Misplaced Pages

User talk:CheckersBoard: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 17:47, 23 November 2015 editNeilN (talk | contribs)134,455 editsm Notice of discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard (TW)← Previous edit Latest revision as of 02:30, 17 December 2023 edit undoUtherSRG (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators179,024 edits You have been indefinitely blocked from editing.Tag: Twinkle 
(447 intermediate revisions by 63 users not shown)
Line 75: Line 75:
| <div style="background-color:#f4f3f0; color: #393D38; padding: 1em;border-radius:10px; font-size: 1.1em;"> | <div style="background-color:#f4f3f0; color: #393D38; padding: 1em;border-radius:10px; font-size: 1.1em;">
Hi '''CheckersBoard'''! Thanks for contributing to Misplaced Pages. Be our guest at ]! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Misplaced Pages and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! {{noping|Osarius}} (]) Hi '''CheckersBoard'''! Thanks for contributing to Misplaced Pages. Be our guest at ]! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Misplaced Pages and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! {{noping|Osarius}} (])
<div class="submit ui-button ui-widget ui-state-default ui-corner-all ui-button-text-only" role="button" aria-disabled="false"><span class="ui-button-text">]</span></div><small><span style="text-align:right;">This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, ] (]) 16:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)</small></span> <div class="submit ui-button ui-widget ui-state-default ui-corner-all ui-button-text-only" role="button" aria-disabled="false"><span class="ui-button-text">]</span></div><small>This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, ] (]) 16:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)</small>
</div> </div>
|} |}
]<!-- Template:Teahouse_HostBot_Invitation --> ]<!-- Template:Teahouse_HostBot_Invitation -->

== FYI ==


] <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 16:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Deletions ==


Hi CheckersBoard~

I noticed your comment with respect to someone making deletions. I think few of your edits were deleted due to no citation. Properly citing makes it much more difficult fro an editor to remove. You've added some information I was unaware of and I have used some of the citations you've provided, thank you.] (]) 01:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

== Formal COI warning ==

] Hello, CheckersBoard. We ] your contributions to Misplaced Pages, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things ] on Misplaced Pages, you may have a ] or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Misplaced Pages's ] content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by ] and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

*'''Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating''' articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
*'''Avoid linking''' to the Misplaced Pages article or website of your organization in other articles (see ]).
*'''Exercise great caution''' so that you do not accidentally breach Misplaced Pages's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to ], ], and ]. Note that Misplaced Pages's ] '''require disclosure''' of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Misplaced Pages when you have a conflict of interest, please see ]. Thank you.{{#if:|&nbsp;] (]) 04:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC)}}<!-- THE FOLLOWING CATEGORY SHOULD BE REMOVED WHEN THE USER IS BLOCKED, OR IT IS DECIDED THAT THIS USER DOES NOT HAVE A COI, OR THIS TEMPLATE HAS BEEN IN PLACE FOR A WHILE WITH NO ACTION. -->]<!-- Template:uw-coi -->

Based on the nature of your account as a ] and the nature of your edits, it appears that you have some interest in the articles you are editing that '''is not aligned''' with Misplaced Pages's mission to present a ], ], source of '''encylopedic''' information for the public. We are ]. ] (]) 03:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

==Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion==
] This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at ] regarding a possible ] incident in which you may be involved. <!--Template:coin-notice--> Thank you. ] (]) 03:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

== No personal attacks ==

] Please ] other editors. If you continue, you may be ] from editing Misplaced Pages. <!-- Template:uw-npa3 -->

You '''must stop''' making personal attacks about the motivations of other editors as you did in . I '''will''' seek to have you topic banned if you continue. '''Discuss content and sources, not contributors.''' I mean that. ] (]) 14:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
:Here is what you wrote in the edit note, for the diff I linked to above: "Deleted content belonging to diff article, was not informative as much as promotional. Paid advocacy also a possibility depending on which editor initially added the content. Aiming for balance and neutrality despite whining by COI editors.." Do you see how this violates "discuss content, not contributors"? ] (]) 17:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


== Teahouse talkback: you've got messages! == == Teahouse talkback: you've got messages! ==
Line 124: Line 84:
{{Misplaced Pages:Teahouse/Teahouse talkback|WP:Teahouse/Questions|Need to contact admin, but how and which one?|ts=—] ] ] 07:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)}} {{Misplaced Pages:Teahouse/Teahouse talkback|WP:Teahouse/Questions|Need to contact admin, but how and which one?|ts=—] ] ] 07:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)}}


== A barnstar for you! ==
==Your recent edits==
] Hello and ]. When you add content to ] and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to ]. There are two ways to do this. Either:
# Add four ]s ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
# With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (] or ]) 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.


{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;"
Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-tilde --> --] (]) 21:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ]

|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Original Barnstar'''
== March 2015 ==
|-
] Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Misplaced Pages, as you did to ], without giving a valid reason for the removal in the ]. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been ]. Please make use of the ] if you'd like to experiment with test edits. ''I understand that you have concerns about the content of this page - please be advised that blanking the entire page is not the way to address this. Use the talk page and/or fix the specific problems you have noticed instead.''<!-- Template:uw-delete2 --> ] (]) 13:07, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | For all the time you've spent improving the ] article. It's on my watchlist and I've seen you make several edits recently, so I wanted to thank you. ] ] 01:56, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

|}
Sorry but someone removed considerable amount of content and valid contributions by editors that need to be retrieved and I had no idea what else to do to bring attention to the problem. It is on going. What you are viewing now is about 1/4 of content being used for the article including verified references. Some one has been doing a fair bit of polishing. This has been a concern as government employees who work for the individual were found to be creeping in polishing the article for public relations purposes which is against wiki rules. COI was officially established. Others have attempted to remove any content deemed publicly negative even though verified sources were used. It has left the article without balance and reads like a resume. Others efforts have been lost as a result. I have had to watch for WP: COI, WP:ADVOCATE and WP:PROMO because it is a controversial political figure. This needs more serious discussion because it is an ongoing-problem. Politics are and have been at play especially recently possibly due to the fact that there is open competition for the position this coming May (I checked). Please review asap. Trying to use talk pages but can't and don't know why. Would like to be able to open discussions and participate. I would appreciate it if others would help.

::editing wikipedia from a phone sucks. this place is hard enough to figure out without dealing the tiny screen and different version of the website presented for a phone. work at a desktop or laptop, if this is really important to you. ] (]) 17:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

== Plain text vs markup on Andre Marin ==

Hi Checkers, it looks like you've been copy-pasting old content (which was removed) back into the article. Normally this isn't in itself a bad/wrong thing to do (unless the content was removed for a good reason), but in this case you seem to be pasting in plain text content rather than . This creates a lot of problems as it's impossible to follow/sort out references and citations and the formatting gets all messed up. Please check out ] and ] to get an idea of why this is important. If you're importing old content, the easiest way to do it is to go to an old version of the page, click edit, and ''then'' copy the content you need - that way the markup, formatting and references will be preserved.

I appreciate your interest and the work that you've put into this article but please be careful to ensure that your editing is not disruptive. I'm going to post a "welcome" message to the top of your talk page - it will have lots of links that you might find helpful. ] (]) 00:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank-you! That is exactly what I was trying to do. Couldn't figure out what happened to the wiki mark-up.

== Edits reverted on ] ==

Hey there, hope you are feeling well,

I have reverted your edits to add numerous controversies to ]. Ideally, this page should only be used for controversies around the role itself - not the person in charge, which should be added to the relevant person's article, but only if ]. Good day, ] (]) 19:21, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

== May 2015 ==
] You may be '''] without further warning''' the next time you violate Misplaced Pages's ] policy by inserting ] or ] ] or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Misplaced Pages page. ''Posting messages on an article speculating who I work for and not discussing it with me first, as well as general unsourced claims to an article, is not acceptable. If you think I shouldn't of done what I did, feel free to follow the ] chain, as I did with my post on your talk page yesterday.''<!-- Template:uw-biog4 --> ] (]) 16:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC) I just saw this and I have no idea why it is directed at me or who the hell you even are. could you please tell me where you are talking about? I never said Mdann52 anywhere. Thanks I'd like to clear this up.

== Andre Marin Page ==


Hi Checkers,

If you keep deleting relevant info and add unsourced material, the Marin page will be stubbed just like the Ombudsman page.

--] (]) 14:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)Thissilladia



Hi, I just got attacked by some editor no idea what he was talkng about, saying I was defaming them. Mdan or something. Trying to figure out what's going on. I thought the Andre Marin page was already stubbed? Why isn't it? Thank-you for your time. As for the jerk who attacked me, this will ne settled so they can leave the editing to the people who are here for that reason. I don't know why they are here.

--Where did the attack happen? Can you link to it? ] (]) 16:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

They deleted it I just checked. I didn't get a screenshot although they may have edited their comments. Will have to check again. Pretty sure they edited it out or someone else did. Accusing me of speculating about their career, was very weird.

== Stop ==

Checkers, please stop adding poorly sourced, non-NPOV material to the Andrea Marin and Ontario Ombudsman pages. It seems pretty obvious that you have an axe to grind with Marin and are using wikipedia to do it. That's not what wikipedia is for. Users who are ] can be blocked from editing, you need to stop. ] (]) 15:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


Thanks! I initially just went in to correct typos...and it some how became a summer project lol. Not as professional as it should be, but there was a lot of cleaning up to do. I appreciate it :) ] (]) 09:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
== ] ==


==Sam Jacks article==
Do not readd the speedy deletion tag to ] again. If you feel the article should be deleted you have one option and one option only. You will need to follow the directions at ]. Any other way of trying to get the article deleted will be reverted and you will be blocked to stop the disruption. --&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 12:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. Regarding the Sam Jacks article, I should still have that book. Will need to check through my library but I should be able to get the source. Appreciate you reaching out. Kind regards ] (]) 15:41, 31 October 2022 (UTC)


::Thanks! No rush, just trying to hunt down sources. Turns out sourcing any related ringette topic is far more difficult than I thought it would be. Seems I can find news articles but actual books appear to be scarce. Thanks again :) ] (]) 14:55, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
== October 2015 ==
== ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message ==
] Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Misplaced Pages, as you did at ]. Your edits appear to constitute ] and have been ] or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the ]. Repeated ] can result in the ]. ''Please do not delete reliably sourced information from an article, particularly where you may have a conflict of interest.''<!-- Template:uw-vandalism2 --> ] (]) 19:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; ">
] You may be '''] without further warning''' the next time you ] Misplaced Pages, as you did at ]. <!-- Template:uw-generic4 --> ] <sup>]</sup> 14:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px;">]</div>
<div class="ivmbox-text">
Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2022|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.


The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. 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 ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
'''Do not''' replace properly sourced and formatted content with a . If you do not how to edit properly, please ask for help at the ] or ]. Content issues can be raised on the article's talk page or ]. --] <sup>]</sup> 15:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 01:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)</small>
Are you looking to get blocked? Why would you do when every single biography infobox on Misplaced Pages doesn't have "former xxx"? --] <sup>]</sup> 22:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


</div>
<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''48 hours''' for persistent ]. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may ] by first reading the ], then adding the following text below this notice: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx|" code. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;''}}. &nbsp;] <sup>]</sup> 22:23, 27 October 2015 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-disruptblock -->
</div>
<!-- Message sent by User:Xaosflux@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2022/Coordination/MM/05&oldid=1124425179 -->


== September 2023 ==
This is also a ] block. If you can't fix basic things you break, '''don't edit'''. Use the talk page to suggest changes. --] <sup>]</sup> 22:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


] You may be '''] without further warning''' the next time you ] Misplaced Pages, as you did at ]. ''You are in violation of the edit restrictions imposed when you were unblocked. This was discussed by ] and ] on your talk page , and you explicitly agreed to these restrictions prior to your unblock . You reverted the same edit twice in 12 hours which is a violation of your 1RR restriction and your commitment to use dispute resolution for content disputes. Removing the unblock discussion and restrictions from your talk page does not change anything, and the fact that you did so immediately after making your second revert makes it difficult to assume good faith. Furthermore, the the fact that your reverts included removing a source for Ringette Canada's transgender inclusion policy <ref>{{Cite web |title=Trans-Inclusion Policy and Resources |url=https://www.ringette.ca/safe-sport/trans-inclusion-policy-and-resources/ |access-date=2023-08-30 |website=Ringette Canada |language=en-US}}</ref> is arguably a violation of your topic ban on human sexuality and your "Zero tolerance for anti-trans edits" restriction. <!-- Template:uw-generic4 --> ] (]) 21:45, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
I don't know what your fixation is with Marin and I don't care. Continue editing as you have been and I will ask that you be topic banned from both the Marin and the ombudsman articles. --] <sup>]</sup> 07:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


:Welp, this is disappointing. My options now <s>are</s> <i>include</i> a vigorous reminder, a short block, or an indefinite block. Perhaps Drmies will have more to say. ] (]) 22:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
== Note ==
::], I have always felt we were too lenient with this editor. Violation of 1R is immediately blockable, IMO--and do I read this correctly, {{U|Meters}}, that this person is fucking around making anti-trans edits? OK--I see it . As DFO said, we do have options, but a warning comes like mustard after the meal, as the Dutch would say, and a temporary block is inappropriate, IMO, since blocks should be preventative and the "temporary" part might be just another invitation for the user to just wait a while and do it again. CheckersBoard, you will have to do much better than you did last time, after your last indefinite block. ] (]) 23:28, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
:::Welp, it's been > 1 year. I would have expected backsliding or uncertainty or testing right after an unblock. I guess people just forget after a while. (sigh) ] (]) 23:54, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
::::I'm sorry to see this, but I have to say I am not surprised that this ended in a reblock. ] (]) 06:49, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
{{ref talk}}


<div class="user-block uw-block" style="padding: 5px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; border: 1px solid #a9a9a9; background-color: #ffefd5; min-height: 40px">]<div style="margin-left:45px">You have been ''']''' ''']''' from editing for persistently making ]. </div><div style="margin-left:45px">If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Misplaced Pages's ], then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. --><code><nowiki>{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}</nowiki></code>. &nbsp;] (]) 23:29, 2 September 2023 (UTC)</div></div><!-- Template:uw-disruptblock -->
{{Ivm|2=''This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Misplaced Pages. It does '''not''' imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.''


{{unblock reviewed |1=I did forget and no cleaning up my talk page was NOT a deliberate attempt to erase other warnings You can delete stuff from your talk page as I understand but the info is still accessible if it needs to be found. :I was looking for the talk page where an author left me a message, was looking for a missing source and they potentially had it. I was sick and tired of having to scroll through 50 or so outdated messages just to find the current ones. So I went on a declutter mission. :I forgot about reverts and gender stuff, I thought sex and gender were obvious. Also noticed at some point someone erased the fact that it was a non-contact sport, that's when I started trying to fix it again. Thoughy it strange that an IP came in and not an editor afterwards, seemed like a troll, but tried my best to make it more current. :I was trying to improve the lead so people wouldn't think it was still only played by girls which Meters had pointed out. I did not see there had been a new source, thought it was an old one. It's a very good one now that I have seen it, it means nothing has to be added to the article to explain it. Had I seen it to begin with I would have left it instead of wasting my time, especially since my attempt was just wordy and made the lead longer than was necssary, now it's short and sweet. And, if the edits are checked, did not say the sport was still exlusively female, I added women, boys and men. This can be checked in the edit history. I also added the majority of participants are still female, this is not made up. :The article is shorter now because a lot of content was moved to other pages or new articles which focussed on a related topic. I doubt it needs much more work, maybe a few small fixes here and there, I can't see how any new sections would be necessary. :Anyways, can't do or say much more because I tend to write too much and more than is necessary and I don't have a lot of energy. Lately I'm actually focussed on looking for and filling missing info on other pages and translating articles. Plus I'm looking at possibly creating a stub because apparently there are two Red McCarthy's from Canada and they seem to have been mixed up. One played ice hockey but another was a pro ice skater, there's even footage on British Pathé, they are not the same man. :Yes, I can do better and now remember the gender and revert issue. I haven't had a problem for a long time, my record was good until this screw up. I keep getting confused over the gender issue, so sources work best for sure because I don't think I'm the only one. Thank-you for your time.] (]) 23:40, 3 September 2023 (UTC) |decline = Closing this as the discussion below seems to have faltered and no one wants to actually accept the request. - ] ] 17:42, 12 October 2023 (UTC)}}
'''Please carefully read this information:'''


*No objection to unblocking, though that's a terrible memory lapse. Counting on Drmies to disagree, but variety adds spice to life.] (]) 02:27, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has authorised ] to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is ].
**], maybe--but this is . ] (]) 02:30, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
**:Sometimes those with editing restrictions need a little reminder. I'm sure CheckersBoard won't forget again. (Cause coming back from a second indef is almost impossible.) ] (]) 02:50, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
**::Just to be clear, previous edit restrictions will remain in place. ] (]) 02:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
**I don't support an unblock. This looks more like article ownership, and these explanations do not ring true to me.
**#Checkers "forgot about reverts and gender stuff", the editing restrictions that they explicitly agreed to as a condition of being unblocked. They were reminded about the restriction in December
**#Checkers "was trying to improve the lead so people wouldn't think it was still only played by girls " but did the exact opposite. The IP's summary: "Expanded scope of the sport - no longer exclusively played by women." was clear, as was mine: "restore the IP's changes. Not just a female sport now", but Checkers reverted both edits to restore the "girls" they had recently added to the first line of the article: "Ringette is a <u>girls'</u> non-contact winter team sport" and to remove the IP's sourced addition of "While sport was originally created exclusively for female competitors, it has expanded to now include participants of all gender identities."
**#Checkers "did not see there had been a new source, thought it was an old one" More than a bit hard to believe given their edit summary: "Irrelrvant, article does not duspute this fact, this is the lead in the introductory patagraph and relevant due to its historical origin, it doesn't require historical revisionism". Why would this be an old source? This was a new addition by the IP. Removing mention of "all gender identities" and a source entitled "Trans-Inclusion Policy and Resources" is, as I wrote above, arguably a violation of their topic ban on human sexuality and anti-trans edits.
**#Checkers "Thoughy it strange that an IP came in and not an editor afterwards, seemed like a troll," Checkers doubts "it needs much more work, maybe a few small fixes here and there, I can't see how any new sections would be necessary." It's not Checker's article. Others are allowed to contribute to it, and yes, even IPs.
**#As for cleaning their talk page, yes it's allowed, but it looks very suspicious for an editor to remove their unblock discussion and editing restrictions just minutes after having violated them. And it's not as if this was a one-edit cleaning. This was methodical, more than 90-edit, one thread at a time cleaning.
**The ] article, and ringette in general, has been a particular problem for Checkers for a long time. There is a long history of warnings related to this (ownership, personal attacks, copyvio, unsourced content, edit warring, etc).and more than one block. If this editor is unblocked I think we need a topic ban. ] (]) 08:00, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
**:I'll abide by whatever decision the group wants, the edit history is available to observe. ] (]) 21:44, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
**::If there are interested parties I found information from the previous block and put it up with the following title:
**::"Previous content re: User block added" ] (]) 21:55, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
**:Hello, I was wondering if I am supposed to make another unblock request because I haven't heard any news about my account's status and would like to begin editing again. Thank you for your time. ] (]) 21:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
::::Do not open another unblock request. You have one request open, and it has been discussed. If no admin has seen fit to unblock you after almost 4 weeks, it is unlikely that it will happen. ] (]) 06:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::How can I find out what and when the decision has been made? It seems rather odd that there isn't a method to inform editors who have been involved for years to simply be left in the dark. ] (]) 19:22, 1 October 2023 (UTC)


**:Am I required to make another unblock request or is the block still under discussion? And btw thsnks for the music :) ] (]) 21:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means ] administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the ], our ], or relevant ]. Administrators may impose sanctions such as ], ], or ]. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
**:I was told not to make another unblock request but there hasn't been any administrators who have revied it. I've improved a lot since last year though I still make mistaked from time to time, redl8nks are a problem I need to fix.
}}{{Z33}}<!-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert --> --] <sup>]</sup> 18:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
**:I put back the previous information from the previous block which I should have read. There have been accusations leveled that are not only wrong but unfair because they are '''unfalsifiable''' so I can't defend myself, including the accusation that I was too close to a source which is dead wrong, found here ] I'm not even involved which is why I have been careful to cite and hunt for sources. Another accusation is that I decluttered my talk page for a sinister reason, buy I took them out one by one because I didn't know jow else to do it. Since I'm not close to involved sources, it is also why I couldn't get the correct date for the upcoming world event, I kept finding different dates and changing it.
**:Previously this was left on my page: ----
**:"If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{tl|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."
**:---
**:I am considering making another unblock request since it has been over a month and an administrator hasn't shown up. By the way I tried using a plagiarism detector app for the first time and to my surprise found some content which I have entered here has wound up on other websites word for word. While entries are logged here, they aren't there, meaning I can't prove the fact that they copied me and not the other way around. I'm not sure what the solution is.
**:Sorry to bother you again Drmies, thanks for your time. ] (]) 19:52, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
::::I have mentioned your request for a decision on your unblock at ]. I suspect that this request has fallen through the cracks because your talk page is very difficult to make sense of. You add comments in the middle of previous threads, you delete stuff, you restore stuff but out of order, etc. ] (]) 20:30, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
:::::Your AN thread was commented on by three admins, none of whom responded to your unblock request, and the thread has now been archived after four days of inactivity . There's your answer. Don't create a new unblock request. ] (]) 07:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
::::::They did respond to the unblock request, you were the only one out of four or five people who wanted the block. Then Drmies lost interest. It's not legitimate. ] (]) 04:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Read what I wrote above again. Yes, ], ], and ] commented '''in the AN thread''' I opened asking for action your stale unblock request, but none of them saw fit to accept it. That's what I meant. Here's the thread: ]. And it's certainly not true to say that I was the only one who wanted the block. Cullen wrote {{tq|I see little benefit to unblocking this editor. but if the editor is unblocked, they should be topic banned from Ringette and all previous restrictions should continue in force.}} And Drmies' {{tq|Have we not spent enough time on this editor?}} is certainly not support for unblocking you.
:::::::My {{tq|Don't create a new unblock request.}} above was in response to your intention to create another active unblock request '''while this one was still open'''. That should not be done. Now that ] has closed the request you could open another unblock request, but I don't recommend that you do so. It has been less than one month since this one was closed. ] (]) 07:23, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::::In case it wasn't clear: I see no reason whatsoever to unblock you. Thanks {{U|Meters}}. ] (]) 13:16, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::Like Drmies, I do not see any good reason to unblock, {{u|Meters}}. Thanks for the ping. ] (]) 17:36, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::This is not what you originally stated and you had considered giving me another chance. It would help if you told me what changed your mind although I don't expect that you will. If it was a simple matter of no longer wanting to be involved, ok. Just be frank.
:::::::::Btw, I don't appreciate it when other editors cast aspersions on my character or motivations regarding my behavior as an editor, especially when it's deliberately petty. I appreciate you didn't do this, but someone certainly has. I want to edit, others would rather play games. I'm not asking anyone to like me, it doesn't matter either way, but I don't like bullies. And my record for editing various articles in here for the last year speaks for itself. Thank you for your time {{u|Drmies}}. ] (]) 13:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC)


== November 2023 ==
== Edit summary at ] ==


] Please do not ] other editors, as you did at ]. Comment on ''content'', not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please ] and keep this in mind while editing. ''Enough''<!-- Template:uw-npa2 --> ] (]) 22:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Just to let you know, all concerns about the edits you just made or any concerns should be discussed at the article talk page not your talk page. In this case those concerns should be raised at ]. Please do not request editors come here to discuss edits. --&nbsp;]&nbsp;] 17:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
:What part of my previous post {{tq|Your comments on me are verging on personal attack}} did you not understand? ] (]) 22:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
::You may not be aware but you wrote your first message, then sent a similar one very shortly after when I hadn't even replied. It makes it look like there are two different editors involved which is confusing. I'd like to get back to editing. ] (]) 07:07, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
:::I am tired of your selective memory/interpretations/deletions. The previous post I quoted from when I mentioned personal attacks was this one on Nov 9. You made another personal attack at 13:00 Nov 14, and deleted my previous post a few minutes later, at 13:11 Nov . I left you a new warning using a canned template, and then added separate post to expand on it. It is very clear from the time stamps and the signatures that both Nov 14 messages are from me, and that they were left almost simultaneously. ] (]) 07:36, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
::::Ok, I've had enough. Go ahead, be offended:
::::<br>
::::Meters, I'm tired too, but you and I both know, and others have quietly observed, that I have been extremely patient with you as well.
::::<br>
::::- You have recently been attacking me relentlessly and they ARE personal attacks and insults (i.e. "selective memory") and haven't encountered anyone criticizing your approach who is in a higher position than yourself so far.
::::<br>
::::- You are also assuming I am not making edits in good faith, which you have done on my talk page. This is not only untrue, but last time I checked, is in violation of Misplaced Pages policy.
::::<br>
::::- Maybe you should move on and leave me alone since it's obvious you are determined to continually attack me and want to paint me in the worst possible light for some strange reason. You are assuming the worst.
::::<br>
::::- Previously, several editors were initially ready to have me unblocked including the editor who first put the block in place. You were the only one opposed. So don't pretend that the recent decision to keep the block in place isn't odd.
::::<br>
::::- You should also know by now that my editing has improved over the course of a year. Your previous claims were wrong, you were only basing it off of my performance from over a year ago.
::::<br>
::::- Why suggest that if I return, that I should only be blocked from the ringette page, then suddenly suggest that I be blocked from ALL women's sports articles, then want me blocked completely. You escalated and I was not even editing anymore. So something weird is going on here.
::::<br>
::::- It also doesn't makes any sense to block me from editing women's sports articles especially when I've contributed a lot, fixed several articles which were a mess, and added reference material that was sometimes missing. I've also translated a few articles which was difficult to do. Why you suddenly decided a broad ban like that should be put in place doesn't make any sense unless you are just trying to punish me for some unrelated reason.
::::<br>
::::- If you want to claim you have not made personal attacks, that's untrue. And I have been left with no choice but to defend myself. Attack the quality of my performance and contributions and stop making it personal. You know very well I can do a pretty good job as an editor even though I am not doing this professionally or for monetary gain.
::::<br>
::::Either tell me what I need to improve in order to edit again or leave me alone. I just want to edit. I may not be as experienced or skilled as you, but I am not exactly terrible either. I am not the only one who makes mistakes, but I learn more with experience.
::::<br>
::::THANKS. ] (]) 08:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
:::::What do you "need to improve in order to edit again"? Try not bullshitting us. I never supported this unblock appeal, and your claim that I am the only one who does not want you unblocked has already been addressed above by some of the other editors involved. My comment about "your selective memory/interpretations/deletions" stands. The only other possibility is that you simply don't see it, in which case this is ] and you should not be unblocked. I have spent more than enough time on this. You know how to appeal your block, and if you ever do I will evaluate that appeal on its merits. ] (]) 22:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)


== Notice == == December 2023 ==
<div class="notice user-block uw-block" style="background:#ffe0e0; border:1px solid #886644; padding:0.5em; margin:0.5em auto; min-height: 40px">]<div style="margin-left:45px">You have been ''']''' ''']''' from editing for ]. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has {{em|also}} been revoked.</div><div style="margin-left:45px">If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Misplaced Pages's ], then submit a request to the '']''. &nbsp;] ] 02:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC)</div></div><!-- Template:uw-blockindef -->
] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is ]. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. ] <sup>]</sup> 17:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 02:30, 17 December 2023

Welcome!

Hello, CheckersBoard! Welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Misplaced Pages. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} 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 name and the date. If you are already excited about Misplaced Pages, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Fyddlestix (talk) 00:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines

The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous


CheckersBoard, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Teahouse logo

Hi CheckersBoard! Thanks for contributing to Misplaced Pages. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Misplaced Pages and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Osarius (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the TeahouseThis message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, CheckersBoard. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by —teb728 t c 07:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
For all the time you've spent improving the Ringette article. It's on my watchlist and I've seen you make several edits recently, so I wanted to thank you. Clovermoss (talk) 01:56, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I initially just went in to correct typos...and it some how became a summer project lol. Not as professional as it should be, but there was a lot of cleaning up to do. I appreciate it :) CheckersBoard (talk) 09:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Sam Jacks article

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. Regarding the Sam Jacks article, I should still have that book. Will need to check through my library but I should be able to get the source. Appreciate you reaching out. Kind regards Mark Staffieri (talk) 15:41, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! No rush, just trying to hunt down sources. Turns out sourcing any related ringette topic is far more difficult than I thought it would be. Seems I can find news articles but actual books appear to be scarce. Thanks again :) CheckersBoard (talk) 14:55, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 2022 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) 01:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

September 2023

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Misplaced Pages, as you did at Ringette. You are in violation of the edit restrictions imposed when you were unblocked. This was discussed by user:Deepfriedokra and user:Drmies on your talk page , and you explicitly agreed to these restrictions prior to your unblock . You reverted the same edit twice in 12 hours which is a violation of your 1RR restriction and your commitment to use dispute resolution for content disputes. Removing the unblock discussion and restrictions from your talk page does not change anything, and the fact that you did so immediately after making your second revert makes it difficult to assume good faith. Furthermore, the the fact that your reverts included removing a source for Ringette Canada's transgender inclusion policy is arguably a violation of your topic ban on human sexuality and your "Zero tolerance for anti-trans edits" restriction. Meters (talk) 21:45, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Welp, this is disappointing. My options now are include a vigorous reminder, a short block, or an indefinite block. Perhaps Drmies will have more to say. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
User:Deepfriedokra, I have always felt we were too lenient with this editor. Violation of 1R is immediately blockable, IMO--and do I read this correctly, Meters, that this person is fucking around making anti-trans edits? OK--I see it here. As DFO said, we do have options, but a warning comes like mustard after the meal, as the Dutch would say, and a temporary block is inappropriate, IMO, since blocks should be preventative and the "temporary" part might be just another invitation for the user to just wait a while and do it again. CheckersBoard, you will have to do much better than you did last time, after your last indefinite block. Drmies (talk) 23:28, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Welp, it's been > 1 year. I would have expected backsliding or uncertainty or testing right after an unblock. I guess people just forget after a while. (sigh) -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 23:54, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm sorry to see this, but I have to say I am not surprised that this ended in a reblock. Meters (talk) 06:49, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. "Trans-Inclusion Policy and Resources". Ringette Canada. Retrieved 2023-08-30.
Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Misplaced Pages's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Drmies (talk) 23:29, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
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).

CheckersBoard (block logactive blocksglobal blockscontribsdeleted contribsfilter logcreation logchange block settingsunblockcheckuser (log))


Request reason:

I did forget and no cleaning up my talk page was NOT a deliberate attempt to erase other warnings You can delete stuff from your talk page as I understand but the info is still accessible if it needs to be found. :I was looking for the talk page where an author left me a message, was looking for a missing source and they potentially had it. I was sick and tired of having to scroll through 50 or so outdated messages just to find the current ones. So I went on a declutter mission. :I forgot about reverts and gender stuff, I thought sex and gender were obvious. Also noticed at some point someone erased the fact that it was a non-contact sport, that's when I started trying to fix it again. Thoughy it strange that an IP came in and not an editor afterwards, seemed like a troll, but tried my best to make it more current. :I was trying to improve the lead so people wouldn't think it was still only played by girls which Meters had pointed out. I did not see there had been a new source, thought it was an old one. It's a very good one now that I have seen it, it means nothing has to be added to the article to explain it. Had I seen it to begin with I would have left it instead of wasting my time, especially since my attempt was just wordy and made the lead longer than was necssary, now it's short and sweet. And, if the edits are checked, did not say the sport was still exlusively female, I added women, boys and men. This can be checked in the edit history. I also added the majority of participants are still female, this is not made up. :The article is shorter now because a lot of content was moved to other pages or new articles which focussed on a related topic. I doubt it needs much more work, maybe a few small fixes here and there, I can't see how any new sections would be necessary. :Anyways, can't do or say much more because I tend to write too much and more than is necessary and I don't have a lot of energy. Lately I'm actually focussed on looking for and filling missing info on other pages and translating articles. Plus I'm looking at possibly creating a stub because apparently there are two Red McCarthy's from Canada and they seem to have been mixed up. One played ice hockey but another was a pro ice skater, there's even footage on British Pathé, they are not the same man. :Yes, I can do better and now remember the gender and revert issue. I haven't had a problem for a long time, my record was good until this screw up. I keep getting confused over the gender issue, so sources work best for sure because I don't think I'm the only one. Thank-you for your time.CheckersBoard (talk) 23:40, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Closing this as the discussion below seems to have faltered and no one wants to actually accept the request. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:42, 12 October 2023 (UTC)


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.

  • No objection to unblocking, though that's a terrible memory lapse. Counting on Drmies to disagree, but variety adds spice to life.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:27, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
    • User:Deepfriedokra, maybe--but this is the last time. Drmies (talk) 02:30, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
      Sometimes those with editing restrictions need a little reminder. I'm sure CheckersBoard won't forget again. (Cause coming back from a second indef is almost impossible.) -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:50, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
      Just to be clear, previous edit restrictions will remain in place. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
    • I don't support an unblock. This looks more like article ownership, and these explanations do not ring true to me.
      1. Checkers "forgot about reverts and gender stuff", the editing restrictions that they explicitly agreed to as a condition of being unblocked. They were reminded about the restriction in December
      2. Checkers "was trying to improve the lead so people wouldn't think it was still only played by girls " but did the exact opposite. The IP's summary: "Expanded scope of the sport - no longer exclusively played by women." was clear, as was mine: "restore the IP's changes. Not just a female sport now", but Checkers reverted both edits to restore the "girls" they had recently added to the first line of the article: "Ringette is a girls' non-contact winter team sport" and to remove the IP's sourced addition of "While sport was originally created exclusively for female competitors, it has expanded to now include participants of all gender identities."
      3. Checkers "did not see there had been a new source, thought it was an old one" More than a bit hard to believe given their edit summary: "Irrelrvant, article does not duspute this fact, this is the lead in the introductory patagraph and relevant due to its historical origin, it doesn't require historical revisionism". Why would this be an old source? This was a new addition by the IP. Removing mention of "all gender identities" and a source entitled "Trans-Inclusion Policy and Resources" is, as I wrote above, arguably a violation of their topic ban on human sexuality and anti-trans edits.
      4. Checkers "Thoughy it strange that an IP came in and not an editor afterwards, seemed like a troll," Checkers doubts "it needs much more work, maybe a few small fixes here and there, I can't see how any new sections would be necessary." It's not Checker's article. Others are allowed to contribute to it, and yes, even IPs.
      5. As for cleaning their talk page, yes it's allowed, but it looks very suspicious for an editor to remove their unblock discussion and editing restrictions just minutes after having violated them. And it's not as if this was a one-edit cleaning. This was methodical, more than 90-edit, one thread at a time cleaning.
    • The Ringette article, and ringette in general, has been a particular problem for Checkers for a long time. There is a long history of warnings related to this (ownership, personal attacks, copyvio, unsourced content, edit warring, etc).and more than one block. If this editor is unblocked I think we need a topic ban. Meters (talk) 08:00, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
      I'll abide by whatever decision the group wants, the edit history is available to observe. CheckersBoard (talk) 21:44, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
      If there are interested parties I found information from the previous block and put it up with the following title:
      "Previous content re: User block added" CheckersBoard (talk) 21:55, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
      Hello, I was wondering if I am supposed to make another unblock request because I haven't heard any news about my account's status and would like to begin editing again. Thank you for your time. CheckersBoard (talk) 21:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Do not open another unblock request. You have one request open, and it has been discussed. If no admin has seen fit to unblock you after almost 4 weeks, it is unlikely that it will happen. Meters (talk) 06:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
How can I find out what and when the decision has been made? It seems rather odd that there isn't a method to inform editors who have been involved for years to simply be left in the dark. CheckersBoard (talk) 19:22, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
    • Am I required to make another unblock request or is the block still under discussion? And btw thsnks for the music :) CheckersBoard (talk) 21:58, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
      I was told not to make another unblock request but there hasn't been any administrators who have revied it. I've improved a lot since last year though I still make mistaked from time to time, redl8nks are a problem I need to fix.
      I put back the previous information from the previous block which I should have read. There have been accusations leveled that are not only wrong but unfair because they are unfalsifiable so I can't defend myself, including the accusation that I was too close to a source which is dead wrong, found here 1998 World Ringette Championships I'm not even involved which is why I have been careful to cite and hunt for sources. Another accusation is that I decluttered my talk page for a sinister reason, buy I took them out one by one because I didn't know jow else to do it. Since I'm not close to involved sources, it is also why I couldn't get the correct date for the upcoming world event, I kept finding different dates and changing it.
      Previously this was left on my page: ----
      "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."
      ---
      I am considering making another unblock request since it has been over a month and an administrator hasn't shown up. By the way I tried using a plagiarism detector app for the first time and to my surprise found some content which I have entered here has wound up on other websites word for word. While entries are logged here, they aren't there, meaning I can't prove the fact that they copied me and not the other way around. I'm not sure what the solution is.
      Sorry to bother you again Drmies, thanks for your time. CheckersBoard (talk) 19:52, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
I have mentioned your request for a decision on your unblock at WP:AN. I suspect that this request has fallen through the cracks because your talk page is very difficult to make sense of. You add comments in the middle of previous threads, you delete stuff, you restore stuff but out of order, etc. Meters (talk) 20:30, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Your AN thread was commented on by three admins, none of whom responded to your unblock request, and the thread has now been archived after four days of inactivity . There's your answer. Don't create a new unblock request. Meters (talk) 07:29, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
They did respond to the unblock request, you were the only one out of four or five people who wanted the block. Then Drmies lost interest. It's not legitimate. CheckersBoard (talk) 04:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Read what I wrote above again. Yes, user:Deepfriedokra, user:Cullen328, and user:Drmies commented in the AN thread I opened asking for action your stale unblock request, but none of them saw fit to accept it. That's what I meant. Here's the thread: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive355#User:CheckersBoard unblock request. And it's certainly not true to say that I was the only one who wanted the block. Cullen wrote I see little benefit to unblocking this editor. but if the editor is unblocked, they should be topic banned from Ringette and all previous restrictions should continue in force. And Drmies' Have we not spent enough time on this editor? is certainly not support for unblocking you.
My Don't create a new unblock request. above was in response to your intention to create another active unblock request while this one was still open. That should not be done. Now that user:UtherSRG has closed the request you could open another unblock request, but I don't recommend that you do so. It has been less than one month since this one was closed. Meters (talk) 07:23, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
In case it wasn't clear: I see no reason whatsoever to unblock you. Thanks Meters. Drmies (talk) 13:16, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Like Drmies, I do not see any good reason to unblock, Meters. Thanks for the ping. Cullen328 (talk) 17:36, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
This is not what you originally stated and you had considered giving me another chance. It would help if you told me what changed your mind although I don't expect that you will. If it was a simple matter of no longer wanting to be involved, ok. Just be frank.
Btw, I don't appreciate it when other editors cast aspersions on my character or motivations regarding my behavior as an editor, especially when it's deliberately petty. I appreciate you didn't do this, but someone certainly has. I want to edit, others would rather play games. I'm not asking anyone to like me, it doesn't matter either way, but I don't like bullies. And my record for editing various articles in here for the last year speaks for itself. Thank you for your time Drmies. CheckersBoard (talk) 13:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

November 2023

Information icon Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:CheckersBoard. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Enough Meters (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

What part of my previous post Your comments on me are verging on personal attack did you not understand? Meters (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
You may not be aware but you wrote your first message, then sent a similar one very shortly after when I hadn't even replied. It makes it look like there are two different editors involved which is confusing. I'd like to get back to editing. CheckersBoard (talk) 07:07, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
I am tired of your selective memory/interpretations/deletions. The previous post I quoted from when I mentioned personal attacks was this one on Nov 9. You made another personal attack at 13:00 Nov 14, and deleted my previous post a few minutes later, at 13:11 Nov . I left you a new warning using a canned template, and then added separate post to expand on it. It is very clear from the time stamps and the signatures that both Nov 14 messages are from me, and that they were left almost simultaneously. Meters (talk) 07:36, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
Ok, I've had enough. Go ahead, be offended:

Meters, I'm tired too, but you and I both know, and others have quietly observed, that I have been extremely patient with you as well.

- You have recently been attacking me relentlessly and they ARE personal attacks and insults (i.e. "selective memory") and haven't encountered anyone criticizing your approach who is in a higher position than yourself so far.

- You are also assuming I am not making edits in good faith, which you have done on my talk page. This is not only untrue, but last time I checked, is in violation of Misplaced Pages policy.

- Maybe you should move on and leave me alone since it's obvious you are determined to continually attack me and want to paint me in the worst possible light for some strange reason. You are assuming the worst.

- Previously, several editors were initially ready to have me unblocked including the editor who first put the block in place. You were the only one opposed. So don't pretend that the recent decision to keep the block in place isn't odd.

- You should also know by now that my editing has improved over the course of a year. Your previous claims were wrong, you were only basing it off of my performance from over a year ago.

- Why suggest that if I return, that I should only be blocked from the ringette page, then suddenly suggest that I be blocked from ALL women's sports articles, then want me blocked completely. You escalated and I was not even editing anymore. So something weird is going on here.

- It also doesn't makes any sense to block me from editing women's sports articles especially when I've contributed a lot, fixed several articles which were a mess, and added reference material that was sometimes missing. I've also translated a few articles which was difficult to do. Why you suddenly decided a broad ban like that should be put in place doesn't make any sense unless you are just trying to punish me for some unrelated reason.

- If you want to claim you have not made personal attacks, that's untrue. And I have been left with no choice but to defend myself. Attack the quality of my performance and contributions and stop making it personal. You know very well I can do a pretty good job as an editor even though I am not doing this professionally or for monetary gain.

Either tell me what I need to improve in order to edit again or leave me alone. I just want to edit. I may not be as experienced or skilled as you, but I am not exactly terrible either. I am not the only one who makes mistakes, but I learn more with experience.

THANKS. CheckersBoard (talk) 08:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
What do you "need to improve in order to edit again"? Try not bullshitting us. I never supported this unblock appeal, and your claim that I am the only one who does not want you unblocked has already been addressed above by some of the other editors involved. My comment about "your selective memory/interpretations/deletions" stands. The only other possibility is that you simply don't see it, in which case this is WP:CIR and you should not be unblocked. I have spent more than enough time on this. You know how to appeal your block, and if you ever do I will evaluate that appeal on its merits. Meters (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

December 2023

Stop icon
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Misplaced Pages's guide to appealing blocks, then submit a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  UtherSRG (talk) 02:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC)