User talk:Super Mario 1887

Welcome!

Hello, Super Mario 1887, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! Giant Snowman 16:58, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started

Finding your way around

Editing articles

Getting help

Frequently asked questions
Cheatsheet
Our help forum for new editors, the Teahouse
The Help Desk, for more advanced questions
Help pages
Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles

How you can help

Community Portal
Join a WikiProject
Follow Wikipedia etiquette
Practice civility
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Giant Snowman 16:58, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

Hello, I'm GiantSnowman. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Ross Embleton seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Giant Snowman 16:58, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok i will try and back it up with a reference . Cheers Super Mario 1887 (talk) 18:41, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please also consider Wikipedia:Single-purpose account. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 04:27, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no conflict I support Leyton Orient have done since a kid. If you are the administrator please ensure you are not allowing misinformation to present a misinterpretation of the facts . Super Mario 1887 (talk) 11:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:James Rowe (footballer, born 1983)

Hey, SM 1887...your editing at this talk page is becoming disruptive. I understand that you're brand new here, and that we have a very steep learning curve, but there are multiple good-faith experienced editors at that page trying to help you understand. Please start listening to them. Valereee (talk) 16:33, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (James Rowe (footballer, born 1983)) for a period of 24 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 review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Valereee (talk) 12:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what ? The fact that all

of my edits are factual ? Do you advocate misinformation ? Super Mario 1887 (talk) 12:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SM 1887, this isn't about content, which admins don't deal with. This is about behavior -- specifically, WP:Edit warring -- which we consider disruptive. You are free to continue to discuss on the article's talk page, but you'll need to avoid being disruptive there, too.

FWIW, I don't really even understand what it is you're objecting to. I'll start a section at the talk to see if I can moderate. Valereee (talk) 12:39, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We? You make out as if it’s plural . I have simply objected with proof certain vandalism and wrongful editing that’s taken place on this page. Disputes have been worked out with other members if you look properly . Other than this one member who constantly edits bias and uses incorrect sources to justify controversial editing. Super Mario 1887 (talk) 13:09, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We as in the community of editors here on Wikipedia. Valereee (talk) 13:47, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

policy

Re: it isn’t a steep learning curve at all. It’s quite simple make sure the statements made are backed up with reliable sources.

Absolutely correct that we support all content with a reliable source, but that's only a tiny portion of what there is to learn here to be able to edit collaboratively. There are 6+ million articles on WP and ~50 million pages supporting the creation and maintenance of those articles, including policy around behavior. For instance, it literally doesn't matter whether you're correct about what you're edit-warring over. I don't care, and neither does any other admin. If an admin does care about content at a particular article, they edit the article and discuss content at the talk page rather than adminning there.

Now, that said, there is also policy around WP:BLPCRIME that you may wish to look at. I think it's possible it's a pertinent argument you could make to other editors at that article talk rather than accusing them of having a vendetta against someone. Valereee (talk) 18:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have it the wrong way around . It’s Egghead06 and Graa Sang that have the vendetta. I’m simply pointing out there some wild statements are being made with a lack of credibility . For example frequent re editing of incorrect statistics by Egghead06. Frequent re editing of Rowe being married (it’s incorrect) by Graa Sang. I could go on. Super Mario 1887 (talk) 19:05, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please immediately stop accusing anyone of having a vendetta without evidence. I'm quite serious here. You are accusing two highly experienced editors of this. I do not believe I have that the wrong way around: you've accused them of having a vendetta. Valereee (talk) 19:15, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you feel the editing of the page in question is being edited frequently with misinformation ? I think I can point to 6 areas in the past 3 days across the page where misinformation is being stated and then random sources are being used to back it up. In addition those sources are full of false allegations that have been proven to be false . I do feel if looked at it for a few moments from this stance you may see the points I’m trying to make. Super Mario 1887 (talk) 19:20, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea whether the page is being edited to include false info, and again, as an admin working at that article, it's not something I am concerned about other than to make sure a biography of a living person does not include anything that would violate WP:BLP. Valereee (talk) 19:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this . Two key things jump out about Rowe and the frequent editing that is going on. Is Rowe a public figure ? Rowe has been acquitted so should all articles that refer to the false allegation be removed ? Super Mario 1887 (talk) 19:07, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But it is ok to suggest I have a vendetta ? Super Mario 1887 (talk) 19:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who suggested you have a vendetta? Valereee (talk) 19:20, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rowe is definitely a public figure. Allegations that are discussed in multiple reliable sources are generally included, and in fact we wouldn't want to exclude them, as that simply begs the reader to wonder why they aren't included. We include them, at whatever weight is WP:DUE, along with the information that the article subject was acquitted. Valereee (talk) 19:19, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok what about this as an alternative perspective - you want to include false allegations that have been proven so where his young family could one day read about on his page. Well I believe that’s controversial to say the least . My hunch would be that this wiki page will be removed completely of it remains or indeed the sources you rely on will come out of the Public domain completely . As often with public figures false allegations such as these are removed once proven to be so. Super Mario 1887 (talk) 19:24, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is certainly something you could bring up at WP:BLPN, which is the noticeboard for bios of living persons, and where there are multiple experts. But generally, the fact someone was acquitted of something doesn't mean we don't include it if it was something that's been heavily covered in reliable sources. This was covered not only locally but internationally. Valereee (talk) 19:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are not hearing me correctly. The allegations have been proven to be false - so in effect all articles that have been referenced will these allegations in are untrue . The page is basically interpreting things that are false . The heart and essence of Wikipedia is the freedom of speech but the truth. Super Mario 1887 (talk) 19:33, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not hearing you incorrectly. You believe that because someone was acquitted of something, all references to the accusation should be removed from Wikipedia. That is not generally policy. Again, you can take it up at WP:BLPN, where there are experts in that particular policy. Valereee (talk) 19:51, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think mentioning of the trial is fine and the result of the trial. However the referencing of the specific details of the allegation that has been proven to be lies is using Wikipedia as a source to spread misinformation. I’m surprised to say the least by your stance on this . Super Mario 1887 (talk) 20:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no stance on what is included unless there's a BLP vio. It looks like the only mention of specific details in the article is that the accusations were of sexual assault, with many multiple reliable sources including some international sources backing that up, and including that fact does not seem like a BLP vio to me. Valereee (talk) 20:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ok let’s see how it plays out. Super Mario 1887 (talk) 20:31, 27 November 2024 (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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Super_Mario_1887 reported by User:Egghead06 (Result: ). Thank you. Egghead06 (talk) 15:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The re edits you

see Egghead06 are still being discussed and therefore until the conclusion of that discussion is agreed by Valereee then nothing should be re-edited. I have not done anything wrong and in fact the edit isn’t necessary have made in this page

habe been proven to be correct . Super Mario 1887 (talk) 15:35, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SM, admins don't have any special authority to approve edits or agree that a discussion can be concluded. GGS basically closed the discussion as consensus for the suggested wording, pending any opposition. Perfectly legitimate for them to do so. If anyone did still object to the wording, it might need an uninvolved closer (and I could do that if necessary) but I'm not seeing anyone voice an objection. Valereee (talk) 16:38, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing James Rowe (footballer, born 1983) for disruptive editing, battleground behaviour and edit warring.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given your history with this article, including the discussion at User talk:Valereee, I don't believe that you are able to edit neutrally and collaboratively on the James Rowe article. At this time the article talk page remains open for you to discuss potential changes.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:50, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024 3

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Valereee (talk) 16:56, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]