Hello, SeekerAfterTruth, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --The Legendary Sky Attacker 23:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 23:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SeekerAfterTruth, I just stopped by to make this same suggestion. Please sign talk page posts, when you don't the sinebot has to come behind you and do it and then the page history is cluttered up by a lot of bot entries. Thanks! Mishlai (talk) 00:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, to err is human. Can you also please remember to sign on talk pages by using ~~~~? Thanks and best wishes, --John (talk) 00:50, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've just noticed that you're at 4 reverts in the last 24 hours - see WP:3RR. I realize you haven't been involved here for long, but you need to be careful - if you carry on you will probably get blocked. cheers. --hippo43 (talk) 01:20, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's now 5 reverts in a little over 24 hours. Please don't ignore this warning - you can't keep going like this. If you do it again I will report it. --hippo43 (talk) 01:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed your conversations on the Rangers FC pages as someone requested a third opinion at WP:3O. I've had a quick look through the article but don't have time to offer a fully considered opinion, so will leave it for someone else, however, I did want to offer a little bit of friendly advice.
Looking at your contributions, you seem to be fairly new to wikipedia. It's fantastic that you've joined us on the journey and I wish you the best of luck in successfully editing here. However, to dive straight in to an article like Rangers is a brave move for a new editor, as it obviously brings with it plenty of opinion and baggage. The article as you found it reflected WP:CONSENSUS so the onus is on you to create consensus around any other edits you introduce, as per WP:BRD. As you are the one intent on adding information, you must make sure it is verifiable, has a neutral point of view and incorporates reliable sources. After a brief scan of the article it seems that you are taking a large amount of information directly from Rangers' website or press releases, which struggles against some wikipedia policies: the encyclopedia prefers its information not to come directly from the subject, but from secondary sources.
It's quite a hack to wade through all the policy and guidelines I've linked to, but in order to successfully reach consensus at a page like Rangers you must understand them. There's no rush to get an article "correct", so can I suggest you spend a little while away from the Rangers article editing less potentially volatile subjects? There must be improvement required to their stadium page, or to other articles about Glasgow that you could have a go at? Other things that interest you might be worth looking in to as well. This will give you a chance to learn the policies without engaging in the long debate on the Rangers talk page and should give you a better feel for this place.
Finally, be careful undoing or reverting edits to an article, as per the warnings from hippo. WP:3RR can be taken very seriously round here and you could end up with a temporary block, which would be unnecessary when you can avoid it by following the rules that the community have created.
I'm sorry if my tone doesn't come across quite right, I can be accused of being patronising in person and in writing, but I'm only trying to be helpful. If you need any help with anything please feel free to get in touch on my talk page. Cheers and good luck, Bigger digger (talk) 10:52, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 05:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Jim Sheridan (politician) has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. Ronhjones (Talk) 22:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Seeker. I noticed you'd already been warned for WP:3RR above. Without looking in detail at the edits you've been making on the article (although I will if I get time), it looks like you've been making quite a few reverts or revert-type edits on the article. Please bear in mind that 3RR is not an entitlement and that continuing like this could look like tendentious editing and lead to a block. I'd like you to wait for consensus on the talk page to change in your favor before making any further reverts please. --John (talk) 04:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John, sorry if you find my edits contentious, I, and others, find them a more accurate reflection of the subject being discussed. WiKi promotes boldness in edits, that's the point of it, if something is wrong, then correct it, no ? I trust you have left the same message for the other editor who is reverting my, and others, edits ? On consensus, I believe we have that in those who have responded to the discussion. The elephant in the room is that some editors have obviously conflicting interests and their edits are reflecting this, leading to the in accuracy, I and others are seeking to correct. SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 15:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking the time to contact me.
I see you have reverted to your preferred version again, even after this message. Could you please not do this until we have consensus that the information you have removed is "wrong"? I don't see that at the moment. --John (talk) 15:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, SeekerAfterTruh. I was just wondering if you have forgotten to log in on one of your talk edits and are this ip, 82.9.98.40 (talk). We wouldn't want to think there were more users agreeing with your stance than there actually are. Cheers. Jack forbes (talk) 15:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
John, I have removed the section about the jersey as it is in section about sectarianism, when clearly there was no sectarian motive behind the design, and it is also in the Club colours section. I am not going to go over all the reasons I have given, they are there in the discussion. The assertion that the jersey was in some way sectarian is wrong, no organisation has stated such. You cannot see this ?
Jack, yes I missed the login, thought you were off ? the calling is loud in you ;-)
SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 16:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My calling is strong in me young one, although I occasionally miss the call when it's on vibrate. ;) Jack forbes (talk) 17:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note to remind you that edits like this one may make others think you lack substantive reasons for your proposals. It is true that my dad was a Celtic fan; I, however, am definitely not, as I have already stated. It would be good if you could in future confine your comments to these dedicated to improving the article. Failing that I sense you will be taking a trip to one of the Admin noticeboards as your behavior is on the verge of becoming disruptive. It's your choice of course, but please choose wisely. Thanks, --John (talk) 15:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to hear you feel that disagreeing with you constitutes disruptive behaviour, but it is not my intention. I have offered a number of valid reasons for my views, which others also hold. I have offered several compromises, as have others, in order to reach consensus on the subject and your refusal to any compromise could lead to allegations similar to those you seem to alleging of me.
We shall have wait and see how your future predictions work out, I have no problem re-iterating my case and stating the facts to any Admins. I hope we can eventually find some common ground to achieve a consensus that results in an improved article.
Maybe you misunderstand me. It is not so much that disagreeing with me constitutes disruption, but more that employing ad hominem arguments in a content discussion in an effort to discredit one's opponents arguments is, in my opinion, disruptive. This disruption arises from the fact that employing tactics like this makes it impossible to assume good faith on your part, as I mentioned in the article talk. --John (talk) 17:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I have mentioned on the Rangers talk page, who some ones father supported has no bearing on the discussion. The fact that you put it in bold lettering compounds it. Seeker, were you hoping other contributers would ignore John's postings after your statement? Jack forbes (talk) 17:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah Jack, wondering when you would pop by, a person could think there is a wee cabal at work here, you message John, John messages you, then both appear in my talk page ? I'm feeling bullied.. ;-)
Given the subject under discussion, any reasonable person would ask why is, seeing as how you both have Celtic connections and contribute to their article, you both find yourself drawn inextricably to the article discussing their biggest rivals, and opposing any edits you both deem unsuitable ? I am not alone in this observing reluctance to compromise.
SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 17:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you have any kind of proof that there is a cabal then you really should take this further. As I said in a previous post, you are skating on very thin ice. Jack forbes (talk) 17:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I may just do that Jack, how would you suggest I proceed ?
@John, It was not my intention to discredit your opinion, but rather an intimation that a "conflict of interest"[1] could be construed, especially given the contentious nature of the discussion.
Don't worry, Seeker, I think I understand your intentions perfectly well. Here's another link for you to read: WP:SPA. --John (talk) 18:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes,John, I think I your intentions are crystal clear, as for WP:SPA, "Many SPAs turn out to be well-intentioned editors with a niche interest,", yeah, I would go along with that.
Hey John, it's back on at Rangers F.C. - User:SeekerAfterTruth has reappeared. You're an admin, can you not just make him disappear? --hippo43 (talk) 08:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I commented in talk and reverted the changes on the article. --John (talk) 14:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
John I am dismayed that you have chosen once again to back the revision made by hippo43 at the Rangers FC article on sectarianism. I believe you may have a Conflict of Interest, in that you originally created the section you seek to protect from modification and you and Hippo43's posting history may indicate that you lack a NPOV. I see user Hippo43 has asked "You're an admin, can you not just make him disappear?"
As an Administrator, I believe using your position to silence those who disagree with you, or your friends, views is an abuse of WIKI as well as being quite disturbing from a community dedicated to the freedom of expression. I intend to raise this with WIKI for resolution. In the meantime, I would ask that you please do not delete my edits without the courtesy of discussion.
I would say that I agree with you on the proposal that the famine song section should be removed for the facts repeatedly stated to Wikipedia policy.
Hippo continually reflects upon other people that they have a ‘bias’ when it comes to this subject. Well I would say that he has a ‘bias’ when it come to this subject, and it really is pointless trying to get to some form of ‘middle ground’ about anything as he will continually fight against any proposal even if it is against guidelines. I would also state that John is hardly completely neutral to this either and that admins have no more power over article content than any other user.
I will take this forward to mediation with this inclusion being removed and if that fails go through the necessary dispute resolution procedures here. This is justified as the other processes have already been attempted.
I will include you in the proceedings if you like?
Oh by the way I urge you to stick to policy and guidelines when making a statement about this because comments like this from some people…
If you have any spare time while I set up a mediation response you could take a look here where there are hundreds of football articles that need attention in various ways from players, teams and clubs and could fine tune your article editing skills. Monkeymanman (talk) 16:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply MonkeyMan, and I will heed your advice. I would like to be included in your proceedings in order to produce a better article.
I share your concerns about John as Admin and creator of the section in question,I believe a possible Conflict of Interests exists, and would like to request another Admin become involved. I have also flagged up a POV-Check, as Hippo43, and others, posting history and attitude shows indicates another WPOV problem as well as a history of Disruption.
I believe all avenues to an agreed consensus are blocked by unreasonable behaviour and attitudes of some editors. As you say we have tried to compromise on all areas and have even pointed out clear violations of WIKI rules on Recentism and Undue Weight, which does not carry any sway with some editors.
It is inevitable that tempers will rise given the contentious nature of the subject under discussion, I had hoped, and still do, for a reasonable solution that is acceptable to all and and a more accurate and concise article.
Hey John, it's back on at Rangers F.C. - User:SeekerAfterTruth has reappeared. You're an admin, can you not just make him disappear? --hippo43 (talk) 08:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I commented in talk and reverted the changes on the article. --John (talk) 14:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Seeker, with regards to the reply you have left on both John’s talk page and the Rangers F.C article talk page, I would leave it at that for now on those pages, you have made your point and it would be useless to repeat the argument again.
Remember there is no time limit, although you may feel that you are right to make the edits other users will disagree and that is the problem. What I would advise is you monitor the situation, perhaps tidying up some articles you may have an interest in will gain you some experience, and make your statement when mediation is brought up (I hope to do it in the next 36 hours)
Remember that this may not yield a firm proposal and further dispute resolution steps may have to be taken.
I do not want to get into another endless argument with user Hippo that will go nowhere, as has been shown repeatedly with this section.
I have continually tried to get neutral editors onto this article to lend an opinion and I will strive to do so. Other ‘neutral’ editors have agreed that the famine song section should / can be reduced in line with guidelines but remember certain things can open more disputes and more problems but certainly the famine song section is far too long with regards to policies that have been stated.
I agree with your other comment about some of the wording about the old firm summary, remember that the section is entitled Old Firm and sectarianism so it does have a rightful place in that section.
Remember that admins have no more power over article content than any other user and the statement about banning you was made by someone else apart from john.
I advise you to read this and this along with related subjects. Monkeymanman (talk) 23:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice, I will avoid any contact with the subject for the time being and read your links for a better understanding of the system and await response from Admin.
Seeker, as this argument / discussion is so fractured across the talk page of the article, (and the history of the talk page), neutral / new editor who tries to attempt to mediate a discussion there will have a very difficult and off-putting challenge ahead of them.
That is why I am going to open a new section in ‘talk’ solely on the dispute of the famine song paragraph to make it easier for neutral editors to comment on this.
After this has been done please feel free to comment sticking to policy and guidelines, and do not be baited by any other users. You have already made your opinion known, I do not wish this new section to become distended with constant disagreeing responses between users. That will only make the job of a neutral much more difficult. Monkeymanman (talk) 20:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I've referred your most recent personal attack ([1]) to WP:ANI. See [2]. --hippo43 (talk) 01:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SeekerAfterTruth. These edits to Talk:Rangers F.C. were not acceptable, being serious violations of WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Whatever gripe you have against Hippo43, you'll have to tone this down if you want to avoid being blocked. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I trust you have offered the same advice to hippo43 ? Can I respectfully ask who suggested you become involved in this matter ?SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 06:51, 25 January 2011 (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).
I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that
the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
understand what you have been blocked for,
will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
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 do not think it matters, The admin who blocked me is acting in support of the user who requested the block for reasons of cronism, I would like it looked into but that isn't going to happen. The user hippo43 has many admin friends and is deploying them, see above. I have attempted conciliation but it seems I am take personal insults with no recourse, from a user with a long record of disruptive behaviour. The article in question appears to be off limits to editors who hold any contrary opinion to the user hippo43 and his friends. But to be fair, he told me he would get me booted out and he has, so fair play eh ? I suspect they are not finished with me yet.SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 07:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's the issue here. The content part can be sent through DR easily enough if it's that big an issue, which it may well be. What you need to do is tone the rhetoric down a bit; I understand that you're frustrated, but you have to put things in perspective. Whenever I get frustrated (I'm currently dealing with a very insistent SPA on St. Bernard (dog), for instance), I go take a look at the one userbox on my talkpage; it smacks me back to the realization that it's just a website, and that unlike the named organization I'm not fighting for the preservation of my people. Come on; just agree to dial back the invective and you should be unblocked. If you ever need a place to vent in the future, my talkpage is open. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 07:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seeker, for what it's worth, I take no pleasure in you being blocked temporarily. When it expires, I am happy to try to work with you constructively if you can stop the insults. Deacon of whatever is not a friend of mine - IIRC, we have agreed and disagreed in the past. John is an admin who I have been able to work constructively at different times, and has taken an interest in these issues. I raised your personal attack at ANI which is open to any admin to review and act upon. I know as well as anyone how easy it is to get drawn into an argument and cross a line and be blocked. --hippo43 (talk) 08:10, 25 January 2011 (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).
Can I ask if it is fair or appropriate to block me for the statement 'if you are unable to sign your posts, it perhaps indicates you are not competent to understand the complexities of the issues being discussed' in reply to unsigned post directed at me: "If you really have to ask why, you're probably not competent to contribute to this article." I had no idea to whom I was replying as the user Hippo43 later admitted his tilda key was not working. The statement I made seemed reasonable to me in the circumstances and hardly seems worthy of a block.
SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 09:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Hi! Wikipedia works by collaboration- we all have to get along reasonably peacefully and politely, because when we don't, it keeps the encyclopedia from getting better. Looking at your recent contributions, it looks like you haven't been working as hard to get along peacefully and politely with others as a Wikipedia editor really needs to Although a few people have tried to tell you about this important aspect of the project, your responses indicate that you haven't quite understood what they were saying. A block is something that you should expect when you turn a simple disagreement about an article into a personal conflict, because that sort of thing just keeps the project from working smoothly. I could overturn your block if it were a mistake, but I don't think this is a mistake- you do seem to be making comments at Talk:Rangers F.C. that aren't helpful to getting the article written. And I could overturn your block if it were clear that you understood the problem and had fully solved it, but your request doesn't seem to indicate that you do understand why this kind of interaction is harmful and disruptive to Wikipedia. So I'm afraid I don't have any grounds for overturning this block, and you're going to have to wait it out and then do better. While you're waiting, you might find WP:DISPUTE to be interesting reading. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:14, 25 January 2011 (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.
Thank you all Admins for taking the time to check my appeal and to Blade for his advice. I accept your decisions as you see it. I accept my behaviour has not been perfect and aim not to repeat it.
I still however have serious misgivings about the neutrality of the section and would invite both to peruse the latest additions to the Old Firm and sectarianism section by hippo43 and would be obliged if you could advise me of your opinions as to the neutrality of the views expressed. I would further invite you to peruse the Discussion on the same section and would welcome your views on the nature of the opinions expressed. In order that you may gauge the difference in approach to articles, you could then peruse the Celtic FC article and see if you feel the subject of sectarianism is given the same weight.
I strongly feel the article, which is about a football team, is in danger of being swallowed up by a discussion on sectarian and allegedly sectarian events. There are other pages which deal more in depth with the issues being repeated on the football article.
If after you check the above, I would be most interested to hear your opinions. Both Admins who have contacted me are editors of the Celtic FC article (which has removed it's Sectarianism section) and are known to the user who sought them out, who is also an active editor at the same article, for this reason it is difficult to assume good faith as the section under discussion is sectarianism. I feel, rightly or wrongly I am being singled out for holding opposing views and bullied into silence.
I understand you are busy people and I appreciate any help or advice you can provide.SeekerAfterTruth (talk) 16:55, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Seeker, you seem to be assuming that both the Rangers and Celtic articles should have the same amount of content devoted to sectarianism. However, the policies that relate to a neutral point of view, and how much weight an area should be given (WP:NPOV and specifically WP:UNDUE) are concerned with how much coverage reliable sources give the subjects.
My understanding is that there has been far more written about sectarianism from Rangers and their fans than from Celtic, and that this reflects reality. I could be wrong on this, but you would need to convince editors of this, by referring to the sources concerned, rather than simply repeating your view that they should be treated the same.
Also, please be careful about how you refer to me and other editors. If you want to work together in a civil atmosphere, please reconsider your references to editors who work on the Celtic FC article. Implying that someone who is interested in Celtic FC cannot also be impartial about Rangers FC is not a positive approach to take. --hippo43 (talk) 05:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 23:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Jim Sheridan (politician) has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. Ronhjones (Talk) 22:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
