Template:Long Wikibreak

This user may sometimes share an IP address with TheOneWhoWalks.

Howdy, you're a bit behind. My change was made & was self-reverted, all on November 18. GoodDay (talk) 15:32, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• And, I might add (to Sheodred), you may want to read WP:DTTR. Unless you were trying to make some sort of point. In that case, read WP:POINT. freshacconci talktalk 16:14, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok no problem sorry about that. Sheodred (talk) 17:01, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so you have an ANI, a now-closed 3RR report ... you've been chastised for not following policy on proper escalation, and calls for WP:BOOMERANG. Can you take a step back, breathe deeply, and recognize that although you feel you're doing the right thing, you're actually causing more disruption than the other user? Step back - breathe - focus. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:45, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concur, Sheodred get in touch if you get frustrated and I'll help. All that happens if you fire up like this is that people get into a "plague on both your houses" mood. The community will eventually deal with disruptive editors, particularly those who try and make up policy. However they need to be given time and space and if you are one of the protagonists, stand back. --Snowded ^TALK 20:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks, I apologise, I should have followed policy but the red mist decended, I will take a little break, just to calm down. Sheodred (talk) 10:51, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 15:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-Irish is not a nationality and then you re-edited it to have the article infobox then say he was British and that his nationality was the Kingdom of Great Britain, why did you do that, that was not in the infobox before I intervened. Sheodred (talk) 16:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 1 week as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:59, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should not have blocked you as I was involved in the content dispute. My apologies. I have opened a new section on the Shackleton talk page to discuss WP:IMOS and would be glad if you could explain your views there. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

---

Request reason:

I was blocked by an admin/editor who was involved in the same article I was editing,I only was making the edits under the guidelines of IMOS, which were being ignored for the most part. The blocking admin also reverted edits a number of times on the article involved, and I think it is highly inappropiate that he was the one that blocked me. I defended myself here, a week I feel is also a bit harsh. Sheodred (talk) 15:20, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

It looks like Ruhrfisch has already unblocked you, when he recognized that he was involved. Are you still unable to edit? I tried to find an autoblock, but the interface seemed to indicate that it wasn't active when I tried to unblock it. Syrthiss (talk) 15:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can edit now again, thanks. Sheodred (talk) 15:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should not have been blocked by Ruhrfisch, but please refrain from continuing to edit war, there are other, uninvolved admins aware of this now, and you may find yourself reblocked if you carry on--Jac16888 ^Talk 15:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, no problem. Sheodred (talk) 15:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. And bear in mind, what you're arguing over is in the grand scheme of things, a very very small thing, if you find yourself getting stressed about it, why not just forget about it, go edit something less troublesome--Jac16888 ^Talk 15:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)--Jac16888 ^Talk 15:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but its like talking to a wall sometimes with these people. It is stressful sometimes, I was only trying to follow the IMOS, I was not pushing any POV. Sheodred (talk) 15:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They probably think exactly the same thing about you. What you have to remember is that they believe they are doing the right thing just as you do, we're all here because we're trying to make this crazy idea of an online encyclopedia that anyone can edit a little bit better. But just think about this, all this drama is coming from a difference of one word. 10 years from now will this matter in the slightest? Or 5? Or even a year from now? Sometimes its better just to take a step back and find something else to do--Jac16888 ^Talk 15:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sheodred. I've been reviewing WP:AN3#User:Sheodred reported by User:SarekOfVulcan (Result: ) which still needs to be closed by an admin. It is regrettable that an involved admin blocked you, although they then corrected their mistake. Meanwhile, I'm afraid that your actions would normally qualify for a block, since it represents long-term warring about the use of 'Anglo-Irish' to refer to Shackleton. (On the merits I think you may be correct, but that's not my call. The advice of WP:IMOS is not an exception to 3RR). If you will promise to cease making edits regarding Irish nationality on any articles for one month, I'd be willing to close the 3RR case with no action. You can still make recommendations on talk pages. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of self imposed restriction would hold a bit more weight if the same was asked of Ruhrfisch an admin who abused his tools using Rollback in a content dispute, reverted 3 times in 3 hours, protected the page on their preferred version and blocked the editor they were edit warring with. Are these abuse of tools just going to be ignored? Mo ainm~Talk 21:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it's serious enough, there's a place for it ... especially considering they rightly unblocked the editor because of their error (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where ANI? Mo ainm~Talk 21:56, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, I will accept what you said regarding the one month self-restriction, but this whole issue with the incorrect usage of Anglo-Irish, and admins abusing their tools to push their POV must be dealt with, it is a serious breach of protocol, and has diminished the standing of admins in the eyes of observers. Sheodred (talk) 22:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. Per my closure of the AN3 report your restriction is now in effect, and will expire at 22:56 on 1 January 2012. You can still participate on talk pages on this subject. It is traditional that even voluntary restrictions (like this one) can be enforced by blocks. If you are ever uncertain about the scope of the restriction, it is best to ask. There are places where the Anglo-Irish issue could be discussed further, and you are free to participate on such pages if you want to. EdJohnston (talk) 23:03, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ed, very much appreciated. Sheodred (talk) 23:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst i don't know if i can agree to your slightly emotive edit summary, good call none the less, never actually noticed how out of place it was when i wikilinked it. Mabuska ^(talk) 10:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, no problem, you might say it was slightly emotive, maybe the use of Northern Ireland in the article was not intentionally POV, I will assume good faith.Sheodred (talk) 13:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note - i never added it in, it was already there when i wikilinked it. Mabuska ^(talk) 14:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I never accused you. Sheodred (talk) 15:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know you didn't, though the edit-summary and the assuming good faith comment kind of made me wonder did you think it was me lol :-) Mabuska ^(talk) 16:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sheodred. You have new messages at Cuchullain's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Per WP:BRD, would you please discuss your edit to Mary Shelley on the article's talk page? Your original post was that "According to Wikipedia are not the bios of people born in the United Kingdom be referred to by their home countries?" but I cannot find this in the WP:MOS anywhere and would appreciate a more specific quotation of the MOS or policy / guideline in question. Thanks, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I said nothing about MOS, and I made a grammatical mistake when typing, which I corrected when I noticed. You are the admin, you tell me about MOS,, all I know is that bios of the United Kingdom are referred to their home coutries, such as Sean Connery, Arthur Conan Doyle, Beatrix Potter, John Lennon, Tom Jones, Dylan Thomas......the list goes on, it also backed up by a reliable source.Sheodred (talk) 03:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, ArbCom are next after AN. They are the highest Wiki authority. If AN doesn't get responses, ArbCom certainly will. They've already blocked Irish agendas in the past, as well as banning mulitple editors with agendas. So they know what they'll be dealing with when I throw your huge list of disruptive edits at them. Either way, don't think no admin response means I don't have other avenues to report you via. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 09:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously have not considered that they will take into account the editor and his interactions (does not look very good for you) who made the report do you, don't be surprised if it backfires. Stay off my page please. Sheodred (talk) 09:04, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't take the baiting Sheodred, that's the problem with British POV pushers they have a lot of friends and usually drown out any attempts at neutrality, with weight of numbers, take a day or two off and just ignore the fools who are on this site. Mo ainm~Talk 09:53, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mo Ainm, I decided to start doing that, I unwatched the page, it is best to let them shoot themselves in the feet whilst I ignore them. Sheodred (talk) 09:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Say nothing until you hear more" - an old saying, useful in this situation. Best of luck. Slainte. 58.7.197.112 (talk) 13:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ta tu cheart ansin! Sheodred (talk) 13:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Na habair e. 58.7.197.112 (talk) 14:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be sure that you are aware of the provisions of the WP:TROUBLES case I'm leaving the official notice for you. Noticing that you've engaged in a good-faith discussion at WT:IMOS reduces my concern. For the record, there was a 3RR case concerning your edits at Ernest Shackleton and the link is here. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to The Troubles. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles#Final decision section of the decision page. Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page.

EdJohnston (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify to observers this notice is about my self-imposed restriction until the 1/1/12, this notice was placed here in order to make it official I can still make proposals and comment, that is all. Sheodred (talk) 17:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have raised this issue at AN/I. You are not squeaky clean in this issue, so expect criticism. I suggest taking it on board. --Errant ^(chat!) 00:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. Sheodred (talk) 00:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links 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.

Corcoran (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link to Mayo

The Pilgrimage (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link to Alias

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:04, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked you indefinitely for using your talk page abusively. Please contact me via email if you want to discuss the block. You can also send an email to the Arbitration Committee, and I will be posting on AN/I for review. causa sui (talk) 17:18, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you can email me here. causa sui (talk) 17:22, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per our private email conversation, I shortened the block to 1 week and restored your talk page access. causa sui (talk) 00:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

THank you very much! :) Sheodred (talk) 01:12, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Due to your block evasion with TheOneWhoWalks (talk · contribs), I have reset your block and extended it to 2 weeks. Your block will now expire 2 weeks from now. You are advised that further block evasion will lead to you possibly being indefinitely blocked. Regards, –MuZemike 23:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of interaction ban by MarcusBritish You agreed to an interaction ban between us. Please take my talk page off your watch list immediately and stop looking for excuses to provoke trouble. Whether the socking incident and further AN/I nonsense constitutes as a breach of that ban is questionable. If you don't want it bring into question then do as you agreed and leave me alone! That AN/I was purely vexatious, and you damn well know it! Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 23:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have not broken any interaction ban (see explanation further down from 19/12/2011 Sheodred (talk) 22:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)), but you have, you appear to be obsessed, compulsive and pathetic maniac, interesting how you filed that user as a sock of me because, contrary to baiting you, the IP reported on AN/I had nothing to do with you. You filed the SPI on the basis of punctuation,and an admin actually did a CheckUser on the basis for that, shows that admin is not fit for his role if they jump to conclusions on the word of an editor who's only purpose in life is getting me completely banned from wikipedia, won't happen Marcus, lol sorry old chap, that other user had an account before I was blocked you moron and they have COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CONTRIBUTIONS, anyway I will be back with or without this questionabe block extension. Hugs and kisses xxxxxxx. Sheodred (talk) 00:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of interaction ban by MarcusBritish http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/watcher/?db=enwiki_p&titles=User_talk:Sheodred – maybe you don't realise, but personal attacks like that get a lot of attention. So your return is not granted. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 00:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're not fooling us, you know. It's pretty clear that you used that account to bait MarcusBritish. Moreover, do not test us with your blatant attacks, or we will have no problem upping the blocks. –MuZemike 00:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look, understand this, it was a meatpuppet (only because I drew him in, they had the account before any of the incidents involving myself and Marcus occurred and never got involved in anything negative before that) not a sockpuppet, it was a seperate individual that lives and goes to uni with me who I expressed my concerns to recently about the whole affair with Marcus when I was initially outraged by my block (hence the same IP range and university Marcus, as for your statement on SPI, there are over 15,000 students in UCC, but feel free to assume that everyone from UCC, Cork or Ireland that uses common punctuation styles, is a sockpuppet of me).

The indefinite block that befell him was my fault, so although I acknowledge that it was meatpuppetry (on that one occasion), I deny it as sockpuppetry on my part, (although I understand the logic of them being similar), so please don't block him indefinitely .

I don't know what implications this statement will have, presumably bad, but I just wanted to clarify the matter, as for the block extension, I can accept that in retrospect, and I apologise to MuZemike for questioning and criticising his conduct. As for Marcus, I don't know if admins have the powers to view an editor's watchlist, but if they can they will see that Marcus has been off my watchlist for a while now despite his accusations on my talk page (how ironic), I did not breach any interaction ban, and I also removed all the contentious topics I was involved in for the time being until my block and self-restriction has expired. I am not looking for a medal, I just wanted to clarify. Goodnight. Sheodred (talk) 00:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meatpuppetry us usually seen as as bad, if not MORE bad then sockpuppetry. Although we do appreciate your honesty on this matter it most likely will not result in your block being shortened but if an admin is feeling generous it may get the meatpuppet's block reduced from indef. Again; thanks for deciding to stop "enhancing the truth". Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 00:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No that is fine, I was not looking for a shorter block, if anything I am more worried about a longer (or indefinite) block as a result. Thank you for your response, and to reply to Snowded's comment below; I do accept the stupidity of my actions, I should have exercised restraint in respone to what was going on.Sheodred (talk) 00:40, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of interaction ban (gravedancing, trolling, accusations) by MarcusBritish A-ma-zing! A meat puppet with exactly the same bad typing habits as you ("......" is not not common punctuation, unless you're looking for somewhere to sign), as well as both accounts using "old chap" 20 minutes apart [1][2]. Quite a "buddy" you got there, maybe you aught to save those "hugs and kisses" for him. Or should I just say, plainly put, we're not that gullible. AGF wears thin after your record and only you would attempt to come up with that likely story to try to gain credit from a weak-idealogical guideline. Meat puppets who have only been registered a month are watching my page and using AN/I now are they? Lol.. right... pull the other one, it has bells in it. Of course their handful of article edits (i.e. two, the rest are userpage) look different; a different wardrobe to try to avoid detection, and order of registering means nothing. Besides, they didn't log in for near a month.. suddenly when you're blocked, they did. Sheer coincidence? If you wanted to meat or sock, you could have just gone off UCC's IP, tish. Never mind, what what? Home run for the Wiki team! Tally-ho and pip pip... old boy. Ma®©usBritish ^{[Chat • RFF]} 07:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"A-ma-zing! A meat puppet with exactly the same bad typing habits as you ("......" is not not common punctuation, unless you're looking for somewhere to sign)" User:MarcusBritish No(yawn)..you are wrong...it is called ellipsis. Sheodred (talk) 23:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus, if there is an interaction ban why are you here throwing cans of petrol onto the flames? Sheordred has been pretty stupid, but you seem to want to provoke more stupidity rather than resolve matters, you are coming across like a conflict junkie. Shoedred please just take a break and don't react or do anything for some weeks. Marcus, please stop acting like a petulant child who has the teacher on his side simply because his opponent has made too may mistakes, including allowing you to provoke. --Snowded ^TALK 08:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is some quite helpful advice provided by Snowded above. Technically your posting here can be seen as violating the interaction ban which AFAIK you agreed to as well. If not then it's still not a good thing as it could also be considered as gravedancing. Take this page off your watchlist. Otherwise you will just keep on being drawn in. Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 09:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also: You still need to assume good faith! Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 09:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]