User talk:Bluhaze777

Talkback

Hello, Bluhaze777. You have new messages at Walter Görlitz's talk page.
Message added 05:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:01, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

November 2015

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Adam Larsen Kwarasey, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Giant Snowman 12:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Sergio Campbell. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Giant Snowman 16:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Western Conference (MLS), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Washington. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Houston Texans

Hello, Bluhaze777. The team didn't join the league, or play a game, until the 2002 season. If you wish to challenge that date, please discuss it on the article talk page. Thanks —DoRD (talk) 02:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Linking dates

This series of edits may be problematic. Linking years to articles sometimes gets removed by scripts, bots or other processes. It may be removed at some point. You'll notice that I ran two of my scripts against the article right after you and it looks like they didn't touch them. I ran a third, but it made a lot of unnecessary changes. Just preparing you for some unexplained change in the future. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your note on my talk page

Hi. Your recent note on my talk page was added at the top and not signed.

When you add to talk pages please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

New discussions should be added at the bottom of talk pages. If you click the "New section" tab at the top of most talk pages it will do this automatically. See: Help:Using talk pages#Talk page use and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#WP:BOTTOMPOST.

Thank you.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 18:04, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Adam Larsen Kwarasey. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Giant Snowman 06:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Andre Blake. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Giant Snowman 06:54, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stats in football players' infoboxes and update of career stats

Hi.

When you update the stats in football players' infoboxes please remember that you should also update the timestamps as of when the stats are correct. This is done by updating |pcupdate= (or |club-update=) parameter when updating club appearances and goals, or |ntupdate= (or |nationalteam-update=) when updating national team appearances and goals. The easiest way to do this is to use five tildes, which automatically converts to the current time. For example |club-update=~~~~~.

When you update the career statistics please remember that you should also update that timestamp as well to a time when the stats are correct. This is done by manually updating the date above or below the statistics table. By doing this we show when the stats were last updated and it prevents other editors from accidentally updating the stats again.

This is done to show other editors when the stats were last updated and prevent them from accidentally updating the stats again, and also it shows readers that it has been updated.

Please keep this in mind. Thank you. Qed237 (talk) 23:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MLS conference and "membership"

You've made a lot of changes to team articles to indicate that the teams are "members" of a conference. They're not. I'm not sure where you came up with the language. I would appreciate that you open a discussion and suggest that you come up with different wording. I would suggest that you try including "compete in" instead. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:24, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016

We have had our disagreements in the past and this will likely be no different. Like Vancouver, Portland trace their roots back to NASL. However, there was a discussion that excluded that from being applied. There's a section on the talk page (see History of the club). If you want to reopen that debate do it but don't do it by edit warring. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:46, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 2016

This is a warning to stop edit warring at Major League Soccer. You have tried to make the same change three times now without attempting to gain consensus. CUA 27 (talk) 03:37, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 2016: Another warning

And now you have chosen to expand the edit war by making the same edits at Supporters' Shield. You need to stop trying to push your edits. Continue the discussion at Talk:Major League Soccer instead. CUA 27 (talk) 01:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 2016: Final warning

And now you have spread the edit war even further with the same type of edit at this edit at MLS Cup. If you don't self revert and if you continue to edit war instead of discussing, I will consider reporting you to WP:ANI. CUA 27 (talk) 01:56, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN/EW

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. CUA 27 (talk) 03:15, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bluehaze777, you've been warned per the result of the edit warring complaint. You may be blocked if you make any further reverts on table formatting in football articles, unless you have previously got a talk page consensus to make the change. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 05:37, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. CUA 27 (talk) 02:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

November 2016

Please do not attack other editors. 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. JohnInDC (talk) 02:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that you're not allowed to delete noticeboard threads. Look, someone disagreed with you. Big deal. Wikipedia is a collaborative project - it happens. If your version of an article is obviously better, someone will come along and agree with you. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for Personal attacks and removing a report from the AN3 noticeboard. 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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

EdJohnston (talk) 03:51, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Bluhaze777. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Founding dates in hockey team info boxes

Please stop changing them and read Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Archive67#Founded dates in the team infobox again before proceeding. Yosemiter (talk) 04:55, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The date of announcement may be day one as a business entity perhaps, but not as a team. That starts when they have players and the capability to play a game. There are a large number of official sources that primarily use the first season as the "Founding season" which is what we use. Official announcement dates for the organization are kept in the prose. I pointed you there to read it. For the time being, a consensus based on sources and usage has been reached. Yosemiter (talk) 05:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Same with Major League Soccer teams. The awarding of a franchise to a city is not the same as the founding of that city's team. Please stop changing founding dates based on your own interpretation of what those dates should be. Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 04:48, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not the same. And if you're going to carry on two discussions, I'm going to revert to Bluhaze777's version. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:38, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

February 2017

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on D.C. United‎‎. 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:37, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Carlos Bocanegra

added a link pointing to United States national football team

Charlie Davies

added a link pointing to United States national football team

Clint Dempsey

added a link pointing to United States national football team

Conor Casey

added a link pointing to United States national football team

DaMarcus Beasley

added a link pointing to United States national football team

Danny Califf

added a link pointing to United States national football team

Heath Pearce

added a link pointing to United States national football team

Jonathan Bornstein

added a link pointing to United States national football team

Landon Donovan

added a link pointing to United States national football team

Michael Bradley (soccer)

added a link pointing to United States national football team

Oguchi Onyewu

added a link pointing to United States national football team

Ricardo Clark

added a link pointing to United States national football team

Tim Howard

added a link pointing to United States national football team

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:52, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

March 2017

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Bryan Arguez, without citing a reliable source using an inline citation that clearly supports the material. The burden is on the person wishing to keep in the material to meet these requirements, as a necessary (but not always sufficient) condition. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Giant Snowman 08:13, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Toronto FC, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.

The "show preview" button is right next to the "save page" button and below the edit summary field.

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. 2011–2012 should not be a subsection of 2007–2010 Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 01:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the debate you were involved in on the D.C. United page and noticed you've edited some Toronto FC articles. Just letting you know that De Rosario is listed as a TFC player to win MLS MVP (2011) on the Toronto FC page. In 2011 DeRo played 18 games for DCU, 12 for RBNY and 2 for TFC. MLS rightfully lists the MVP as a D.C. United player for that year. I want to have a talk on the Toronto FC page regarding that with the input of some DCU fans. Please stop by if interested. 1 soccer fan 1 (talk) 01:07, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sporting Kansas City

I see that you decided to take off the information you had added to the Sporting Kansas City article. I didn't have any problem with it, other than the order (Neal Patterson died before Dwyer was traded) and the sentence "It was an unexpected move during the summer transfer window as the striker had been an asset for the team since late 2013" because that is more of an opinion than a fact. Besides those two things, the only other thing that I changed to it was adding the actual dates. So, if none of those changes are an issue for you, I say that you should put it back in, because other than those small things, it was a really good addition to the article. Elisfkc (talk) 03:55, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Timbers

You'll notice I didn't revert your revert on the Timbers article. The team name is the same and there is a claim by the team that it's a continuing history. You should probably discuss the others. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:59, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017

Please stop making disruptive edits, as you did at Talk:Major League Soccer‎.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Irrelevant postings consisting of personal attacks are not permitted on talk pages. Ravenswing 17:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you were disappearing ;)

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ATemplates_for_discussion%2FLog%2F2017_August_27&type=revision&diff=800171406&oldid=799304548 It was interesting, but it's entirely misleading. The example I provided was a case-in-point. At the time, Atlanta had only played 24 games but the template showed it had played 25. Second, does the table show the position by round when a team reaches a milestone? in Other words, at the end of "round 24" (whatever that means in MLS terms) did the table show the position of every team after they had played 24 games or did it show the position TFC was in when they reached 24 games, and Portland when they reached 24 games, and so on? There's a difference between English leagues, Spanish leagues, German leagues, Italian leagues, French leagues and other European leagues where at the end of each weekend the teams have played the same number of matches. So as of today, the Premier League table shows each team with four matches. There is a way to see what each team has done after four matches. There is no way to see what each MLS team has done after four games except to create a spreadsheet. And how do you arbitrate between your spreadsheet and another editor's. It's a meaningless effort. It's another effort for fans like you to make the MLS format appear more European and it's not appropriate. This has been the case for the past five years (at least) when different efforts to do this have been deleted. This is the first year that the effort was done as a template.

That it was only linked to a single article is simple reason for deleting the template. That the data is problematic is a reason to never include it until MLS has a balanced schedule. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well I still am. Just wanted to do small things first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluhaze777 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I politely explain and you don't even revert correctly

When I comment that your new two-column layout will cause problems on mobile devices, you don't discuss and instead restore your version without explanation or discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:43, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PMF as honorific suffix

I reverted your recent additions of PMF in the position of honorific suffix. There are no WP:Reliable sources which use that form. Binksternet (talk) 18:49, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Experiences survey

Beginning on November 28, 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Community health initiative (Safety and Support and Anti-Harassment Tools team) will be conducting a survey to en.wikipedia contributors on their experience and satisfaction level with the Administrator’s Noticeboard/Incidents. This survey will be integral to gathering information about how this noticeboard works - which problems it deals with well, and which problems it struggles with.

The survey should take 10-20 minutes to answer, and your individual responses will not be made public. The survey is delivered through Google Forms. The privacy policy for the survey describes how and when Wikimedia collects, uses, and shares the information we receive from survey participants and can be found here:

https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/2017_AN/Incidents_Survey_Privacy_Statement

If you would like to take this survey, please sign up on this page, and a link for the survey will be mailed to you via Special:Emailuser.

Sign up here to receive a link to a survey

Thank you on behalf of the Support & Safety and Anti-Harassment Tools Teams, Patrick Earley (WMF) talk 21:12, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Bluhaze777. 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]

December 2017

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistent vandalism.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:26, 21 December 2017 (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).

Bluhaze777 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was not vandalising pages, I made contributions with goals of imporving pages, no one wanted to listen when I left discussions open for talk pages and no one bothered to have open minds with new additions while being easy to only revert edits. All in the period of almost four years. The same hadful of editors are involved with controling what is edited in the pages involved. It was not fair at all especially when I have done most contibrutions to the articles while they have not. I even question hipocracy as well since the same habdful of editors don't allow edits other then theirs.

Decline reason:

Declined, per the repeat block evasion. You can appeal this block 6 months after your last instance of editing while logged out. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:17, 4 April 2018 (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.

@SarekOfVulcan: - I know this was a while ago, but I'm having trouble identifying vandalism from this editor (doesn't mean it's not there, I might just be dense) - would you be able to look at this request please? SQL ^{Query me!} 01:53, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really remember what caused the block, but I probably wasn't impressed by this edit or the malformed EWN report. I see there was also a case of pasting the [5] in for a reference instead of the link it should have pointed to.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:19, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any consideration of the unblock request should probably take into account the allegations of sockpuppetry since this block which involve the same pages, and same types of edits, as this master and appear to my eyes to be well-founded. JohnInDC (talk) 11:10, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would also note the high degree of overlap between the editing interests and tendencies of this recently-blocked IP (not included in the sockpuppet reports), alongside the unblock request that is strikingly similar to the one presented here. JohnInDC (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Self-identified socking here to leave a gripe message on another user's talk page. - BilCat (talk)

Here's another (not expressly self-identified but the inference is not unfair). JohnInDC (talk) 00:29, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]