User talk:JohnMannV

Welcome to Wikipedia from NellieBly[edit]

Hi, JohnMannV. I welcome you to Wikipedia! Thank you for all of your edits. I hope you like editing here and being part of Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); when you save the page, this will turn into your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or put {{helpme}} (and what you need help with) on your talk page and someone will show up very soon to answer your questions. You also might want to consider being "adopted" by an experienced user who would show you how wikipedia works through a program called adopt-a-user. Again, welcome! NellieBly (talk) 18:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware of WP:SOCK[edit]

I would suggest that, whoever you are, you cease using this account immediately. At least not on the Tuples in association football page. As it appears like you are trying to create a false sense of support or a trying to use a larger number of accounts to get more reversions.Adam4267 (talk) 20:32, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appear to be responsible for this overly-hostile warning, per this discussion on my talk page. I would suggest that if you have any association with User:Subtropical-man that you take the time to read WP:SOCK, but if not then please don't be offended by the above comment. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Three-revert rule notice.[edit]

I would like to notify you of the Three-revert rule on Wikipedia. That is; that no editor should perform three reversions on a single page in a 24-hour period. Doing so may result in a block. You have made three reversions already in a short period, to the Tuples in association football page, so one more could put you in violation of the rule. Also I would like to apologise for my overly-hostile comments above. Thank you. Adam4267 (talk) 00:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edits[edit]

I have reverted your edit to Tuples in association football. The article has had a lot done to it to bring up to a good standard in your first edit [1] you removed content whilst adding your own. If your information is verified and will be checked then add it but do not remove the existing text. In your edit summary you said you were adding content not removing it. If you disagree i suggest you use the talk page of the article. Edinburgh Wanderer 19:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are removing proper content at the same time which you have been advised not to do before i did. for instance:

Sextuple is a term in football that refers to a club winning six tournaments. It is formed by analogy with similar terms such as treble, quadruple and quintuple. No club has won six trophies in a single season, however it has been achieved in a calendar year.

The only bit you say your sources prove is wrong is the last bit by removing the rest you are weakening the standard of the article. Also note i am away to check the sources to see if that is accurate. Edinburgh Wanderer 20:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are edit warring again desist immediately i have explained how you can fix it yet you insist on ignoring all advice given to you then that is disruptive behaviour. I am going to add the info you removed back in whilst trying to leave your more productive edits. Please do not edit war and i strongly suggest you use the talk page to discuss you issues with the rest of the community who are working hard to improve it. Edinburgh Wanderer 20:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you drop your nationalist personal attacks very quickly or i will report you for them. Being Scottish has nothing to do with anything. You need to read what i have told you above carefully. I have not said to you once that the Barcelona edit was wrong what i told you was don't remove content. You add your info which if true is fine but at the same time you make other edits to the article removing other text which the community has worked on to improve. Please learn to edit constructively and be civil to other users. See Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:3RR.Edinburgh Wanderer 21:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at it and find it to be inaccurate and have started a discussion on the talk page. You should reply there. Edinburgh Wanderer 21:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

December 2011[edit]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Tuples_in_association_football. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. The suggestion that nationality has something to do with editing patterns comes across as an ethnic insult, and is not tolerated. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hrs for continuing ethnically-based insults on an identifiable group, even after being request to stop. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for Disruptive editing: continuing conflict with insults on Talk:Tuples in association football after release of previous block. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Toddst1 (talk) 02:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANi[edit]

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Edinburgh Wanderer 20:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar[edit]

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

ANI[edit]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Blethering Scot 18:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For the benefit of any reviewing admin, this ANI discussion is archived here. Toddst1 (talk) 19:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

August 2012[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for continuing highly confrontational, ethnic-based conflict(s) and stating that this disruption (that has found you twice blocked) will continue "until all these matters are addressed by an Admin.". If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Toddst1 (talk) 18:11, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

JohnMannV (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Toddst1 obviously either did not read the ANI discussion in full or misunderstood it. His stated reason for the ban is "declaring that the disruption will continue until "these matters are addressed by an Admin."" However, anyone who has actually read the discussion in the ANI in full can tell that that statement by me was in reference to Blethering Scots' biased editing (e.g. as in, "I will not back down from bringing his biased editing to light until they are addressed by an Admin"), and not the "disruptions" (e.g. my edits that Blethering Scots finds biased as it conflicts with his POV) that Blethering Scots was referring to because those ended the moment the ANI was filed, as can be clearly noted in my edit history. Not only that, but on 24 August 2012 at 20:15 (UTC) I specifically acknowledged TheRedPenofDoom's clarification that article talk pages are not the pertinent place to bring up the issue of biased editing. As such, this Block has been executed under the wrong pretenses. I am disappointed Toddst1 did not address any of my concerns in the ANI. Furthermore, I am very disappointed to see that Toddst1 literally asked Blethering Scots "What is it you want?", and Blethering Scots told him what he wanted, and Toddst1 simply gave it to him (again, without addressing a single one of my legitimate and verifiable concerns). I suppose a certain amount of I-scratch-your-back-you-scratch-my-back is expected between editors that have been here longer than I have, but I never thought it would be so transparent. Everything I mentioned in the ANI and the talk page of the article in question has been backed and is easily verifiable. I respectfully ask that this block be lifted and my concerns regarding Blethering Scots' biased editing be addressed by an Administrator. Thank you.JohnMannV (talk) 18:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

There are definite issues here involving your tendentious editing and discussion habits, and this request does nothing to address those habits of yours. Requesting an unblock by talking about how everyone else except you has misbehaved is not helpful. If you want to be unblocked, you need to address your editing habits, because we're talking about unblocking you here, not Toddst1 or BletheringScot. They could be angels or the devil himself, but that doesn't matter. To be able to unblock you, we need to know that if the block is lifted, your behavior will change, and you've not addressed that. If you're willing to address it, I suggest you make a new unblock request outlining how you plan to change your editing behavior to address the issues that have caused you to be blocked. If you're not willing to address the issue of your behavior, another unblock request is unlikely to get you any farther than this one has. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

JohnMannV (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Fluffernutter, thanks for taking the time to give me some actual helpful advise. I thought in the ANI I had made it clear that I understood the rules, but I want to make it clear here beyond a shadow of a doubt and address my editing habits as you requested. I will no longer "edit war" when I see biased editing. I will no longer point out a group making biased edits are from the same country even if they are promoting teams from their country. Instead, as I've learned in the ANI, I will bring my POV concerns to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard and deal with the matter there. I will stick to facts, and only facts, and will exclude facts regarding nationality-based editing. I trust this clarifies my position. I make no apologies for wanting to right a wrong where I saw biased editing, but I do apologise for the manner in which I attempted to right that wrong. I respectfully request that my block be lifted so that I can finish righting this wrong through the official channels. JohnMannV (talk) 23:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

No. This is a step in the right direction, but only one - you're still firmly in the "everyone else is wrong and I must prove it" camp. This is the definition of tendentious editing. If your sole purpose is to pursue an agenda, then you will not be unblocked. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 14:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

JohnMannV (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been blocked by Toddst1 on behalf of user Blethering Scots for 3 days now and I am still waiting for a decision on my appeal above and have no other way of contacting any Admins to review the matter and have not heard from anyone in 3 days. Could an Admin please review my appeal so that I can bring my POV concerns in List_of_association_football_teams_to_have_won_four_or_more_trophies_in_one_season to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard? Thank you. JohnMannV (talk) 11:21, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Duplicate, please keep only one appeal open at a time. Appeals are listed in CAT:RFU, so you won't "fall off the radar." Have patience, we are volunteers. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 14:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You've made more than a few personal attacks and accusations as part of your idea of "sticking to the facts" on ANI and other aspects of what you think is WP:DR throughout your short editing career - which has been marred by quite a few appearances on ANI and 3 blocks related to the same topic. I don't see any reason to believe you would behave any differently in the future if you continue to focus on the same issues and articles.

So far, all of your editing has been related to what you state you want to do in your unblock request: "finish righting this wrong" which is a hallmark of tendentious editing. Toddst1 (talk) 23:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, you are the one who blocked me 2 times at the request of Blethering Scot (both times), and you never once addressed any my concerns, every single one of which has been backed up with sources. I find it interesting that you would classify my editing in that article as "tendentious" when I backed every single edit I've made with verifiable citations from highly-reputable sources, which I can only suspect is because you either have a personal issue against me or did not bother to read any of my posts in the article's talk page (and check my sources), or both. I don't care how short my editing career is, I don't care whether I stick to just one article, because if I am providing verifiable citations from highly-reputable sources (including FIFA, The Guardian, the Independent, Sky Sports, Metro, and Sports Illustrated/CNN) pointing out POV editing backed by facts, then I am doing a service to Wikipedia and its readers. Furthermore, if you had actually bothered to look at my editing history of the article in question, you would have noted that I had also originally added other teams beside F.C. Barcelona, but I choose to focus my case on F.C. Barcelona because it was the one that had (by far) the greatest number of verifiable sources from highly-reputable sources, which (I thought) would make my case of POV editing much stronger after Blethering Scot and his group continuously removed it. I already acknowledged understanding that pointing out a particular group making biased edits about a team from their country happen to be from the same country is against Wikipedia rules, and that I wouldn't be doing it again. I just find it very strange that you and Blethering Scot are doing everything within your powers to keep me from bringing the POV editing in the article in question to light. I was new to Wikipedia and I thought the talk page was the natural place to bring POV concerns until TheRedPenofDoom's clarified to me in the ANI that there is a special section of Wikipedia to bring those concerns to light, and I already acknowledged on multiple occasions since then that I would be bringing my POV concerns through to that official channel, and sticking to all the facts except those that mention that the group of editors making biased edits about a team from their country happen to be from the same country. So while you -- who so far has only done everything user Blethering Scot has asked you to do with regards to my account -- may have no reason to believe I would behave any differently, I am hopeful that at least one other Admin will read through the Talk page of the article in question (Ctrl + F my username) and all the verifiable details in the ANI and my appeals on this page to see my side of the story and grant me the opportunity to bring my POV concerns to the community. I will then accept whatever the community decides, but I believe it deserves to be heard regardless of whatever personal issue you and Blethering Scot may have against me. JohnMannV (talk) 09:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOCK[edit]

Hi I had been accused of being your sock, over this article, I had request the semi-protect was lifted, however this was up held, and have requested that the closing admin expand their summary here 188.28.151.90 (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't waste any time with this. This is the second time I've been falsely accused of WP:SOCK by the same group of people. Wikipedia is a joke. It's one big circle-jerk of editors that do as they please, rather than what is factually correct. Just look at my indefinite ban and how my appeal is being ignored. All they do is protect each other and their point of views. They're not interested in facts. Rather than argue your facts (which they cannot), they will try to silence you on a technicality since they've studied every single Wikipedia rule. And when you want to bring this kind of abuse to light, they silence you for good. This is corruption at its finest, and an absolute travesty. JohnMannV (talk) 12:05, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't disagree with that too much! It's quite impressive that these Admins aren't even prepared to put any evidence to support their sock claim, next they'l be adding content to wp without evidence to support their claims ... oh wait .... 188.29.205.173 (talk) 20:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]