L1265746
List of football clubs in England by major honours won
editThe accepted format on the table can be seen here:
Please edit the page to ensure that this remains the case, keeping the page relevant and accurate. At present the page includes non-major trophies which disrupts what the table is for as there already exists an all trophy page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_records_in_England
The major trophies in English football are the Premier League, FA Cup, League Cup, Champions League, Europa League and Club World Cup and the table has accurately reflected this since 2009.
August 2013
edit
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Tiptoety talk 15:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
L1265746 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hi. I am aware that I have been blocked for valid reasons, however I do not believe disruptive editing is one of them. I have been trying to ensure the article format remains as it always has been. That is listing the major trophies to be won by English teams. Recently the article has been changed from its accepted format (which has been as such for at least 2 years) and this is what is causing all the disputes. A user believes in adding many other non-relevant minor trophies to the list when there is already a list serving this purpose (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_records_in_England). I believe the best way to resolve the dispute is to return the page to its format on 18:42, 17 June 2013 by Widr . It is only after this point that any disruptive editing started, moving the page from its historical and correct format to a new format based on club rivalries. L1265746 (talk) 16:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Decline reason:
I notice you commented below about how this couldn't be resolved through discussion. Yes it can. In fact, that is the only way it can be resolved. I will add a information explaining why edit warring is not tolerated so that you can avoid being blocked for it again in the future.
- I'm sorry to see that you are blocked for edit warring. Many users find themselves confused as to why they were blocked in such a situation as they believed they were acting in the best interest of Wikipedia. What it is important for you to understand is that as far as the edit warring policy is concerned there is no right and wrong in an edit war. Anyone who edit wars is wrong and is blocked to prevent the disruption from continuing. There are very few exceptions, such as reverting blatant vandalism, which is not the case here. We don't allow edit warring because it never helps resolve an issue, and it always makes it worse.
What to do instead:
- Mark disputed statements or, if needed, the entire page with appropriate tags
- Initiate discussion on the talk page (note that edit summaries are not a substitute for actual discussion)
- If that does not rectify the issue seek page protection and/or dispute resolution as needed.
- If you follow these simple steps instead of edit warring you will find it is actually relatively easy to avoid edit warring and getting blocked for it.
Beeblebrox (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
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.
- Reviewing administrators: This is not a new account. They have edit warred on List of football clubs in England by major honours won using another account before. Tiptoety talk 16:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I think if you actually read the talk page of the page under dispute, you would find in fact it cannot be resolved through discussion, especially as the person changing the page to a new format is driven by football rivalry, thus continues and continues to edit the historically accepted format...which I simply reverted the page to...protecting the page, not destroying it. L1265746 (talk) 19:30, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
{{tl:unblock|reason=I have edit warred in my account and out of my account, but only over the last two days. I believe the page should be returned to what it was before all this warring occurred. I am not creating the warring, I am simply trying to make the page return to its status quo. L1265746 (talk) 16:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)}}
{{tl:unblock|reason=Please see this edit of the page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_football_clubs_in_England_by_major_honours_won&oldid=560333804 . You will notice this is what I have been returning the page to. This is the historically accepted form of this page. L1265746 (talk) 16:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)}}
{{tl:unblock|reason=Therefore I do not even request to be unblocked. I simply request that you return the page back to its accepted format, as of 17 June 2013 L1265746 (talk) 16:24, 4 August 2013 (UTC)}}
 | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
I have been advised by an administrator to use this code to address the situation above which I have been told was misusing the unblock template.
Please can you consider reverting the following page to its original format. I believe otherwise there will simply be more editing wars.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_football_clubs_in_England_by_major_honours_won
Historically accepted version:
You'll find this edit on the View History of the page at 18:42, 17 June 2013 Widr (talk | contribs)
You will also notice that before this there are no significant structural edits to the format of the page. This is because it is the accepted version. The current version is new, inaccurate and causing the wars. I do not believe that I was engaging in disruptive editing. As you will see my edits were simply attempting to restore the status quo of a format for the page which has been accepted for 3+ years. One user has piped up to say different, and this is what is causing all the issues.
Thanks
- It seems you believe that you were blocked while the wrong version was in place. Rather than fixing this with a help me request, it's a better idea to discuss the issue with the editors you disagree with, rather than reverting back and forth. This is rarely useful. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes I was blocked, the page was reverted by the other editor soon after, and then he was blocked. The issue has been debated at length on the talk page, you can see that. However I don't see how an article which was fine for 3 years with its structure should be edited just because one user out of hundreds disagrees. The talk goes round in circles, it needs someone to step in and revert it to the original. L1265746 (talk) 18:38, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Without intervention by an admin to refer the page to its historical structure you can guarantee there will be substantial edit wars in future. L1265746 (talk) 18:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Misuse of the unblock template
editL1265746,I've commented out three of your unblock requests. One request at a time is sufficient. Additionally, the unblock template is not meant to be used to request editorial assistance or, in most cases, to discuss article content. I am willing to accept that these situations have been misunderstandings on your part, but if you demonstrate that you cannot make proper use of the unblock template you jeopardize your ability to edit this page. Tiderolls 18:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Please rethink your action
editYour continuing to request the edits being made that resulted in your block appears to be a misuse of your user talk, especially since an administratoe has advised you that this is not a good idea. I'm requesting that you remove your latest help request so that I can ask for other opinion on the matter. Tiderolls 22:23, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Well please advise me how I can get the situation adequately resolved. So far none of what I have said has been listened to. There is clearly an accepted format. That is not the one currently in place.
The correct format is clearly
Yet you all ignore this. L1265746 (talk) 22:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Your perception that you have not been listened to is incorrect. Persisting in requesting the edit be made just demonstrates that you are experiencing difficulty in accepting the concept embodied in Wikipedia:Edit warring. Tiderolls 22:33, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I completely understand warring, and I can see how this can be considered warring. However I dont see how the new, incorrect and inaccurate table (many of the figures for honours are incorrect, i.e. Aston Villa has only won the CL once) has been kept. This situation cannot be resolved with discussion because the new person who started editing the page last month doesn't accept the format as it puts a rival team above them. I simply want it restored to how it has always been, since 2009! We have discussed clearly on the talk. Just have a look at it. Also have a look at the contributions from earlier users, not just those over the last month. Look back to 2009. If it ain't broke, dont fix it. L1265746 (talk) 22:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- I've requested help here. That being said, one thing that is true about Wikipedia is that change is inevitable. If you're so tied to a format that it gets you blocked, you may want to take a step back and attempt to find some way to modify your approach. I'm not saying you're wrong; I'm only saying that all of us have to realize that our edits are subject to unlimited change and even deletion. Tiderolls 22:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I accept that and I accept good change is necessary and a lot of change is good. But I refute change that is clearly inaccurate and unnecessary. As I have always stated, the page is titled "major" honours, not all honours. There is already a page for all honours: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_records_in_England
The major honours is meant to be maintained as such and this is why I dispute having a table including all the extra honours which are already represented elsewhere. The perception of a major honour in football does not change over 4 years so dramatically to include pre-season friendly tournaments, one off tournaments, and the like. I hope you can see where I am coming from, but many would say that there is no point in even having the page if it is going to include every trophy under the sun.
Thank you for your help in this matter though. I hope it comes to the rightful conclusion. L1265746 (talk) 22:52, 4 August 2013 (UTC)