User talk:CaptainCorrecto

Welcome[edit]

Hello CaptainCorrecto, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of contents

Department directory

Need help?

Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

CaptainCorrecto, good luck, and have fun. – Blethering Scot 16:53, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would also strongly suggest a look at WP:Consensus & WP:NPOV.Blethering Scot 16:55, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. The article as it stood previously was flatly in contravention of NPOV. It is now correct - it clearly states that it is the first season of THE CURRENT FORM OF the club, which is absolutely unarguably accurate. Your reversions are inappropriate, because there is nothing in the edited entry which contravenes any Wikipedia protocol. It is neutral, factual and referenced.

I would also point out WP:3RR and WP:BRD. As you are new i would suggest you read all of these policies especially consensus. You need to discuss this first as at the moment your edits are not in line with consensus (which by the way is a founding policy of this site) on this matter nor are they neutral. In fact there borderline vandalism when in full knowledge that consensus is not of the view that they are a new club.Blethering Scot 17:02, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not new, this account is, and I'm well aware of 3RR, as you should be. You have failed to indicate anything inaccurate in the edit. Just because a club has lots of fans does not mean they're permitted to steamroller all other rules. Kindly identify the erroneous aspect of the edit, or stop reverting it.

Hmmm.. Something seems rather familiar about that USE OF CAPITALS^TM - Not that I'm bothered, natch ;) Hillbillyholiday ^talk 17:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was the fruit machine/lump-hammer thing a joke then? Wondered why it was reverted is all. Hillbillyholiday ^talk 17:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rangers edits[edit]

I see you are changing pages without adding sources or gaining consensus for said changes. Consensus was made months ago by many editors that sources state that Rangers are the same club. So you can see why adding things like 'ceased to exist' is going to be reverted. I see you have started a discussion on the relevant talk page however please refrain from making your edits at the same time. BadSynergy (talk) 02:39, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The sources showing that the club ceased to exist are included. The fact that the new club is in SFL 3 is self-evident proof that it's not the same club, as is the fact that the old club's contracted players were able to walk away and join new clubs. Nobody reverting the edit has provided an iota of factual justification for doing so, other than "Lots of Rangers fans agree that it's still Rangers" CaptainCorrecto (talk) 08:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Final warning[edit]

Hello CaptainCorrecto. I see that you have been edit warring with multiple editors at 2012–13 Rangers F.C. season. You have made a post on the talk page, which is a good start, but I see that you also reverted again, which is not good. This is your final warning - if you revert again before a consensus is found on the talk page, I will block you for a length of time at my discretion. I'm also going to leave you a note about edit warring below just to make sure that you are aware of all the policy issues involved. Please excuse the boilerplate format. Thanks. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:06, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added numerous sources to the edit, and as you note have attempted to discuss the issue on the Talk page. I can do no more. The editors reverting the piece are doing so without justification or providing evidence - their sole argument is "Rangers fans agree Rangers is Rangers, and there are lots of us". It must surely be clear to you that as supporters of the club their assertions are biased and "consensus" in that sense will be impossible - all the Rangers supporters need do in terms of your warning is ignore the Talk entry and "win" by default, which is clearly not in keeping with Wiki principles. In the event of refusal to engage constructively, facts and sources must win out over partisan intransigence. CaptainCorrecto (talk) 09:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(In any event, as I have already noted, the edit explicitly notes that the club is THE CURRENT FORM of Rangers. It therefore does NOT in fact conflict with any assertion that it is the same club, rendering reversions completely invalid. If people wish to quibble with certain phrases in the edit, they can change or propose changes without reverting the entire thing.) CaptainCorrecto (talk) 09:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Stradivarius, Fwiw, I agree with Captain here. As a new user he is clearly trying his utmost to provide sources and contributions that appear to be accurate. I would suggest that a look at User:VanguardScot's page shows that he may not be impartial here. Personally, I have no views on the Scottish football scene, and don't support any of the teams there, but will willingly keep an eye out on the article, as this user would seem to have the best intentions here, and I wouldn't want to see a new and potentially useful editor here blocked or pushed away. Hillbillyholiday ^talk 09:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Finding sources for your text is great, and I applaud you for it. Sources on their own are not enough, however - you also need to find a consensus for your changes. This means discussing things on the talk page before making any other edits, and trying to find a version that everyone can be satisfied with. If you still can't come to an agreement after having a discussion, then you should use dispute resolution rather than simply reverting. If the other editors don't join the discussion, let me know and I will have a word with them, as that can count as disruptive editing depending on the circumstances. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can see for yourself that they're not joining the discussion, merely repeating (irrelevant) assertions, and sometimes not even that. By warning me for correcting and improving the page, rather than warning them for reverting it to an inaccurate and partisan version and refusing to justify their reversions, you do the entry a disservice. I reiterate again - my edit does NOT in fact conflict with any other sourced claim. It is a matter of record that the club ceased to exist as an SPL member when it failed to exit administration. The evidence for that is that it is no longer in the SPL. Consensus is good where possible, but sourced facts trump it when one side will not engage in debate. CaptainCorrecto (talk) 09:51, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The bad faith of "VanguardScot" is indicated by his recent Talk entry - "Take this to the Rangers FC page and see where it gets you" - a clear implication that debate would be shouted down by biased participants. Please protect the page in its CURRENT state until proper discussion is undertaken. CaptainCorrecto (talk) 11:55, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith and Wikipedia:Civility after block is up come back to talk with less hostility please. BadSynergy (talk) 12:08, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed good faith with my Talk page entry, and was proven comprehensively wrong. The idea that self-proclaimed Rangers supporters are capable of impartially editing a page about Rangers is laughable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.237.203 (talk) 13:49, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

May 2013[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at 2012–13 Rangers F.C. season‎. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 11:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This block was for quite a short time as it was your first, but if you keep edit warring after it expires, the next block will be for longer. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've extended the block to 48 hours due to your continuing to edit war while logged out. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:23, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've done absolutely no such thing. But it's clear from the above conversation that you have no interest in either reason or truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.237.203 (talk) 13:48, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is true that we can never be exactly 100% sure if an IP is a sockpuppet of a registered editor. The extension of your block was based on reasonable suspicion rather than definite certainty, and if I made the wrong call I apologise. It's not something that we can check easily, though, sorry. Also, you can still edit your talk page while you're logged into your account. It's a good idea to do this, otherwise we have no way of knowing whether these posts are really from you or not. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, just to recap - I edited a page to an accurate and sourced version, it got repeatedly reverted to a wrong version by OBVIOUSLY biased editors freely admitting to being fans of the football club in question and therefore poorly positioned to be impartial, I attempted to discuss it in Talk and offered a sensible compromise solution and got ignored/threatened ("Try talking about this on the Rangers page and see where you get"), then I got warned (they seemingly didn't), then banned, then banned AGAIN on a completely false accusation of "sockpuppetry", and then banned AGAIN by some dick from out of nowhere accusing me of evading the first bans - preventing me from even defending myself on my own Talk page - despite there being not a shred of evidence, for the very good reason that I hadn't done it.

(Ironically, at the first sign of the "consensus" I'd been told to achieve developing, it was groundlessly assumed that anyone agreeing with me must BE me, it was stamped on and I was punished for it..)

I'm glad that the stereotype of Wiki editors as pompous, sanctimonious, power-drunk jobsworth arseholes actively blocking having entries improved and corrected if the requisite forms haven't been filled out in triplicate in exactly the right shade of blue ink between 2.16pm and 2.23pm on a Tuesday has turned out to be a myth. Oh wait, the other thing. Ban me forever if you like, because I'm fucked if I'll be bothering my arse trying to contribute anything ever again. CaptainCorrecto (talk) 00:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to hear that you feel that way. If you do decide to stick around, though, you'll need to tone it down a bit - see Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:20, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zounds, the irony. CaptainCorrecto (talk) 09:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you can still edit your talk page while you're blocked. All you would have needed to do is to log back into your account and post here. When you're blocked, all other pages are closed to editing, but you can still edit your talk page for the purpose of submitting unblock requests etc. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted - I was specifically blocked from doing that too. Do you think I didn't try? Wiki's power-mad wankers are welcome to it. CaptainCorrecto (talk) 14:26, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your block log says otherwise - if I had removed your talk page access it would have said "cannot edit own talk page" in addition to the other stuff. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't you. It was a user identified only as "John". CaptainCorrecto (talk) 10:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. He blocked the IP that you were editing under, but he didn't do anything to your account, as you can see from the block log that I linked above. You would have been able to post on this page had you logged back in to your CaptainCorrecto account when the block was in effect. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:53, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

July 2013[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Better Together (campaign), did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. The Banner talk 13:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Better Together (campaign) with this edit, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Amaury (talk) 14:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your allegation is ridiculous. I have given detailed reasons on the Talk page, several times. Various users have stated that there has been no evidence provided for the COI/POV allegations. The tags were left in place for several days to give editors the opportunity to explain the justification for the tags, and none were forthcoming. There is a consensus against the inclusion of the tags in the absence of any such evidence. I have attempted repeatedly but fruitlessly to engage the person who keeps reverting the edit. They are the lone voice insisting on the tags, and on refusing to explain. CaptainCorrecto (talk) 14:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Better Together (campaign) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. 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. Amaury (talk) 14:28, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I've been doing, as can be plainly seen on the Talk page. CaptainCorrecto (talk) 14:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're still repeatedly reverting others. You need to stop reverting and discuss it, not discuss it, but continue reverting. - Amaury (talk) 14:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, ONE person is reverting me. I made a valid edit after the issue had been raised properly in the Talk page. There was more than adequate time allowed for discussion. The fact remains that there is currently a clear majority for removing the tags, and no reason offered for their inclusion. It takes two to have a discussion, and I've tried and tried without success. CaptainCorrecto (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You were not engaged in a discussion op the talkpage. The only thing you have said was that you did not accept my reasoning. The Banner talk 14:55, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked you, as have others, to provide "reasoning". You have not. You have made an assertion and repeatedly refused to provide evidence for it. CaptainCorrecto (talk) 15:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon, Captain. I (once again) empathize with your frustration in your attempts to gain "consensus" on a contentious issue. I recommend reading Malleus Fatuorum's WikiSpeak Dictionary, it may help you understand how things actually work round here:

consensus n.: One of the three states that can be reached at the end of a discussion after all parties have become thoroughly fed up with it; the alternatives are no consensus or for pity's sake, I wish I'd never gotten involved in this. Consensus is calculated by counting the votes on either side of the debate, remembering that each vote cast by an editor with whom you are on good terms should be counted at least twice.

-- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 15:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I swore to give up forever after the insanity of the last time ("YOU MAY HAVE FULLY-SOURCED RELEVANT FACTS BUT WE'RE OPENLY AND MILITANTLY PARTISAN AND THERE ARE MORE OF US THAN YOU"), but I gather women have a genetic override which makes them forget the agony of pregnancy. It seems a similar phenomenon exists when attempting to follow the rules and engage with pig-headed Wikipedia contributors by using such dirty low-down tactics as facts and reason in the face of people determined to ignore both. Hopefully I'll learn soon. CaptainCorrecto (talk) 15:32, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heh heh, it took me a few months, but I'm beginning to see the light! Mind you, it can be a right larf here sometimes.. Also, don't forget, the doors of Wikipediocracy (aka "The Hive of Knuckle-dragging Malice") are always open to less-than-fully-gruntled editors. -- Hillbillyholiday ^talk 15:44, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

content dispute n.: See harassment (whichever editor has the lower edit count is the harasser).