User talk:DooksFoley147

Hi DooksFoley147! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like I JethroBT (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

19:30, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Welcome

Hello DooksFoley147 and welcome to Wikipedia! We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your contributions, such as the ones to List of world number one snooker players, do not conform to our policies. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you'd like to experiment with the wiki's syntax, please do so in the sandbox (but beware that the contents of the sandbox are deleted frequently) rather than in articles.

If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Betty Logan (talk) 06:06, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019

Hello, I'm Betty Logan. I noticed that you recently removed content from Maximum break without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Betty Logan (talk) 23:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

it was not a mistake or an experiment the time of the quickest maximum is 5mins and 8 seconds

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), 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 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.

Thank you. 331dot (talk) 11:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the final you just removed

This has been discussed before. Cuetracker is on the blacklist and is not a reliable source, hence why there is no reference to this result on O'Sullivan's page. This particular event cannot be verified through any other source other than Cuetracker. If you visit Pontins Open (the results of which are sourced) you can see for that year they did not play in the final. It's likely this match was played earlier in the tournament, if at all. Ultimately, it's unreferenced and cannot be included. Andygray110 (talk) 03:15, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andy that is nonsense cuetracker is referenced for many events that chris turner's site has missed so how come it is good enough to reference some events and not others ?. cuetracker is only blacklisted for century breaks and prize money I do believe. DooksFoley147 (talk) 03:19, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to suggest that he made up the event ?. DooksFoley147 (talk) 03:22, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not suggesting anything, I'm going by the rules of the encyclopedia, currently you are not. I do suggest you visit Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Snooker if you require more clarification before you start an edit war. Please note that if you revert my change again, you will be in breach of 3RR. Andygray110 (talk) 03:26, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How come it is ok to include events from cuetracker that chris turner site does not cover, ie Steve Davis' win in the 1991 European League and Jimmy White's win in the New Zealand Masters. why is it ok to reference cuetracker for some events and not others ? DooksFoley147 (talk) 03:30, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cuetracker is used for references for lots of events on wiki so why are people told it is no good for others why is that the case then ?. DooksFoley147 (talk) 03:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain to me why cuetracker is referenced for some tournaments and not others please ?. can you explain why that is ?. Thanks DooksFoley147 (talk) 03:40, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019

Hello, I'm Andygray110. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Ronnie O'Sullivan have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Thanks. Andygray110 (talk) 03:22, 31 March 2019 (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. Andygray110 (talk) 03:44, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just asked a simple question can you answer it please ?. how come cuetracker is ok to be used for events not covered by other sources and not ok for this ,can you tell me why it is not ok for this one ?. That is all I want to know ?. Thanks DooksFoley147 (talk) 03:48, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cuetracker is not ok to be used as source for any event, as I explained above. Andygray110 (talk) 03:54, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

but it is used on this site I am not saying by you but other people have added events using it. There was no need to report me I am only trying to help out on this site, and working for the good of this site and I don't appreciate the criticism quite frankly. DooksFoley147 (talk) 03:58, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you remove that complaint you made against me ?. I am only trying to help out here and I do not think it is fair to be honest. DooksFoley147 (talk) 04:14, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that Wikipedia is a volunteer project; as such, it is possible for someone to use inappropriate sources and have them go undetected for a long time. This is why seeing something elsewhere is not a reason by itself to use it as a source. 331dot (talk) 09:31, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you now removing events from Cliff Thorburn non- ranking section

I am removing them as his website is a WP:SPS is a self-published source. The fact that there are no other sources that document these results means it cannot be used (although it necessarily doesn't mean they didn't happen). There were tags against these for a year in which other sources could be added; none were added, and so I have removed them.

Again, I would please urge you to discuss this type of issue either at the article talk page, or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Snooker before reverting the edits of others. Andygray110 (talk) 11:46, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you go to a talkpage to discuss removing these events ?. you seem to remove what you want. you remove my stuff without going to a talkpage. DooksFoley147 (talk) 11:58, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An extra note on this - if you can find and add sources that back up the results (other than the self-published website) then there will be no problem adding them. Andygray110 (talk) 11:50, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But again Andy why bother removing them from Cliff's page ?. there are other results from players with no sources from that era and they are left can you explain that to me please ?. I asked you a few question last night but you would not respond to me btw. DooksFoley147 (talk) 11:56, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've just explained why I've bothered to remove them!! If other pages are the same, then it is likely such unsourced content will be removed as well. Andygray110 (talk) 12:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

why don't you just leave them alone. These events took place there was just not as many sources available back in the day. Half the players on Wikipedia have no sources for there wins, I really don't know why you are doing this. I remember last year reading on a thread that you had no intention of removing tournaments with no sources as there would be mass deletion of pages. So why now ?. DooksFoley147 (talk) 12:53, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Maximum break, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Betty Logan (talk) 14:38, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Ronnie O'Sullivan and other articles

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

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 ~~~~}}.

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. You have been edit warring and making unsourced changes to snooker articles. Though you responded to the complaint, you made no assurances about your future behavior. EdJohnston (talk) 20:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tiger Woods article

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Tiger Woods. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you.

It is not vandalism Day comes before Month which comes before year ok it's quiet simple really — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.156.3 (talk) 21:22, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of world number one snooker players

Will you please explain why you keep repeatedly making this edit at List of world number one snooker players. Surely it is obvious by now what happens if you remove the bracket?

Why are you asking a rhetorical question then ?.

2018 World Snooker Championship

Hi DooksFoley147,

Thank you for your edits to 2018 World Snooker Championship. However, the information isn't sourced. Yes, it does need to be sourced, even if the information is known by everyone. The article is currently going through a featured article review, which means that the article needs to be very carefully sourced, or it could fail.

If you can find any reliable sources that say this (exactly that he's the third to win it in his forties, and the age the other two men won), then feel free to add back into the article, however until that, it's not suitable for the article. I hope you understand. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you being so tight on this article these are facts I am presenting ok ?> Regards DooksFoley147 (talk) 13:45, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the reasons above. Wikipedia doesn't run on "facts", it runs on sourced information. You would need to find a source that says that information to add. It had already been removed prior to this because it was unsourced by the source given. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is referenced on the Final section that Williams was the oldest crucible champion since Reardon who was 45 in 1978. I want to add this to the lead section ok. DooksFoley147 (talk) 14:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Grand Slam men's singles champions - color changes?

I'm not sure why you keep removing the longstanding color block at List of Grand Slam men's singles champions. The color and the asterisk are there to differentiate French Championship winners from Grand Slam winners, and have been for a long time. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February 2020

Hello, I'm Andygray110. I noticed that you recently removed content from Shaun Murphy without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Andygray110 (talk) 21:22, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Power Snooker

This has already been discussed. DO NOT remove edits that others spent the time to create. If you feel something should be in another section, move it there. Deletions because you don't agree where the content should be placed are disruptive and not conducive to enhancing Wikipedia. Andygray110 (talk) 21:24, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Information on how to add a source to an article

In this edit's summary, you said the following: "I do not know how to add a source[.]"

Let me assist you: information on how to add sources can be found at Wikipedia:Citing sources.

The tl;dr of that page is that to add a source, you add the following directly after the material it's supposed to support: <ref>YOUR SOURCE</ref>.

From now on you can no longer claim that you don't know how to add a source. 78.28.54.47 (talk) 11:23, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This does not tell me how I add the source I need from the Chris Turner Snooker Archive. It is a section on a players profile. I don't know how to do it do you understand me ?. Regards DooksFoley147 (talk) 11:37, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want an example of Chris Turner Snooker Archive being used as a source, take a look at 1968–69 snooker season which uses that source twice. 78.28.54.47 (talk) 12:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does. You do not need to link directly to the relevant text. The link to the page will suffice; although adding the section name to the ref title in parentheses (or separated by a pipe) may be helpful to those interested in following the link. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Probably also worth reading WP:V and WP:RS, in order to be clear on what kinds of sources may be used to reliably verify facts/claims. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:32, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020

Unfortunately your addition to Gary Player duplicated an already listed tournament win – i.e. the "Kronenbrau" is the South African Masters, which has been known by many different sponsored names through the years. Regards. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 22:18, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Nelson Mandela Invitational was not founded until 2000. Also, Player's wins in it were as part of the 4-person team event.
Please ask at the talk page before attempting to add any further wins. Many people have done lots of research to get accurate information into his bio (by cross referencing many sources, importantly including contemporary coverage) and will be able confirm/check details for you, without disrupting the article. Regards. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 08:43, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are so busy editing my edits why have you not sorted out Players wins in the South African Masters, He has 12 wins but only 11 are listed on the wikipedia page plus the years do not match the years listed by official sources. instead of watching my work, why have you and others on here not sorted that problem as a matter of interest ?. DooksFoley147 (talk) 09:54, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He won the South African Masters 11 times – you can refer to the WP article for confirmation & details of the years. Please be aware that some sources are not always reliable, including "official" ones; original contemporary sources and almanacs are usually better. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:10, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

why don't you sort it ?. you undo all my edits anyway why not get involved and fix this ?.. how do you know he has not won it 12 times ?. there could have been two editions in one of his listed years of winning. this has occurred before. It is dangerous if wiki gives different totals that official sources list imo. DooksFoley147 (talk) 10:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why not fix the years on his homepage besides leaving it ?. DooksFoley147 (talk) 10:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected both his SA Masters and SA PGA wins now, inline with the reliable sources in those articles. It's worth noting that there has always been some confusion over the two events due to them both having the SA Match Play (pre-1960) in their heritage. Generally, the Masters is considered a continuation, but some claim it's the PGA. Even the organising bodies (SA PGA & Sunshine Tour) have published conflicting material. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The figure of 160 wins is not verifiable as an accurate total (Wikipedia is not a reliable source), therefore we cannot state it. Please refer to WP:V. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but your recent edits, such as those to Gary Player, appear to be intentional disruptions designed to illustrate a point. Edits designed for the deliberate purpose of drawing opposition, including making edits you do not agree with or enforcing a rule in a generally unpopular way, are highly disruptive and can lead to a block or ban. If you feel that a policy is problematic, the policy's talk page is the proper place to raise your concerns. If you simply disagree with someone's actions in an article, discuss it on the article talk page or, if direct discussion fails, through dispute resolution. If consensus strongly disagrees with you even after you have made proper efforts, then respect the consensus, rather than trying to sway it with disruptive tactics. Thank you. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:44, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am tired of your shit to be honest. Why don't you just leave the figure at 160 what wikipedia states. You are stuck in everything. Do not send me a message like this again. I could complain about you to say you are disruptive with your edits and should be blocked. You don't own wikipedia I have edited here for years DooksFoley147 (talk) 12:53, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2020

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at Shaun Murphy, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. You are becoming incredibly disruptive - this is your final warning. Removing sourced information, logging out to avoid scrutiny, the latest series of personal attacks based at myself and user:Nigej like on my talk and at [1] have to stop. The next I see will go to WP:AIV Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:38, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logging out

Why do you continue to log out for the majority of your edits, only logging in when the article is protected? It's all very bizarre. You'd have more credibiiity if you followed the rules. Nigej (talk) 19:21, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Using the IP address 80.233.56.46 to make this edit proves my point. Nigej (talk) 07:21, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I log in sometimes and others I don't because it is too much hassle. I don't have to answer or explain myself to you, it is no big deal or anyone's business what I do in fairness, you just go around undoing edits to run wikipedia the way you want. DooksFoley147 (talk) 07:44, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is our business - logging out to avoid scrutiny is against wikipedias rules, and you have been warned about it on several occasions. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:07, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was waiting only a matter of time before I knew lee would leave a comment. When did you two decide you own wikipedia ?. If I am doing a quick edit for a century break I don't go to the hassle of logging in and logging out. I just make the edit quickly. Don't try and intimate me on here I have told you about that before it is always two against one on here, maybe I should look into it, make sure to have a wonderful day. Kind regards DooksFoley147 (talk) 15:17, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:00, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020

Your recent editing history at 2020–21 snooker season shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you get a life. Now jog on and do something important there is a good little boy. You sad act DooksFoley147 (talk) 18:04, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You need to learn how to engage constructively with other editors. Indulging in edit wars, doing so while logged out (to avoid scrutiny), refusing to cite sources or use article talk pages, being abusive – all these things will only result in a block. This may be your last chance to change your ways. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:21, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Listen I don't hide behind shit like you claim, I say what I say I don't care what you think. If you stopped sending me messages and actually took time out and looked up the Seniors Snooker page and looked at the calendar you would see the Seniors Masters is now being staged in Aug 21. That is next season. Do you think you could be bothered to do that ??????????????. God bless you dear friend and do have a wonderful and pleasant evening DooksFoley147 (talk) 18:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You must either cite the source(s) to support your changes, or discuss on the article talk page and request someone else make the change. I highly recommend doing the latter. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:40, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked no one ever does anything. You could change it but you won't Goodnight DooksFoley147 (talk) 18:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. I'm going to give you a final warning for your behaviour. This also covers any and all IPs that you edit from. The personal attacks (such as the one above) are not suitable on Wikipedia. You will face a block on the next one. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:20, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I spoke to somebody about this last night. Why do you need to be involved ?. DooksFoley147 (talk) 17:49, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because the tone and language in this thread is not acceptable behaviour. You have been warned multiple times. This is your last warning. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:47, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lee I am tired of the way you think you own Wikipedia and try and intimidate people which you try to do to me imo 80.233.89.176 (talk) 23:23, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not own Wikipedia, however, you have to follow the rules of the site. You have been told multiple times. As an administrator it is my role to warn and restrict access to those that are not being a useful member of the community. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:35, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have always tried my best on this site to make edits on Snooker, Darts, Tennis, and Golf. I have done research and painstakingly put hours of my own time in and then when I make edits you and nigej will both ponce on me it is always 2 against 1 and it is not fair to be honest. I have been editing on snooker long before others were involved. I just want fairness. But especially Snooker since Betty Logan left and some old editors like Armbrust it does not feel fair to me DooksFoley147 (talk) 19:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do not use multiple IP addresses to disrupt Wikipedia. Such attempts to avoid detection, circumvent policies or evade blocks or sanctions will not succeed. You are welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia but your recent edits have been reverted or removed. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia you may be blocked from editing without further notice. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 19:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning about editing as an IP

I can see you've been warned many times about editing while logged out. Forgetting to log in is one thing, but you are clearly doing it intentionally and repeatedly, and it's becoming disruptive. Here's your choice: either I block this account indefinitely and you only edit as an IP, or I start blocking your IPs and you only edit with this account. Your choice. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:01, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me no I am not doing anything intentionally and I never done anything but try and help regarding this site and I have put 10 years of my life into this site editing snooker without any thanks and have done so in my spare time and adding results and tournaments when nobody else bothered. But when you are the odd man out and it's always 2 against one what chance do you have ?. DooksFoley147 (talk) 00:13, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After I leave you a message asking you to pick one, you reply to me using an IP, then log in just to re-sign? I'll take that as option 1. DooksFoley147 is now blocked, you may continue editing as an anonymous editor. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GeneralNotability: It seems to me that a prohibition on editing while logged out is a better way to deal with this, rather than blocking the account and potentially allowing IP disruption to continue? _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:01, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wjemather, it really depends on whether you consider their activity as an IP to be "disruptive" - to be honest, the most disruptive thing I see is them switching between logged-in and not, but I'm not as familiar with the situation as some of the other admins who have commented here. As for prohibiting them editing while logged out...they've received enough "please stop that" warnings that I don't think it would have any effect. GeneralNotability (talk) 18:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:27, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

December 2020

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

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=I have been blocked for not always logging in to my DooksFoley147 account when I am making edits. Sometimes i just make an edit after a match or a final score needs to be added without even thinking of logging in, but to be fair I can edit events if I do not think they are right but if I am not logged in this is not done out of malice I don't always remember i have a life to lead, but whether I am logged in or out I always speak the truth and try and help with events which I have done for years but sometimes there are disagreements but everyone strives for perfection. I really hope this ban can be lifted as I can make a better effort to log on in the future}}

. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:17, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

DooksFoley147 (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 for not always logging in to my DooksFoley147 account when I am making edits. Sometimes i just make an edit after a match or a final score needs to be added without even thinking of logging in, but to be fair I can edit events if I do not think they are right but if I am not logged in this is not done out of malice I don't always remember i have a life to lead, but whether I am logged in or out I always speak the truth and try and help with events which I have done for years but sometimes there are disagreements but everyone strives for perfection. I really hope this ban can be lifted as I can make a better effort to log on in the future

Accept reason:

I am unblocking you, but please understand that this is conditioned on you only using this account going forward. If you continue to both use your account and also edit while not logged in, you will be blocked again. In addition, I'll be taking whatever additional steps are needed to prevent further disruption, which may include blocking the IPs, protecting pages, etc. I don't want to have to do that, and you don't want it to happen, so please just use your account. I assume you've been following Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DooksFoley147, so you know I've gone out on a limb here to unblock you. Please don't make me regret that. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:53, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 21:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bare in mind, that part of your unblock request was granted specifically due to not editing while logged out. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Honors in golfer infoboxes

I've started a discussion at WT:GOLF#Honors which you may possibly be interested in (or perhaps not). Nigej (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DooksFoley147, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:09, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:56, 23 November 2021 (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).

DooksFoley147 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I would like to request an unblock on my account please ?. I got a block for sockpuppetry sometimes I logged in and other times I did not. I did use different IP's but this was not out of malice sometimes I just did quick edits on sporting events like adding scores, results tournaments etc. Even after this account was banned I did edit articles as a normal IP user on anonymous accounts to get work done I was not avoiding sanction I just wanted to get my work done on these pages. Again I edited events in sport adding scores, results , tournaments and edits in other fields but I am serious about what I do. I never vandalised any pages by writing nonsense. I have been an editor on Wikipedia for about ten years and I would hope you will reinstate my account. My actions were never to harm any articles. I always wanted to make the site better. I realise now that I should have appealed the block when it happened. I realise that was an error now and how serious it was at the time. I hope that you will read my request and know I am sincere in my actions. If I get reinstated I will do all my edits under my username and I will not do any edits from any anonymous or normal IP. I am sorry for my actions. I hope you can help me out. Thank you

Decline reason:

You've admitted to violating WP:EVADE. Thanks, but that shows you need to remain blocked. Your best bet is to go six months with zero edits (including as a "normal IP user"), then apply under WP:SO. At that point, you'll need to account for your prior bad behaviour and will need to convince us we can be absolutely sure you'll stick to a single account. Six months from now is 2022-09-01. Zero edits until then. Yamla (talk) 13:03, 1 March 2022 (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.

For those following along, this user engaged in Confirmed block evasion today, to another user's talk page, and late last month, to an article. --Yamla (talk) 13:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yamla I never willing evaded a block I was trying to talk to a certain editor to discuss where I would go from here. I did not even know there was a penalty for such a thing can I apply for the WP:SO today please ? Regards DooksFoley147 (talk) 13:19, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. You are not eligible for WP:SO at this time. I'll note that your claim you were unaware of WP:EVADE will count against you in six months. You were clearly aware as this has been repeatedly pointed out, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DooksFoley147/Archive. --Yamla (talk) 13:27, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yamla Please do not put anything down against me I am on about the block evasion that was placed on Sunday. I am asking you in your opinion if I do not edit from today for six months, how do I get back to editing then ? It is all I do and have I have known. What will allow me back to what I love when that time is up please ?. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by DooksFoley147 (talk • contribs)

WP:SO and WP:GAB explains this. --Yamla (talk) 13:47, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yamla Will I be able to edit in 6 months if I do not edit until then and I apply for WP:SO please ? I don't want any further punishment can I also apply for the 2nd chance if I need to. What do I need to prove to you in 6 months so that I can edit again please ? Regards DooksFoley147 (talk) 13:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yamla I just want some reassurance that I have a future on Wikipedia. Can I get back as an editor in 6 months please ?. That is all I want to know please ?. DooksFoley147 (talk) 14:05, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Asked and answered already. No, there's no guarantee, but WP:SO is your best hope. I will not respond further. --Yamla (talk) 14:33, 1 March 2022 (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).

DooksFoley147 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I apologised this morning for sockpuppetry since a block was put on my account in December. I was told I had to serve a 6 month with no edit ban. I read on the WP:SO that you may ask for leniency for a shorter than six month ban. I know that I made a mistake in editing as a regular IP user since that ban. I know this is a serious offence and I have seen the error of my ways. I would or will never make an edit again without my own personal account if I get it back. Is it possible to receive any leniency in this matter to receive a shorter ban if a proposal was laid out for me to follow. I would greatly appreciate if someone would help me on this matter. Kind Regards DooksFoley147 (talk) 16:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are blocked, not banned, there is a difference. Blocks are not a punishment, but a way to prevent disruption. Your sock puppetry makes it difficult to trust you, and once that is gone, it is very difficult to get back. You can start by observing the standard offer and waiting six months, which will show us that you can abide by policies. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 18:55, 1 March 2022 (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).

DooksFoley147 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am here after talking the S:0 offered to me on March 1 2022 I was told to not edit snooker events for 6 months, no results added or removed, no edits made adding tournaments wins or century breaks added or removing wins on tournaments pages or not engaging in arguments on the Snooker talkpage so there were no talkpages disaggrements and I know that 6 months lifted after September 1 2022. I would like to rejoin the team as I was before make edits and helping out with the running of Snooker events. Can I ask somebody to take the time to review my page and let me back into the Wikipedia snooker fold where I hope to help out better in the future. I am really sorry for my previous actions Following covid I was lost really. I am sorry for my earlier actions over the last year. I hope I can join as I'd again be very pleased to help out. Thanks ?.KIND REGARDS DooksFoley147 (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per below. — Daniel Case (talk) 06:15, 14 September 2022 (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.

Confirmed block evasion during the past six months, editing anonymously. DooksFoley147, you'll want to directly address this, immediately. You are closer to being banned than unblocked, as a result. --Yamla (talk) 21:18, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yamla (talk)

What can I do to address this immediately and get my page back up and running OK DooksFoley147 (talk) 21:24, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's no chance you'll be unblocked in the near future. You need to address your violation of WP:EVADE, immediately. You are right on the edge of being banned. Give up any chance of being unblocked, because you worked hard to blow your opportunity. Now, immediately, address your violation of WP:EVADE (that is, your continued editing while blocked) in the slim hopes of avoiding a ban. I want to be incredibly clear here. Immediately. Your very next edit. You won't get another chance to avoid a ban. Immediately. --Yamla (talk) 21:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the WP:EVADE on the page I haven't a clue what I am doing here. Can you help we out please ? In lay man's terms it is easy to request a block being moved but never this ?.can you tell me what to do ? DooksFoley147 (talk)

Please help me I don't know what I am doing here I'm completely lost. Can anyone tell me what to do? DooksFoley147 (talk)

You clearly never had the slightest intention of abiding by Wikipedia policies and guidelines, evading your block each time you were blocked. As you aren't willing to address this, this is the end of the line. You are now banned by the community under WP:3X. We'll throw away any contributions you make via any other account or if you edit while logged out. --Yamla (talk) 22:02, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

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

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.

This user is banned from editing the English Wikipedia. Administrators, please review the banning policy before unblocking.
(block log · contributions)