Welcome!

Hello, Clicriffhard, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I missed your message; I'm semi-retired and can't spend as much time on Wikipedia as I would like. Do feel free to let me know if I can be of any future assistance; if you'd like Jason Steele (footballer born 1990) moved to Jason Steele (footballer), I'd be more than happy to facilitate that.

Cheers! — madman bum and angel 02:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the Louis Laing article now exists in article space, and you have a duplicate in your userspace at User:Clicriffhard/Louis Laing. Could you please blank your one and replace the content with {{db-u1}}. No point in having it 2 places. Thanks.--ClubOranje^T 10:29, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Todd Kane, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! --93.209.78.210 (talk) 09:33, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited England national under-20 football team, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Luke Williams (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that a response has been made at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion regarding a submission you made. The thread is Jordan Pickford. JohnCD (talk) 18:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and I do apologise for not checking the article history to see who was actively involved in maintaining the page and speaking to them first. However, no, I don't think I should have done the work myself, though if I'd known of an easy reliable source to link to as a general source, I'd have been happy to do that. The problem is, consensus at WP:FOOTY is that Transfermarkt isn't a reliable source, because they still accept user submissions for facts, and user-generated info isn't reliable. WP:BLPPRIVACY says that "Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object." cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a go at sourcing the under-19s, if that'll help. Again, sorry for not checking for active editors, was thoughtless of me. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done that, although I was a little confused by Josh and Ola Aina. There's no-one called Josh Aina on Chelsea's website, and no-one called Ola Aina on the FA's, and this CFC article has Ola starting a game that Josh played in, so I assumed they were the same person and ref'd accordingly. But if you know different, please change/undo. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		...for all the work you do in maintaining the England under-age football team pages, and for your remarkable tolerance towards people who come blundering in... Much appreciated. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited England national under-21 football team, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Serravalle and Michael Keane (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Clicriffhard,

Updated Lewis Baker (footballer) for his Chelsea Goal of the Year and Young Player of the Year awards. If they don't belong as they are not league honours, my apologies and feel free to remove them.

EDIT: References added. Linked the video on Chelsea FC's official YouTube channel containing their awards night 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nusoh (talk • contribs) 10:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help here, I have cleaned up the wording and referencing, a very decent start to an article if I don't say so myself! GiantSnowman 21:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a slight change - one other I want to query with you is your referencing, why have you added so many seemingly unecessary parameters and all the archive URLs? Seems like overkill to me when we don't have any deadlinks, just a waste of space. I might remove them. GiantSnowman 08:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if and when links go down then we can replace them - the article is short enough now that it wouldn't be a pain to fix them. Having archive URLs when it is not necessary simply clogs up the page. GiantSnowman 11:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, no problems, the page is watchlisted so any issues I can/will deal with. GiantSnowman 11:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited England national under-20 football team, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lewis Baker. 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) 09:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, i wasn't going to revert again since the interest in that is not high but i get your point. Kante4 (talk) 18:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, would have been easy but now it does not matter anymore. Kante4 (talk) 19:20, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Emmanuel Sonupe has been created and I was wondering if you know his appearances for the England U16 and U18 teams? Thanks :) JMHamo (talk) 18:34, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Hi, I award you the Tireless Contributor Barnstar regarding your edits in all the English football teams age level articles. Keep on going and Happy Editing. Cheers!!! Sammanhumagaint@lk 14:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, sorry about this revert; I have no idea how I managed to do that. Your edit to the Biscuit article appeared on my watchlist, so I must have somehow misclicked on the rollback button when I went to your contributions. Graham87 12:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 14:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 14:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Clicriffhard. 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]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:James Norwood, Christmas 2016.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 21:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He was on the bench in the 2013/14 season, per Soccerbase. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:51, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Clicriffhard. 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]

Hello, Clicriffhard. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Clicriffhard. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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) 02:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

According to the WP:TPG, The purpose of an article's talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or WikiProject. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject. An editor's unsubstantiated opinions about what Linehan is or isn't is an example of the latter, not the former. Off-topic comments can be removed per WP:NOTFORUM.

If the specific aspect in question had not already been talked to death- using actual sources- on that same Talk page previously, I might have a more liberal view about unsubstantiated assertions on talk. *Might*. But it has, at tedious length. Newimpartial (talk) 00:03, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That page is actually quite specific about the approach that should be taken to deleting other people's comments on talk pages. A few quotes:

"The basic rule, with exceptions outlined below, is to not edit or delete others' posts without their permission."

"Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection."

"Off-topic posts: Your idea of what is off topic may differ from what others think is off topic, so be sure to err on the side of caution."

"It is common to simply delete gibberish, test edits, harmful or prohibited material (as described above), and comments or discussion clearly about the article's subject (as opposed to the treatment of the subject in the article)."

Whatever you may think of the quality of the comment, it's about the article's treatment of Linehan as "anti-trans". It should be perfectly obvious that you were wrong to delete it, so I'll revert again and ask you to please stop deleting it. Nobody needs your permission to express opinions about articles that you personally are bored of hearing. Clicriffhard (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid the purpose of article Talk pages is not to hear the opinions of other editors on the subjects of Wikipedia articles. Talk pages are to discuss improvements to articles themselves, and rants without sources or argumentation do not help the collaborative project. Newimpartial (talk) 01:25, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not the subject but "the treatment of the subject", as well you know, and the IP comment couldn't be more explicit that it was about the article's treatment of its subject. I personally agree that the comment is pretty thin and so I have no intention of engaging with it, but this incessant and, frankly, creepy possessiveness over the article has to stop. You don't own it and I beg you to stop trying to bully people off it. Clicriffhard (talk) 01:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that the subject line you reverted four times to restore to the Talk page, He's not anti-trans. He's pro-women. There's a difference. is purely an expression of the IP's feelings about the article's subject, and doesn't say anything about how to treat it on Wikipedia. It is as if I were to post to Talk:Donald Trump "Trump never made any false or misleading statements" - it just wouldn't be an actionable comment on-topic for a Wikipedia Talk page. The rest of the comment, False narrative about Graham on Wikipedia is precisely as actionable as it would be for me to post "False narrative about Trump". I don't know what pages you are used to editing, but within the GENSEX topic area there is a lot of vandalism and trolling, often by IP editors, and therefore little tolerance for irrelevant Talk topics like this one. Newimpartial (talk) 02:26, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Read it again in combination with the rest of his comment. It is explicitly a comment on the Wikipedia article's description of Linehan as "anti-trans", and you know that because you've read and deleted/edited it multiple times. Clicriffhard (talk) 02:38, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. It is directly equivalent to my Trump example. Do you not think the equivalent comment would have been removed from Talk:Donald Trump? Newimpartial (talk) 02:46, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my God... How can you possibly be pretending to think that this isn't about the article's treatment of its subject?

"He's not anti-trans. He's pro-women. There's a difference. False narrative about Graham on Wikipedia."

It's not a particularly insightful comment, I grant you, but who on earth do you think you are to be deciding that they're not allowed to make it? You are actual poison. Clicriffhard (talk) 03:43, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You've been blocked for personal attacks, and your response is to tell another editor that You are actual poison? Should I be asking for a longer block, then, or for you to be denied access to your own Talk page? Did you not understand my explanation of the higher standard of behaviour expected of editors on WP:ACDS topics? Newimpartial (talk) 03:49, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do what you like, I'm past caring. Wikipedia is turning into a dangerous hive of disinformation because of behaviour like yours, and as far as I'm concerned, your moral authority and that of any administrator too dim to see through it is less than zero. Best wishes. Clicriffhard (talk) 03:55, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Insult the administrators once they take a different stance than you expected - always a shrewd move. Newimpartial (talk) 03:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Shrewd" is very revealing. It's all about the calculation, isn't it? I'm not playing a game of self-interest. I'm telling you what I think of you and other people who view it that way. I, personally, would dearly love for Wikipedia to be an even-handed collaborative information resource, but it won't be because of people like you, who don't know what integrity is and, let's be honest, don't really care. Clicriffhard (talk) 04:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's all about the calculation, isn't it? No.

I'm not playing a game of self-interest. Neither am I.

I'm telling you what I think of you and other people who view it that way. (1) You are not perceiving me accurately at all, and (2) Wikipedia is not an EST seminar. Newimpartial (talk) 04:10, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My advice? Walk away from the BLP-in-question & its talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 03:11, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but I'm afraid I think that's bad advice. It might be good advice if I thought my ability to keep editing Wikipedia was more important than integrity, but I don't. Clicriffhard (talk) 03:37, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you think you show integrity by making personal attacks on editors and accusing them without any kind of evidence - well, I expect that some reflection may be in order. Newimpartial (talk) 03:41, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop linking to policy pages like it's a substitute for intelligent thought. You are not remotely civil yourself in your actions or words, and if you think it's a bigger deal for me to be upset by your manipulative behaviour than for you to carry it out in the first place then you don't know what integrity is. But you don't actually think that, do you? You just know you'll get away with it. Clicriffhard (talk) 03:46, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not manipulating anyone, thanks. I have been (sometimes painfully) civil throughout our entire interaction, and your reply is to allege that I don't know what integrity is? Do you think this is what editors' Talk pages are for: repeatedly insulting other editors? Newimpartial (talk) 03:53, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't expect you to understand this, but respect is not all about tone. You are anything but respectful - you just know how to play the game well enough to maintain the control you clearly need. But no, you do not know what integrity is. Clicriffhard (talk) 03:58, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just take the 24-hr 'break' & try not to let anything get under your skin, in the meantime. GoodDay (talk) 04:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you mean well but I don't care about a break, or being banned, or any other petty punishments handed out by administrators who convince themselves again and again that it's more important to respond to every grim provocation with blank-faced faux civility than it is to stand up for the interests of the encyclopedia as an even-handed and collaborative information resource, rather than a monstrously powerful tool for disinformation. Honestly? I don't need a break; you all need to engage your brains before this goes any further. Clicriffhard (talk) 04:33, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Newimpartial (talk) 01:23, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant part of the guidelines is WP:TALKOFFTOPIC, where it plainly says It is common to simply delete gibberish, test edits, harmful or prohibited material (as described above), and comments or discussion clearly about the article's subject. The comment that both I and Newimpartial removed is somewhat frequently posted by anonymous IP editors and fresh accounts, and is nearly uniformly disruptive. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You've cut off the end of that quote. I won't bother speculating why, but the full quote is very clear that deletion is NOT appropriate for comments about the article's treatment of its subject. Nor is the comment inherently disruptive; if it did devolve into disruption then it would be perfectly reasonable to take steps, but not on the basis that it might at some point, or that you think it looks like comments that have preceded others that you've considered disruptive. I find your behaviour disruptive - should I delete your comments too? Clicriffhard (talk) 02:14, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Talk: Graham Linehan 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. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a disgraceful comment. I am not the one deleting other users' comments on a talk page - I am only reverting that deletion and I notice that you've posted no edit-warring warning on the page of the person who has made repeated attempts to delete the same comment even when reverted. I'm in the process of posting on an administrators' board to get outside opinions, so in the meantime, please stop trying to dominate the space and wait for that outside comment. Clicriffhard (talk) 02:09, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you were "right" - and I don't think there's any likelihood that you were - that wouldn't justify your going over the 3RR bright line. I look forward to your noticeboard posting however. Newimpartial (talk) 02:28, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but is the idea to side-step accusations of edit-warring yourselves by splitting your repeated deletions of another user's talk page comment between the two of you, so that I artificially appear to have made more reversions than either of you individually? I'm sure you understand that you'd have hit three reversions first if you hadn't worked in tandem. Clicriffhard (talk) 02:42, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:11, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 ~~~~}}.  Acroterion (talk) 03:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't understand. I was asking you for clarification on what "accusations" you disagreed with when you blocked me. Please could you explain why anything I said was inaccurate or inappropriate? Specifically, could you please explain how I can express that I think other editors are being manipulative and dishonest without you considering it a personal attack and grounds for blocking me? Or perhaps we're pretending that that doesn't ever happen, or that it doesn't even matter if it does? Clicriffhard (talk) 03:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh - apparently I should have pinged you. @Acroterion: Clicriffhard (talk) 03:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you say something negative about an editor, you should back it up with evidence to support that:

• Your claim is true, and
• It is a violation of a Wikipedia policy or guideline

If it is not supported by evidence, you may be casting aspersions. If it is not a violation of a Wikipedia policy or guideline, then why are you saying it at all? PHANTOMTECH (talk) 04:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is that most people aren't so monomaniacal that they can reel off the appropriate Wikipedia policy/guideline for every piece of behaviour that is clearly destructive to the interests of the site. That doesn't mean that those behaviours don't need to be addressed, but taking your approach would mean that all but the most obsessive would be prevented from effectively drawing attention to them.

I think I was pretty plain about the behaviours I had an issue with:

-Users were repeatedly deleting someone else's on-topic and harmless comment from a talk page, which they are not entitled to do. It isn't commonly owned content, and five seconds of thought would tell you that reinstating it is not nearly as significant an intervention as deleting it is. Nevertheless, I was accused of edit-warring by people who wouldn't stop fiddling with it - and if my reverts were very similar then that can only be because their repeated edits were very similar.

-When I mentioned that I was in the process of posting on an administrators' noticeboard to get outside comment, they promptly raced to get the accusation of edit-warring in first, and then pretended that they were not edit-warring themselves because they had split their attempts to revert the IP editor's comment between the two of them, making it artificially appear that I had reverting more than they had and trying to turn the conversation into a mindless numbers game. You can plainly see that if you just look.

-The same group of editors has had that article locked down for months and I am fed up with their relentless and coordinated efforts to turn it into an overblown pamphlet for their personal views. If you want me to dig out a bunch of links to their comments and write long screeds illustrating the obvious then I can't see the point when you could simply look through the talk page archive yourself - that is, if they haven't deleted the parts of that that they dislike as well. But if you care more about linear process than you do about the interests of the encyclopedia then I doubt you'll want to do that because I haven't linked to any flipping policies or guidelines.

Oh well - I'm sure I'll get banned sooner rather than later for "incivility", as if respect is about nothing but tone, so I suppose I'll leave you all to your asinine fussing. Clicriffhard (talk) 04:23, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to engage here, but re:

Users were repeatedly deleting someone else's on-topic and harmless comment from a talk page, which they are not entitled to do. It isn't commonly owned content, and five seconds of thought would tell you that reinstating it is not nearly as significant an intervention as deleting it is.

Multiple, uninvolved, experienced administrators responded on WP:AN and disagreed with your interpretarion of the situation; has it occurred to you that perhaps you have been interpreting that situation incorrectly, in relation to WP policy and practice? Newimpartial (talk) 04:30, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]