User talk:RealDealBillMcNeal

Welcome!

Hello, RealDealBillMcNeal, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Mats Møller Dæhli. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Mentoz86 (talk) 02:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Brimstone

Great work on the Brimstone article. However I did remove the prod. While the article certainly reeked of puffery, I do think it meets the minimum notability requirements. Not the mention the fact it has survived two previous AfDs. In the very least I think it should go through the AfD process again if it is to be deleted.LM2000 (talk) 13:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Brimstone (again)

I've started a sockpuppet investigation against the two who are reverting you. Their behavior is identical and leads me to believe they are the same person. If you have additional comments, leave them at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/RingWars2007. If I were you I wouldn't revert them again until the investigation is closed so that way you cannot be blamed for the edit war.LM2000 (talk) 22:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC) Greetings.

Per all of this I thought I should tell you that there's a guideline article on this such behaviour. see this. I've suggested that the two be disciplined per this guideline if the SPI against them does not lead to blocks.

Y'all take care now. MM (Report findings) ^{(Past espionage)} 01:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Daniel Bryan Knee

Hey man, check out the section on Daniel Bryan's talk page about his move. I've put multiple sources where the same author refers to it as the Running Knee, and if nothing else, tell me how to source that episode of Smackdown properly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crispy385 (talk • contribs) 13:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I've found Wikipedia's policy about using Youtube as a source and will be relisting Running Knee with a proper source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crispy385 (talk • contribs) 13:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

"David Beckham goes through initiation ceremony"

Instead of making less-than-helpful comments like "jog on", I suggest you give us some indication of why a footballer's initiation ceremony is at all encyclopaedic. All football clubs do it (or at least did it back in the day), so what's the big deal about David Beckham's? Is it just because it's him? I'm finding it difficult to justify including this info. – PeeJay 23:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Peejay there is plenty of sources available in regards to David Beckham's initiation ceremony. Many soccer players have gone through this and so it's no big deal that David did as well. I see no reason why it shouldnt be included in the article. Like I said there are many sources for it so I have to agree with RealDeal and his edits. Caden ^cool 15:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

You've basically just agreed with me. Many/most footballers do initiation ceremonies, so what's so special about this one? Granted this sounds like one of the more extreme ones, but I would be surprised if worse stuff had been done to other players and never gone reported in the media. This is pure tabloid bunkum. – PeeJay 17:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, before you force this into a massive edit war, let's have a proper discussion about the inclusion of the content. Per WP:BRD, the info should not be added again until the discussion reaches a conclusion. – PeeJay 17:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Stop reverting me. Beckham admitted it on a documentary and there are many sources to back it up. Caden ^cool 17:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

How many of them have to sing a song or something inane, and how many had to masturbate over Clayton Blackmore? Spot the difference? RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 17:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

He's not going to care. He's interested in edit warring and taking ownership of the article. Caden ^cool 17:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Whatever happened to assuming good faith? – PeeJay 18:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure doing something embarrassing like masturbating in public was pretty common back in the early 1990s. At my American football initiation in university, we made the rookies stand naked in a field while we pelted eggs at them. Sounds pretty similar. – PeeJay 18:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Peejay I've played soccer most of my life (high school/university) so I know what happens. Caden ^cool 18:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

"Masturbating in public was pretty common back in the early 1990s" - Prove it then. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 20:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Professional Wrestling Barnstar
		Awarded by LM2000 for your work on Brimstone (wrestler). For years countless users saw the problems with the article and looked away but you saw to improve it to Wikipedia Standards.LM2000 (talk) 20:10, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Head or Heart Tour

Hello RealDealBillMcNeal. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Head or Heart Tour, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:07, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

No it doesn't. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 21:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Not every sentence needs a citation

Please see the talk section of the History of WWE. Not every sentence is a statement of a fact needing a citation. If you read non-WWE related articles you'll quickly notice that there are many connecting sentences that lack citations simply because they do not need them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hindumuninc (talk • contribs) 20:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOR says you're wrong. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 21:46, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Speedy problems

None of the reasons you gave for deletion of Historic matches of the Costa Rica national football team apply. It has context, is not one of the things for which A7 can be used , is not promotional, and is not total nonsense.

• Similarly for Mozida Govt. High School. -- it is not empty, it has context, it is not vandalism. ,
• Similarly, for [[::Silas T. Cobb]], it has context, and there is at least some reason to think the person of significance, though notability may be another matter.
• CK Morgan (Singer) had references at the time you marked it for deletion as an unreferenced BLP
• Most of the problems you indicated at Usul ash-Shashi do not apply either: it has sufficient citations, it does not use bare urls, it has links to other WP articles, it has nothing that seems to be a weasel word , I see no reason to think it a hoax, there is no point dividing so short an article into sections, I cannot see how it is promotional
• Similarly, Where Are You Going Moshé ? does not appear to use original research, does not need reorganization/. It may or may not be notable.
• There are some recent problems indicated on your page by other editors.

You must not continue in this manner. Not only are these wrong, they are in some cases so utterly inapplicable that it looks very much like tagging at random. Please read WP:CSD and WP:Deletion policy before you do any further tagging of articles for deletion. The previous edits you have been doing seem sensible enough,though there are some problems, like the one at Daily Mail. I can only think there were some difficulties of some sort in the last 24 hours. I will check again tomorrow. Im using my non-admin account at the moment. I am actually User:DGG and my talk is User talk:DGG 'DGG (at NYPL)' (talk) 10:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	This barnstar is awarded for your role in starting the ultimate removal of Brimstone from Wikipedia. Without your efforts, it could not have been done. starship.paint (talk | contribs) 11:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

kike

If you want to stop kikefolqn, you should ask for a ban. I had problems with kike in spanish and english wikipedia. He never listen. He does an edition and alllways changes your editions. I tried to talk with him, but he never answeres. He was banned sometimes and he never stop.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC) Kike did it again https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WWE&curid=62676&diff=593012845&oldid=592892688 can you reported him for vandalism? I tried, but I don't know where. I tried and people is discussing about his name --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

UEFA Champions League hat-tricks

Hi there! I've wrote the article about UEFA Champions League hat-tricks in Ukrainian Wiki. When I was writting it, I found that Rodionov didn't make a hat-trick (UEFA.com shows it). On the other hand Semak in 2004/2005 season scored 3 goals in one match →[1]. I hope it will help you.--TnoXX (talk) 22:13, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

vandalism

Hello, I'm Blood sliver. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Mr. T because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks!--Blood sliver (talk) 05:01, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit on Eurovision Song Contest 2014

If you think editing the name of the Netherlands' entry to one which is false is funny, stop it.

Don't think it wasn't caught because no one else was looking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tingmelvin (talk • contribs) 23:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

THAT list

Each titles wiki page has the following Youngest, Heaviest, First, Current, Oldest, Lightest, Most reigns. Singling out one of these to add to the HISTORY of WWE is redundant. It's notable that rene young was the youngest tag champ but not on that page. MB1972 (talk) 00:10, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Malcolm Glazer. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you. LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Glazer ownership of Manchester United, you may be blocked from editing. --VeryCrocker (talk) 20:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Nah fella, what I wrote was the truth. It isn't vandalism to suggest that United fans are celebrating his death. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 20:41, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes fella, it is vandalism. Do NOT do it again or you will be blocked. You've been warned. LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Good explanation of what constitutes vandalism. Great stuff to threaten somebody with being blocked rather than educate them. Superb work by a "veteran editor". RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 16:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Those are fair warnings by User:Lady Lotus. In no way are "Everybody had jelly and ice-cream."[2] and "In 2014, Malcolm Glazer died much to the delight of Manchester United fans, who proceded to celebrate with jelly and ice-cream."[3], the latter referenced with a blog, encyclopedic-worthy. Especially after you have removed stuff that you considered "crap" and "awful". This edit just a month back is far from acceptable by an editor either. LRD NO (talk) 03:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Mr T Loves his mother, brother, there's no point in denying it. Making incorrect edits with regards to fan reaction does not equate to vandalism. Unencyclopaedic it may have been, but it's not too difficult to press a button to simply revert the edit rather than to threaten somebody with a ban from editing, without making any attempt whatsoever to explain the threat. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 17:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Deliberately making incorrect edits is vandalism. To quote VANDAL: "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". Which you have undoubtedly done in the examples cited above and, for another example, here.

It's possible you're going to respond to this by further lawyering. Well, ok, lawyer away. But don't indulge in disruptive editing again. It won't end well for you. --VeryCrocker (talk) 18:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Those edits are clear-as-day vandalism. Bring it to any editor and they will say the same. If you think any disruptive editing can be defended with "press a button to simply revert the edit", my advice is to stay away from editing for a while and look at WP policies to see how they work before getting yourself into further trouble and a likely block. LRD NO (talk) 22:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

...Jesus Christ. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 02:45, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Ronaldo goals

All the possible sources shows that Cristiano Ronaldo has 68 goals in UEFA Champions League and Messi has 67. Can you please cite a source which says your opinion that Ronaldo too has 67 goals? Thank You. Ashishbirajdar (talk) 14:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

One of the goals was in qualifying for United against Debrecen in 2005. BBC link RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 15:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The No Spam Barnstar
	Thank you for removing material that reads like an advertisement. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 07:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Luis Suárez

I think there should be at least two sources for each of the statements regarding the Suárez incident and suspension. Kingjeff (talk) 19:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, TV and PPV are different.

This would matter if we were saying "WWE Raw aired on cable, while Royal Rumble aired on PPV."

This would still be ambiguous, since it could mean they aired at the same time, but it's still alright (by some linguists) in the comparative sense.

Here, we're not contrasting, we're simply listing two HD things in chronological order. There's no "but" about it, and the sentence is clear they didn't happen concurrently. If we were being wordy at all, "and" or "then" or "and then" would be the words to use for the opposite of "difference".

As for "to be presented in HD", what does it add but wordiness? If we call something an "HD program", it's clear that it exists ("to be") and it was presented, as every TV program is. Whenever you see some sort of "be" by a verb in past tense, it can do without it. Neil Armstrong wasn't the first person "to be walking" on the moon.

If nothing else, that "to be" has to go. For 3RR reasons, I'll let the bigger problem slide, but I'm fixing this. I hope you don't have a problem with that part. And I hope some of this grammar stuff is getting through to you. Not trying to edit war with you, just helping a fellow editor out with the language, for Wiki's sake. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:30, June 28, 2014 (UTC)

WWE Music Group edits

What was wrong with how it was before? There was nothing wrong with it. --Evil Yugi (talk) 22:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

As I explained three times, it violates WP:IINFO. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 22:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't get it. It had been that way for months, maybe years. Why change now haha --Evil Yugi (talk) 22:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, a list collating the entire library of singles released to Itunes is an indiscriminate collection of information which Wikipedia is not. None of these songs has ever charted apart from Fandango's theme in the UK. Just because these songs has been released, doesn't mean it is encyclopaedic. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 23:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but we can't all be on iTunes all the time bro. Surely we can work out something? --Evil Yugi (talk) 23:15, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Apparently, based on recent edits, I'm not the only one that feels this way. --Evil Yugi (talk) 02:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I've yet to be told of any Wikipedia policy as to why it should stay. The reasons given have been absolutely pathetic. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 05:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

If that was the case, then why wait over 3 years to remove it? --Evil Yugi (talk) 11:46, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, it didn't take me three years to do it. I removed the text the first time I encountered the page. There was an article for a wrestler called Brimstone that went untouched for years before I removed the large amounts of guff and it finally got deleted. Length of time is not an argument. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 14:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I still see much more good for having it than negatives bro. --Evil Yugi (talk) 19:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, let's say the article is left alone the way you have it. How is anyone supposed to keep track of what's out there wrestling theme wise? We cannot access iTunes 24/7/365 to keep track, that's physically impossible. How do you suppose we fix this problem? Evil Yugi (talk) 17:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia, not an advertisement agency for WWE. Pretty sure Twitter exists. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 17:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

You're not gonna give up are ya buddy? Evil Yugi (talk) 20:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

You're not gonna give a valid reason are ya buddy? RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 22:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I'll give you a few - WP:IAR, Lists of songs, and Category:Discographies. Now if need be this list can be moved to Category:Record_label_discographies and it can survive there along with the other few thousand listings of that sort.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 16:06, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:IAR is used in instances where the rules are preventing improvement. How is a huge list of songs released by a record label an improvement?
Lists of songs features zero lists by record labels. WWE Music Group is a record label, not an artist. If you want to create a page that would be included in Category:Record_label_discographies called "WWE Music Group discography", sure go ahead. But come on, this list blatantly doesn't belong in the main article. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 16:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

July 2014

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Brazil v Germany (2014 FIFA World Cup), as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 15:16, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Manchester United F.C.

Look, man, I don't want any trouble with you, but there are a few basic tenets of Wikipedia that you need to understand in order to prevent this from deteriorating any further. Principally, I advise you to read WP:BRD and take note of the fact that there are three simple steps to that process: bold, revert, discuss. You've been here a while, and it's clear by your edits that you are aware of the first step, whereby you are encouraged to make bold edits where you believe they will improve the encyclopaedia; I don't have a problem with that. However, I do have a problem with the specific edits you've been making, hence why I took BRD to the next step: revert. Of course, I am not the sole arbiter of these things, but as first on the scene, I am within my rights as an editor to make that call. So now we find ourselves at an impasse: each of us has a contrasting viewpoint, so now we need to explain our rationales. Edit summaries are insufficient for that purpose, and besides, continuing to revert and re-revert would be classed as an WP:EDITWAR and result in one or both of us getting blocked; therefore, as the party making the initial change, the onus is on you to begin a discussion on the article talk page, allowing both of us to discuss the pros and cons of the changes, as well as allowing others to weigh in with their opinions (we can't possibly make a decision by ourselves, now can we?). Now that I've explained this to you, I expect to see more talk page activity from you in the future. – PeeJay 10:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Ezequiel Garay

independent.co.uk is wrong. Garay was sold for €6 million, Benfica received €2.4 million. Fixed4u (talk) 14:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Stop adding unreliable sources from the Ezequiel Garay page. Fixed4u (talk) 17:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Discuss it here. Fixed4u (talk) 17:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

• I have dropped my two cents in Mr. Fixed's page. Thank you --AL (talk) 18:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Regarding André Gomes, why did i merit to be reverted? Valencia CF is a club it goes without saying, needless to write it in my humble opinion. And (per your summary) what does "precedent" mean? Please reply, thank you. --AL (talk) 18:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Precedent means prior usage/other examples. Just take a look at [[Lionel Messi], Cristiano Ronaldo, Zlatan Ibrahimovic. All say {Name} (D/O/B/) is a {nationality} footballer who plays as a {position} for {location} club {club}. I.E. Precedent. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 18:54, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I have found another Portuguese credible source stating that Daily Mail wrongly mentioned a transfer of €15 million. Fixed4u (talk) 19:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Nobody mentioned the Daily Mail. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 19:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

since Benfica is a listed company, 6M is official and most reliable. the reported 15M is a miscalculation and Benfica already issued another press release to clarify. Matthew_hk tc 13:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Award 4 U

• 
  Back Scratcher's Barnstar

Awarded to RealDealBillMcNeal - instead of going back and forth, I decided to use a hybrid of both your and my version of the disputed edit. This award is a show of good faith and represents that your idea had merit enough to be used after further review.
Vjmlhds (talk) 18:39, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Barton

Very few notable people tweet as frequently as Barton; his official website and blog are far less frequently updated. The inclusion of his twitter feed certainly meets the criteria at WP:EXT. The commentary that his twitter proclamations have wrought is certainly encyclopaedic and significant, with citations from the BBC, Guardian and Telegraph. Were it commentary on musings in a memoir it would certainly merit inclusion. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 00:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 8

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Paul Scholes

added a link pointing to ITV

Ryan Giggs

added a link pointing to Steve Bennett

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Cristiano haaaas 68 I am sure

Whay are you Change it !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Se killer (talk • contribs) 09:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Why !!!!!!!!! I am sure — Preceding unsigned comment added by Se killer (talk • contribs) 09:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

/* Ronaldo */

RealDealBillMcNeal

From Where you Know That Ronaldo Has 67 !!!!! Please Replay — Preceding unsigned comment added by Se killer (talk • contribs) 10:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The sources provided. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 13:41, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Nash Grier

Hello. You've redirected the page to Kevin Nash which seems hardly appropriate. I've reverted your edits for now. If there was a reason behind the edit, please let me know at my talk page. KJ ^Discuss? 10:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted your edit to Dapper Laughs

You had appeared to replace the content of the article with the entire text of Moby-Dick. I've reverted it as it was not necessary for the article. Here's the summary of what you did.Jsaur (talk) 18:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Just a banter, no offence. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 18:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Dapper Laughs. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism. Thank you.

• You should know from past experience that such edits, including the unexplained redirect at Nash Grier, constitute vandalism regardless of how you spin it. LRD NO (talk) 23:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

It was just banter. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 00:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

There had been previous discussions on such edits. My advice for you is to familiarise with WP:vandalism again. I can see proper editing and a willingness to engage in talk page discussions after your recent blocks, so kindly keep to that for your personal benefit. LRD NO (talk) 00:23, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Ronaldo

I swear that ronaldo has 68 and all websites provide this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Se killer (talk • contribs) 18:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

How many times do you need to be told that he has 67 goals in the Champions League? He scored against Debrecen in 2005, but that was a qualifier, and as the article states, All-time top scorers (since 1955, excluding qualifying rounds). it was a qualifier, it doesn't count towards the main tally!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ronaldo

Ooooh Sorry I am sorry for the misunderstanding — Preceding unsigned comment added by Se killer (talk • contribs) 19:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 14 August

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Rivaldo page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit-warring on Manchester United F.C. and List of Manchester United F.C. players

A reminder that another editor and you have been engaging in edit-warring on both pages, and that such actions could result in a block. Please try to reach consensus with each other on the article talk page before it escalates into administrator action. Thank you. LRD NO (talk) 03:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit-war where I continually try to improve it, with references, and the edits get reverted with terrible reasoning. One way war where I yet again get blamed. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 04:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

When this happens seek out more community input rather than repeatedly reverting. Even if you think the reasoning is terrible.

Our edit warring policy defines a revert as "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert". Notice the "whole or in part" in there.

It seems you do not accept this definition and it has been brought up in at least 1 of your prior 3 edit warring blocks. Please seek further community input when you cannot come to an agreement with someone rather than reverting their edits in whole or in part. Chillum 04:47, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Whilst you and the other editor are both clearly edit warring, edits such as this appear petty and not in your favour. Please discuss this on the article in questions talk page before making further reverts. This is an encyclopaedia and not a play thing. Any further reverts may lead to a report and another block which I'm sure you don't want.Blethering Scot 01:59, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Is it an edit-war if both sides come to the same agreement, no matter how ludicrous or preposterous or asinine i.e. everything that happens in football is a "quirk of timing"? This is the consensus that was reached following the BRD cycle. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 02:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

You never reached any consensus or you wouldn't be reverting each other. Your argument is flawed, there clearly wasn't any consensus.Blethering Scot 15:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Slammy's

Looks like we have a majority vote for Option B. Thanks for your vote, it needed a change. Will you do honors? (T23tran (talk) 19:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC))

August 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at List of Manchester United F.C. players and Manchester United F.C.. 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 the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Chillum 13:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Future blocks for edit warring will increase in duration from 1 week to 2 weeks to a month and eventually will be permanent. Please stop this persistent pattern of edit warring if you wish to remain on Wikipedia. Chillum 13:45, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

For the record this is your second one week block and fourth for edit warring. Please read up on consensus and edit warring this really was unnecessary.Blethering Scot 15:43, 17 August 2014 (UTC)