User talk:JoanneB123

Please leave a messageJoanneB123 (talk) 18:24, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015[edit]

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Chauntry Cup. Telling other users that they're wrong and don't know what they're talking about is not assuming good faith. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:35, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Dartman1001 (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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).

JoanneB123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am nobodies puppet. I have been blocked for no reason. I don't speak for anyone else. I am allowed to have my own opinions, no matter what my ip address is. I happen to agree that The Chauntry Cup is a valid subject for a wiki page. The fact is, the Chauntry Cup is and always will be, the Oldest T20 Cricket Competition in the World and no one on Wiki can change that fact. Other competitions will never be older, no matter what. No person can simply change history. It doesn't work like that, I'm afraid. You have Deleted The Chauntry Cup page and not taken into consideration my point of view, in the consensus, which is unfair. Please undelete my posts and unblock me. Thank You. JoanneB123 (talk) 11:47, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

If you happen to have exactly the same opinions as another account editing from the same IP address, that's a problem. If we cannot tell you apart, we'll assume you are one and the same. Your views in the deletion discussion were dismissed because they were not based on Wikipedia's policies and guidelines; see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Huon (talk) 12:38, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 have been blocked purely because I shared an IP address with my husband. He wanted a page on the Chauntry Cup and it was refused. I stood up for him and was unfairly banned. Apart from that, The Chauntry Cup page should have it's own page. Please see http://y.outu.be/dkK_KcDJtno This proves that The Cup is interesting. Noboby has come forward to dispute these facts. By the way, I don't agree with him on everything. JoanneB123 (talk) 15:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Interesting" is not our inclusion criteria, significant coverage in multiple reliable sources is. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 18:26, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this unblock request on the list. I'm an administrator and my brother and father are life-long cricket fans. Joanne, I can easily believe you are not your husband, because I share an IP with my other half too and yes, we really are separate people. Unfortunately, I can't simply unblock an account that has had a confirmed IP match with another one, that'll take at least a thread on the Administrators' incident noticeboard to resolve and the agreement of the blocking administrator.

Now, regarding the Chauntry Cup, I can only apologise that I wasn't around for the deletion debate as I have found some sources here, here, here ("Between the two world wars, the Club enjoyed a golden era culminating in the famous Chauntry Cup triumph at Lichfield in 1937. The Club still competes in the Chauntry Cup lifting the trophy in 1988 and 1993.") here, here ... well, you get the picture. I don't see any of these sources mentioned in the deletion debate and while I can't guarantee I could have saved the article, I'm pretty sure I could have at least got it merged with history of cricket rather than deleted.

All in all, I think we haven't handled this situation well. Let me ping @Drmies: who is much more experienced with these sort of things and see if we can unravel things a bit. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:02, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: As mentioned in the AfD, I had done a very thorough search for sources, and only found local coverage. I'm a massive cricket fan, but I strongly believed that the quality of sources about the Cup was insufficient. I don't see how a couple more local newspapers would show it's important enough. On the block but their behaviour and arguments were almost identical to Dartman, but I think it's very possible they aren't the same person. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph2302: I'm absolutely positive you created the AfD in good faith, nothing wrong with that. I can see, at a rough guess, at least 100 hits for the Chauntry Cup in the British Newspaper Archive, though the majority are local coverage in the Lichfield Advertiser. For the minute, I have recreated Chauntry Cup as a redirect to Lichfield Cricket Club, and had I seen the AfD, that would probably have been my !vote. I don't think I can do anything about checkuser blocks, though, that's way out of my league. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 20:01, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333, I do believe you are not your wife, but I've seen too many examples of Wikipedia:My little brother did it, and this one fit the bill. I don't mind if this person is unblocked, though, as long as they understand that there are many possible reasons for blocking, one of them being disruption. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 07:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose this unblock, as this edit appears to be block evasion- the text is identical to some added by these users. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the fact we are married, we do talk to each other. We share our thoughts and information and that cannot be against wiki rules. My husband became annoyed because he was made to look like a beneficiary of the Chauntry Cup, that he gained in some way and that he chose the original user name to promote himself as someone to do with Lichfield CC. In fact, he has no cricket back ground, no interest in the game, as such. Neither of us are members of Lichfield or any other club. We have been married for 30 years and I can tell you, he has only been to one game and never saw it all. We have both been jumped on because we think this Cup should be on wiki. We should both be allowed to edit. I doubt he will bother as he feels he was picked on by others. We aren't here to fight with people. The points made about the Chauntry Cup were all valid and from checkable sources and Sky did do a piece which was aired, as was stated. He had only just started looking for evidence, roughly a month ago. He came across this competition, purely by accident and thought it was well worth a wiki page after he found out, some of the greatest cricketers of their day, played in the Cup during the war. He has since given up because of the response he got on here.JoanneB123 (talk) 17:54, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I ran this conversation by my partner last night and she sighed and said "Notability ... pah!" Have a look at some of her other thoughts - they don't seem to be too different to yours. The real problem is text-based communication is not a good way to have a debate, particularly when editors appear to be at cross purposes.

As you can now see, you can type "Chauntry Cup" into the search box on Wikipedia and you get some information, so we're in a better state than we were. To be honest (and I hope I'm not alone in thinking this) we need more editors in your sort of demographic, like Rosiestep, who does a lot of good work around here. I think if we just put this behind us as a bad start and give things a second chance, we'll be all right. I've pinged the blocking administrator to make a final call on what to do. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:58, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so very much. I really appreciate your supportJoanneB123 (talk) 18:53, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

I don't know the first thing about cricket, sorry. And when I searched for "Chauntry Cup" "Sky Sports", I didn't find anything. Seems to me that some editors thought that if Chauntry Cup appeared in Sky Sports, it would be notable enough for a stand-alone article, and as that hasn't occurred yet, the merge to Lichfield Cricket Club was the appropriate next step. But I'm not here to discuss the pros and cons of the merge, though I will say the decision makes sense to me. I'm here to say, shame on the collective "us" (Wikipedia editors) for not welcoming you properly, with cookies (of course!) and for not pointing you to a place called "The Teahouse" where new editors can ask seasoned editors for help. You're blocked now, but if/when you're unblocked (I'll leave it to others to sort that out), I hope the following information will be helpful. Cheers, --Rosiestep (talk) 14:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! JoanneB123, you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse. An awesome place to meet people, ask questions and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us! Rosiestep (talk) 14:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome![edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, JoanneB123! Thank you for your contributions. I am Rosiestep and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Rosiestep (talk) 14:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

JoanneB123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

It seems I got off on the wrong foot. When you don't understand how wiki works, it is easy to fall foul of the rules. Thanks to Rosiestep and Ritchie333 for their help in pointing me in the right direction. I think I could be a valuable editor and a good wikipedian, if I am allowed. I feel that I should be unblocked. As I have said, the only reason I am blocked is because I share my husband's ip address. He won't edit on here again because he thinks he was bullied. That should not stop me from editing. Please unblock me. JoanneB123 (talk) 18:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Per the conversation here, I think there is a strong consensus to unblock. If you have some idea of what articles you might want to write about or improve, I'll see if I can point you in the direction of some other editors who may be able to help further. And hopefully in time we'll convince your husband that we just all got off on the wrong foot too. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Ritchie333 and Rosiestep !

I am a massive film fan, Aston Villa fan, and love celebrity. I watch a lot of TV and will edit interesting stuff about all of those, if I see something to add. I also want to see fairness from experienced users and hope that anything I edit is given a proper hearing, if anyone disagrees with an edit I make. Now I hope the slate is truly clean and I can edit freely, without persecution from those who wanted me blocked. Thanks again. JoanneB123 (talk) 19:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would support an unblock, it appears obvious to me that they aren't the same person, having interacted with both of them. Just out of curiousity, if unblocked then how do you plan to contribute to the encyclopedia? Because if you try to recreate The Chauntry Cup, then it'll probably cause a huge argument again, I'd recommend working on other existing articles that interest you. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine with an unblock as well if you agreed to not attempt to recreate "The Chauntry Cup." OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've created The Chauntry Cup as another redirect to Lichfield Cricket Club, which should sort that problem out. I can expand the article with some of the BNA sources I found in the week. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so very much. I really appreciate your supportJoanneB123 (talk) 18:56, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you watch a lot of TV and like celebrities, I have a good project for you, the infamous Katie Hopkins. Every time the woman opens her mouth and says something silly, it gets in the news, and then gets in this article. So it just needs a careful and watchful eye on it to make sure its neutral and balanced and not a hate piece. Wikipedia can be the one place that people can read about her without a trace of bias. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333 Yep I obviously know about Katie Hopkins. I will keep my eye on her. I am a massive watcher of the Mail Online, which puts me in pole position to see articles about Katie. TBH I quite like her. Hope that doesn't preclude me from editing. I do like Perez Hilton too though.

Well I've got to say I'm more a fan of Leanne Wood myself, she's probably more a Guardian type reader, but there you go. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]