User talk:OldTraffordLover

Hello, OldTraffordLover, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

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

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

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

Finding your way around:

Table of contents / Department directory

The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)

Need help?

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

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

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

OldTraffordLover, good luck, and have fun. – VegasCasinoKid (talk) 01:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OldTraffordLover, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi OldTraffordLover! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like AmaryllisGardener (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:03, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Work on all administrators' noticeboards[edit]

You seem to be doing a pretty good job on all the administrators' noticeboards, especially for someone whose account was started 2 days and 25 edits ago. --MuZemike 01:12, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Content disputes can't be vandalism?[edit]

Wikipedia:Vandalism#Hoaxing vandalism Mdrnpndr (talk) 01:45, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ANI[edit]

Why are you removing others' messages from ANI, as you did here? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 04:08, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue edit warring on AN/I - I will block you. If you would like to contest a close, please raise it on WP:AN. SQL ^{Query me!} 04:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SQL, he took your bait. Softlavender (talk) 04:28, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @SQL:, please see carefully. I am not contesting a close and in fact I am agreeing to the close. Somebody added things to a closed discussion, which according to instructions, is not allowed. OldTraffordLover (talk) 04:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of advice[edit]

I see you are a very new account. WP:ANI is a place where you need considerable experience to know when and how to close. You should not close/re-close/revert close/"enforce" anything there until you have considerably more experience here. Disputes are often contentious and often pointless and often silly, it takes experience to know which thread is what. Give it six months or so and you will catch on but be mindful ANI can be toxic - it is also known as WP:CESSPIT for a reason. You also should not, per WP:TPO, refactor or edit another editor's posts. There are exceptions but until you get familiar with things "never" is safest.

All that said, welcome to Wikipedia! If I can be of help please feel free to contact me on my talk page or {{ping}} me by placing {{ping|Jbhunley}} on any talk page and signing the edit with ~~~~. Jbh ^Talk 04:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jbhunley: But can you please tell me what I did wrong? It clearly says "The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion." As there were further edits made after the discussion has been closed, I removed them in accordance with the instructions. I did not revert close/unclose anything. I was just removing comments made after a discussion was closed. So, why am I being accused of something I didn't do? OldTraffordLover (talk) 04:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Yeah, it says that but the rule not to refactor/edit other editor's comments usually takes precedence at noticeboards. Often, if someone wants to contest the close or thinks something was missed they will add something below the close rather than reverting the close - maybe it will spark a discussion, maybe it will be ignored it maybe the {{archive bottom}} will be moved down depending on the situation. Also, sometimes when an editor edit conflicts with the close they will go ahead and make their edit. It is frowned upon but it is not a reason to revert them.

It is often hard to know how the various policies, guidelines and for lack of a better word customs interact in project (WP) space. Article content rules are clearer and easier to understand and even they are often described as arcane. It just takes time reading and seeing how others do things. Jbh ^Talk 05:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you were blocked for violating the three revert rule which is an anti-edit-warring rule. In this case it means you undid other editor's edits more than three times. It is a "bright line" rule which means if you violate it you get blocked. Again, there are special exceptions but none of your "reverts" were covered by the exceptions. Jbh ^Talk 05:19, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Block Notice[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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. Mike V • Talk 04:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Mike V:, I stopped after reading the warning on my talk page. Furthermore, I am just following instructions. The instructions clearly say no modification whatsoever after discussion has closed. OldTraffordLover (talk) 04:32, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you violated the three revert rule which is a bright-line policy. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) Mike V • Talk 04:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I stopped after the warning. And I did so with good intentions as I was trying to follow instructions on that page. I won't do it again. Can you please unblock me? OldTraffordLover (talk) 04:40, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do feel that the block is appropriate. I'll leave the unblock request to another admin to review. Mike V • Talk 04:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request reason:

I stopped after the warning. And I did so with good intentions as I was trying to follow instructions on that page. I won't do it again. Hence, the block is no longer necessary to prevent disruption to Wikipedia. OldTraffordLover (talk) 04:45, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

All right. I have my doubts about this; prove me wrong. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 06:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, look. I at least, in a burst of good faith and perhaps insanity, would consider unblocking you, although quite honestly the block might run out on its own before the metaphorical paperwork goes through. But I feel the need to give you some unsolicited advice first, because there are a few problems with your editing so far.

First of all, you're taking a very dogmatic approach to Wikipedia's rules, which generally speaking isn't advisable. There's IAR and all that, of course; Wikipedia doesn't have that many rules set in stone, though the 3RR mentioned above is pretty close. But it's not just that; there's also a question of picking your battles. If you're really going to dive into the deep end of project administration like this, you need to first get a sense of what is important to defend and what can be allowed to slide. BMK's edit to a closed section was not a great choice on his part, and you might've even been justified in reverting it--once. But you need to pick your battles; if you revert, and he restores, it's just not worth getting into an edit war; that's not the hill that you, he, or anyone needs to die on.

Second of all, that diving into the deep end of project administration I mentioned? Don't. Quite honestly, we have more than enough hands at ANI. You and Wikipedia would both be better served if you found something productive to do in mainspace, even if it's just simple vandalism patrol or basic copyediting. Out of all your edits, over 40 of them, none have been in mainspace. Now, I'm not the biggest content contributor myself, so I don't have the moral standing to roast you over a fire for this, but seriously, the encyclopedia is where it's at. Go for it.

Basically, the TL;DR summary is: talk less, lurk more. Don't do the things you're trying to do quite yet; wait until you have more of a feel for the place. In the meantime, do some good work in mainspace, and you'll find that you might get a different kind of reception next time.

Finally, I need to address the elephant in the room: your editing pattern is quite typical of a sockpuppet--it's very uncommon for a brand-new user to take the sort of plunge you have. I'm kinda going against my better judgement here, because honestly I thought you were a sock too at first glance, and I'm still far from convinced otherwise. But whatever, I'll use all my AGF and take you at face value. If you're really not a sock, the best thing for you to do is what I said above: do good article work and stay out of the dramaboards. K? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 05:59, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Writ Keeper:Ok, I promise it won't happen again. OldTraffordLover (talk) 06:34, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Writ Keeper: - Two quick notes on your comment above: (1) I did not add the comment that OldTraffordLover reverted after the discussion was closed. It was one of those circumstances where I had the edit open and was writing it, then when I saved it I found that the discussion had been closed while I was working. (2) I did not restore the comment, other editor(s) did. BMK (talk) 07:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that's fair enough. All the more reason not to make a mountain out of this molehill. (And I know you weren't the one to restore the comment, it just made the wording of my post easier in my mind.) Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 07:09, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thanks. BMK (talk) 07:13, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]