User talk:EdChampion

Hello, EdChampion! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, 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 using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! The Rambling Man 21:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Wikipedia tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

The Rambling Man 21:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edmund Martyr

You have broken Wikipedia:Three-revert rule, you should revert your change back to the "other version", even though you may not like the previous version.

In general, this should be enough to prevent you from being blocked, although there are no guarantees. If you seem to be the only person who feels that the article should be the way that you have made it, perhaps it is better the way everyone else thinks it should be.

I will procede to have you and your sockpuppet:85.189.180.235 for violation unless you correct this. -- SECisek 21:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edmund

Okay, so I'm guessing, but you may have heard from me before. Anyway, can I ask you to discuss your point on the talk page rather than edit warring? I can easily protect the page to prevent the continuation of such a war but would much rather discuss things first. The Rambling Man 21:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV tag

Okay, you've added the POV tag. It's now your obligation to explain on the talk page why you've done that. If you don't explain why then very shortly I'll remove the POV tag. Thanks for your understanding. The Rambling Man 21:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've protected the article so you must discuss your problems with its current status on the talk page. Thanks. The Rambling Man 21:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do me a favour, if I dare ask one of you, can you make your new contributions in the most recent section and copy-and-paste anything you need to refer to into that section? That way all contributors will be able to get a rounded and contiguous view of the situation. Cheers. The Rambling Man 22:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

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. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also 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 22:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions

Please try to discuss issues in a civil fashion without having to resort to CAPITALISING or emboldening everything you say - it comes across as being very aggressive. Secondly you cannot delist a GA, you need to discuss the matter at WP:GA/R first to find a consensus. Thirdly, please discuss your changes on the talk page to reach a consensus (you seem quite isolated on a number of points) before modifying the article. Simply removing cited material is unacceptable and is considered vandalism. Fourthly, I unprotected the article early because the overwhelming edit war had ceased on the talk page and the other editors involved were making good progress on discussions to enhance the article. The Rambling Man 21:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I am well, Ed. I see you can google! I am close to tracking the master of your socks down. I advise you to figure out what else you want in the article, pick your battles wisely, and be done with this so we can get on to other articles. -- SECisek 22:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edmund, again

Hey, thanks again for your suggestions. Can I ask you to try to express them in a manner than is easily comparable to your desired changes? Right now it's difficult to see exactly what you want to change. I would suggest putting the current disputed text in quotes and then suggesting an alternative. That way it can be a topic for discussion. However, that said I'm glad that you're persevering in your opinion and that hopefully you and the other major contributors to the article can come to a consensus. After all, we're all here for the right reasons, aren't we? The Rambling Man 21:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

The criteria for a good article can be found around here. Just in case you weren't clear on how it had made it there. The Rambling Man 21:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edmund

Haven't we all been here before? The quality of the material you're adding hasn't improved. Neither has its acceptance, or rather lack thereof, by other editors. The only thing I'd agree with is replacing the elipsis with whatever the missing word[s] is [are]. 00:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC) (This was me, Angus McLellan (Talk))

If you can find a decent source for your patron saint claims, fine, but you haven't so far. Likewise, replacing dates which come from reliable works with discredited ones is hardly useful. Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. It explains what kind of thing you are looking for. What does the DNB say about your claims? It has a substantial article on Edmund. Now if that says that Edmund was once patron saint of England, your case will look very much stronger. Likewise for the dates, &c. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3 Reverts

Time discuss this. Please work with the other editors. -- SECisek 23:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three revert rule violation block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Edmund the Martyr. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Sam Blacketer 23:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lecture

Thanks for this lecture on NPOV etc. I'm not exactly sure why it's been directed at me, but there we go. Looks like your behaviour has attracted the attention of others. Perhaps you should familiarise yourself with WP:3RR before starting to edit after your block expires. The Rambling Man 07:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since your block

Come on, you've been warned several times, blocked, and as soon as you get back to editing you carry on where you left off. At least learn something on the way. Continue to edit as you do and you'll be blocked again. The Rambling Man 19:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well in that case please learn to discuss in a civil manner. Once more and you're blocked (again). The Rambling Man 19:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do me (and the others) a favour. State your case without emboldening or SHOUTING. I can see now that you're providing a number of sources for Edmund being patron of England, no argument from me, but it's all about how you go about achieving your goal. You've been blocked once already and it'd be a shame for you to suffer the same fate indefinitely. Please patronise us, be kind and help us understand precisely what you're trying to achieve. The Rambling Man 21:46, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFCU

See [1] — Rlevse • Talk • 23:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mass reversion

Ed, seriously, if you don't partake for two and a half weeks, don't expect to suddenly come back and mass revert. Start a new section detailing precisely your issues. Come on, you know by now that everyone here is after a reasonable conclusion. Try to partake. The Rambling Man 19:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well. Why not try to remain civil, calm and express your views in a way that would help others discuss issues with you. Otherwise you're wasting your time. Being indignant and argumentative without substantiation is a complete waste of time and effort. And, by the way, archiving talk pages is perfectly acceptable. If you have an issue, raise it at the talk page WITHOUT all the shouting and bold nonsense. We're all adults, why not try to resolve issues as such. The Rambling Man 20:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory

Based off that website, Gregory and the gang are patrons and Edmund is not. Are we accepting that site as valid? I will in the intrest of ending the Edmund dispute although that source is questionable at best. You will not, however, cite it on Gregory and discount it on Edmund. -- SECisek (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas

In an effort to give both of us a welcome break from Edmund - you and I should probably stay out of it for a time and let events run their course - I propose, as a good-will building project, you and I should edit Thomas the Apostle to GA. Intrested? -- SECisek (talk) 18:18, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Left?

I have a primamry election in 4 weeks. I may be back later in the year, but I will probably stay clear until 2009. It's been fun. -- user:secisek 19:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accusation

Actually, if the article is considered controversial (and by George you've made it that alright), you should take it to WP:GAR. As for claiming I used "childish conspiracy sockpuppet antics", you're accusing me of something, yes? Please be careful what you accuse others of, attacking other editors can lead to your account being blocked, along with your particularly rude edit summaries. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Secisek (talk) 19:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to second that sentiment. Please discuss these issues with courtesy or you will find your account blocked. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

Can you specify precisely what you believe constitutes a personal attack on you please? That way I can make a balanced assessment as to whether you have been "foully accused"... The Rambling Man (talk) 18:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"...very, very puzzling..."? It was a simple question, show me the edit in which you were so "foully accused"? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And as for "personal attacks", Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Secisek was a bad start for you. Perhaps we can all chill out a bit? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, keep your conspiracy theories to yourself. I've got vested interest in any of your periodic outbursts other than to attempt to keep some order at Edmund's article. The policies and guidelines of Wikipedia are of paramount concern to me. I'll check your accusation of "foul accusations" and will get back to you soon. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, can you isolate the section of the area you've highlighted to me as containing said foul accusation? I read this:

“

f everyone accepts an arbitration but you, it will not change the outcome. You say I have an "unwillingness to comprehend what the issue is". I am willing to accept the arbitration of ANY group of independent editors because this dispute has thus far been you versus everbody else who you cannot bore away from the article. This not a message board, restating your point over and over until nobody cares to correct you anymore has not and will not work work. Submit to the arbitration, make your case and we will see what consensus says. We have tried this before, but knowing it will not be in your favour, you have avoided this in the past by not particpating and then returning to say we censored your voice. I think this has at last caught enough attention - that will not work this time. I was trying to nurse a compromise out of you above, you refuse to even cite me a page number, and you return to insult me? Perhaps this does not even need to go to arbitration. -- Secisek (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

”

The Rambling Man (talk) 19:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was in the previous paragraph surely you read that? Oh well.... EdChampion (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, dialogue with you is worse than chess by post at the moment. Quote me exactly what you objected to. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's the line that begins "I did not accuse you of "harassment or hateful text messages". I have accused you of stalking me on Google...". Doesn't your browser have a search/find option. How odd. EdChampion (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suspicions confirmed, quad erat demonstratum. EdChampion (talk) 14:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? The Rambling Man (talk) 14:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They're behind you... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edmund the Martyr

The talk page discussion was closed in part because of your unanticipated hiatus, but the closing admin has reopened it now. You have all of our apologies. Feel free to make any comments you see fit on the talk page now. John Carter (talk) 22:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider taking the AGF Challenge

I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [2] by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3 revert rule again

Remember the 3 revert rule Ed. David Underdown (talk) 11:35, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]