out like it is other people who are making the mistakes. If you won't check your work despite being told to do so, you will be blocked in future for deliberately adding incorrect information. If you continue to add unreferenced content (such as red linked players) you will be blocked for failing to source. Take a look at your talk page, do you seriously think the number of warnings you have received in the last 12 months is indicative of someone who works in a collaborative manner and seeks consensus? Fenix down (talk) 10:18, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't make a right so just because some people are unable to comprehend simple principles does not mean slapping unjustified warnings are indicative of me being uncollaborative. and I know it is like talking to a brick wall but I repeat I did not add anything nor created this list. You put there was no inclusion criteria, where there clearly was. You pointed out a flaw, but rather than correcting it, you waste your time repeating the same stupid flawed argument over again. Honestly, you could have corrected it and be done with it, honestly, aside from the simple fact it was not me who made this addition does it really matter who's job it really is? Abcmaxx (talk) 11:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

1. This diff and this diff show clearly that I did not remove any list because there was no inclusion criteria as you claim, the edit summary with a link to the relevant manual of style shows the need for clear inclusion criteria. The notion of "leaving a good impression with the fans" is clearly subjective and your next edit on both articles shows you understood this as this was the element you changed, so not sure why you are now making this claim
2. This diff and this diff clearly show you clearly changed the inclusion criteria in both instances, so please don't tell me you did not. It is your job and yours alone to check changes you make are correct. Given that each list included players without WP, and ignoring the basic lack of checking you did on players already with their own WP article, how could you possible have known that the inclusion criteria you were adding were right? Fenix down (talk) 11:37, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

It really is like talking to a brick wall. So according to you, everyone else should edit, and if they get it wrong you shall bombard them with a tirade of points of how they have done it wrong whilst doing absolutely nothing to correct it, because you're the deletion guy and the others are the contributor, and that mean they have to remain that and until they rectify their horrendous mistake, despite you knowing what the mistake is, but have decided not to do anything to help with it other than having a go at the person who dared to add something to a free voluntary and anonymous encyclopaedia.Abcmaxx (talk) 19:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Nonsense, if you add criteria to a list you have to check it. I'm not going to go through each and every person and verify then and remove them one by one. In both instances I did a reasonable sample check which showed you had added criteria that were patently untrue. Your attitude that it is other people's responsibility to review what you do and correct it where necessary stinks. It is better you add nothing than add incorrect information. There is nothing more to say on this. Your responses to any and all criticisms of your contributions by any number of editors over the past 18 months have been at best derisory and at worst offensive. You have received your very last warning, any further continuation of this pattern of behaviour will be met with a lengthy block. Fenix down (talk) 22:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Vandamel

The article was deleted as an uncontested PROD. If you'd like me to restore it, you only have to ask. GiantSnowman 20:16, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Diaspora sports clubs for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Diaspora sports clubs is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Diaspora sports clubs until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Slashme (talk) 11:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Abcmaxx. 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)