User talk:CheckersBoard: Difference between revisions

Hello, CheckersBoard! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can 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 by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Fyddlestix (talk) 00:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost) Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Hi CheckersBoard! 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 peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Osarius (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Eljaydubya — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.116.245.103 (talk) 16:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CheckersBoard~

I noticed your comment with respect to someone making deletions. I think few of your edits were deleted due to no citation. Properly citing makes it much more difficult fro an editor to remove. You've added some information I was unaware of and I have used some of the citations you've provided, thank you.Thissilladia (talk) 01:32, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CheckersBoard. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by —teb728 t c 07:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:02, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CheckersBoard. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CheckersBoard. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CheckersBoard. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Neil deGrasse Tyson, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 14:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. CheckersBoard (talk) 16:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commentary, your own point of view, or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Jagmeet Singh. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:24, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If checked, the information provided has sources. Not a matter of opinion. CheckersBoard (talk) 16:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ringette, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Campbellton. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Ringette rink, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:14, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Tamingimpala were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at Ringette rink. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Ringette rink and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Ringette rink, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Tame (talk) 15:01, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CheckersBoard! Thank you for your edits to World Ringette Championships. It looks like you've copied or moved text from Ringette into this page, and while you are welcome to do so, Wikipedia's licensing requires that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. If you've copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thanks! DanCherek (talk) 01:50, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ringette, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page North Bay.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:54, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Svenska Ringetteförbundet, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. John B123 (talk) 19:38, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sam Jacks, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page North Bay.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Content you recently added to the timeline section of the above article appears to have been copied from https://www.ringette.ca/our-sport/history-of-ringette, which is not released under a compatible license. Copying text directly from a source is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Content you add to Wikipedia should be written in your own words. Please let me know if you have any questions. — Diannaa (talk) 15:45, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Ringette. That material was not necessary, and its removal was certainly not vandalism. Meters (talk) 18:37, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly was. Wikipedia requires clarity and accuracy and currently the requirements necessary to eliminate confusion should not be excluded on account of an individual editors personal prejudices. Focus will remain on the article. CheckersBoard (talk) 18:42, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism is well-defined on Wikipedia. That was in no way vandalism. Do not make edits summaries such as that. Meters (talk) 18:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to read WP:NPA. You have accused that editor of vandalism and of "personal prejudices". Meters (talk) 18:47, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not, as an editor, interested in engaging in an edit war with editors who are interested in advertising personal prejudices. To have had this edit labelled as one made "in bad faith" is disingenuous and antagonistic. Please refrain from supporting unnecessary aggressive editing since this edit was trivial and the supposed contributor apparently aimed for one area without due regard for the entire article. Thank you. And please help source this article. CheckersBoard (talk) 18:50, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Ringette. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Per WP:BRD it is up to you to discuss this contested material on the talk page rather than continuing to restore it. And stop making personal attacks in your summaries. It does not appear to me to have been a bad faith edit, and my restore of the removal was not done in bad faith. Meters (talk) 18:51, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ringette. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Meters (talk) 19:00, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Talk:Ringette. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Meters (talk) 19:15, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2013 World Ringette Championships, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page North Bay.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:53, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	For all the time you've spent improving the Ringette article. It's on my watchlist and I've seen you make several edits recently, so I wanted to thank you. Clovermoss (talk) 01:56, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I initially just went in to correct typos...and it some how became a summer project lol. Not as professional as it should be, but there was a lot of cleaning up to do. I appreciate it :) CheckersBoard (talk) 09:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CheckersBoard,

Thank you for creating International Ringette Federation.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

This could do with some more level 3 headers (such as the countries after the Members heading), and each section either needs more content, or could be merged.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Qwerfjkl}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Qwerfjkltalk 19:52, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ringette, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Alpena and Onalaska.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:55, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Canadian Ringette Championships, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kitchener.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ringette, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Espanola.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ringette, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page North Bay.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to 2021 Canada Summer Games has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 13:38, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Ringette, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Meters (talk) 23:56, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Ringette, you may be blocked from editing. No, adding a ref for just he first sentence and restoring the entire section is not acceptable. Meters (talk) 18:21, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid wp:bare URLs so that a reader knows more about where they are linking to? I would recommend using template:cite web with, if available, |url=, |title=, |publisher=, |date=, |author=, and |accessdate at a minimum. Thank you Adakiko (talk) 10:39, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! This is a problem I've been wanting to remedy but didn't really know how. The wiki articles you have provided should help, though this will be a learning process and I'm happy to improve my methods. Tired of slamming useful references (that only become bare URLS) into articles and having barely a clue as to how to help prevent link rot. Though I was aware of the "link rot" possibility, I'd only become aware of its long-term consequences for wiki articles more recently. What a disaster. Will definitely try to improve this area. Thanks again :) CheckersBoard (talk) 23:40, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Women's sports, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages James McKay and Helen Johnson.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Erin Cumpstone, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 2002 World Championships.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Amateur wrestling

added a link pointing to Varsity

McMaster University

added a link pointing to Rugby

Ringette

added a link pointing to CBC

Roller in-line hockey

added a link pointing to Offside

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Bandy, you may be blocked from editing. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:10, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't an edit war of any kind that I can see. There aren't any disputes with other editors. Your account has wiped a number of content additions and citations all at once including the bandy Somalia team for which there were no complaints. If there is a problem with merging content, please help. CheckersBoard (talk) 17:22, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OH! I think I know what I did wrong for the last edit, it was in the lead, I see it now. But I lost a lot of added content and citations from the initial revert/undo which was not vandalism or sock puppetry. Template at the top states the article needs more citations for content verification and lost a ton :( CheckersBoard (talk) 17:29, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Ringette, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Your edits violate MOS and are horribly over done. I will be making extensive changes. It is not a minor edit to undo a contested edit. Meters (talk) 10:33, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And the sources are not "lost". They are in the history, or you can copy them to the talk page if you wish. That's not a good argument to justify keeping challenged content. Meters (talk) 10:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The players with foreign wikipedia articles may well turn out to be notable, but since different Wikipedias have different standards for notability we can't be certain based on nothing but the existence of the foreign article. They have to meet WP:NSPORT. There have been no presumed notability standards set for ringette, and it's not an Olympic sport so the players can't qualify that way either. They have to be shown to meet WP:SPORTBASIC. Meters (talk) 10:55, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Games Ontario, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Rugby and Skating.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CheckersBoard. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Svenska Ringetteförbundet, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 09:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, CheckersBoard. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Ringette rink, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 08:02, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the recent editing at Canoe Kayak Canada, I think you'll find that John james eberhard has been adding this extensive content at several locations. The content appears to be related to the history of Paddle Canada, an organization related to amateur paddle sports (canoeing, kayaking, etc.) in Canada. Since the articles he is editing are not about that particular organization, the material is irrelevant to the articles. It is also unsourced. Eberhard has been informed of the problems and has apparently stopped trying to add the content. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:47, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I couldn't quite figure out what was going on. I appreciate the information :) CheckersBoard (talk) 17:49, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Tacyarg (talk) 19:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I really should be more careful, it is becoming a bad habit :) CheckersBoard (talk) 18:19, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Aadil Manzoor Peer, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jammu and Kashmir.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Ice hockey. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Per WP:BRD when someone contests your change it is up to you to discuss it on the article's talk page. And it is certainly not a WP:MINOR edit to restore a contested edit. Meters (talk) 19:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Problem has fortunately been resolved, links exist for separate articles. No further content should be included as to specifics related to these sports in the lead as it would prove disruptive and confusing. CheckersBoard (talk) 19:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Ice hockey, you may be blocked from editing. Again, this is a contested edit. You cannot simply restore, and it is certainly not a minor edit to do so. Discuss this on the talk page or leave it alone. Meters (talk) 19:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Ice hockey shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Meters (talk) 19:35, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to I bring this topic to talk page for this subject, I am falling behind other editors who are sending messages, and I think there are three interested parties but I could be wrong CheckersBoard (talk) 19:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• You click on the talk page. The tab is right there. After over six years and 8,000 edits -- never mind all the edit disputes in which you've been involved -- you have ZERO excuse for not knowing how to use this basic Wikipedia tool, and if you have no idea how to do so, you honestly have no business making edits. (And looking things up, since you HAVE made talk page edits before, you know full well how to do it.) Failure to properly engage before seeking to make ANY further edit to the Ice hockey article will result in an ANI filing. Ravenswing 19:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to agree. CheckersBoard, you have been warned about edit warring and not discussing contested edits on talk pages before. Meters (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Here. If you are still having trouble in finding the talk page for the article in which you've made many edits, try this link: Talk:Ice_hockey#Comparison_with_other_winter_sports_requiring_skates Ravenswing 20:11, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Ice hockey. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. You were already at a level 4 warning for personal attacks. Knock it off. Do not comment on other users, and do not call good faith edits vandalism. Meters (talk) 00:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. ― Tuna ^No_SurprisesPlease 00:04, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Ice hockey. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 01:30, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from using talk pages such as Talk:Ice hockey for general discussion of the topic or other unrelated topics. They are for discussion related to improving the article in specific ways, based on reliable sources and the project policies and guidelines; they are not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. Meters (talk) 11:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Ringette, you may be blocked from editing. Do not restore unsourced content that has been challenged by being removed. Source it, discuss it on the article's talk page, or leave it alone. Meters (talk) 00:05, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have already been pointed to WP:BRD, and warned about requiring sources and about edit warring. You are just back from an edit warring block and you are continuing the same behaviour. Meters (talk) 00:10, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Ringette has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Refer to copyvio report [1] Bgv. (talk) 11:16, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use mathematical notation characters for bold and italic emphasis in articles or talk pages, as you did at Talk:Bandy. This isn't recognised as text by most software, with screen readers reading it all out letter by letter, and as you can see from that talk page the Wikipedia software doesn't recognise the paragraph breaks, because it assumes that you're not writing normal text.

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting explains how to use italics and bold on Wikipedia, you just put ''double quotes'' or '''triple quotes''' around the text. --Lord Belbury (talk) 10:45, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you CheckersBoard (talk) 10:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bandy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Västerås SK.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Ringette, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Meters (talk) 20:52, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Ringette has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. This is your final warning. Further violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy will result in you being blocked from editing. — Diannaa (talk) 20:56, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Ringette. Meters (talk) 22:27, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Women's sports, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rugby.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Canada women's national bandy team, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Roseville.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please add citations for the information which you added to Juhani Wahlsten. Please see WP:CITE for how to add citations. Flibirigit (talk) 10:19, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you, will do when I have the opportunity. Most of the information comes directly from the Finnish wiki article on the subject and unfortunately most sources are in Finnish rather than English making this effort more time consuming. Finding related sources in English is probably the better option but can present a challenge. I'll see what I can do. CheckersBoard (talk) 18:19, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Fakescientist8000. An edit that you recently made to IRF seemed to be a test and has been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Cheers! Fakescientist8000 23:08, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! Sorry, thanks. CheckersBoard (talk) 23:11, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, as you did at Ringette, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Fram (talk) 13:53, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ringette. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Drmies (talk) 01:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, why am I only finding this now? I should have seen this yesterday! I only found the recent additions to this talk page by going through the history. First entry was May 5 but this was May 31! CheckersBoard (talk) 04:04, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you copied or moved text from Fen skating to Ice rink. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. DanCherek (talk) 17:38, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I will be looking at this since I wasn't sure where to find information on this subject. For the time being I think I'll remove it just to be safe. If further investigation shows it can be added back provided proper procedures are followed, then I will consider adding it back in, but I think caution is required here. CheckersBoard (talk) 18:58, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of sports, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kalash.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Canada national ringette team, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pickering.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Camogie

added a link pointing to GAA

Ice rink

added a link pointing to New York

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Might I suggest that next time you try to make a "repair attempt" you don't duplicate an already massively bloated article? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. And please stop edit warring. Drmies (talk) 01:33, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saying 'I've requested help from an admin' while literally reverting an admin was rather hilarious, but rather foolish too. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry buy I didn't edit war and don't want one. An editor came in and took out massive blocks of content which I didn't notice at first. Everything seemed fine. But after I noticed their unusual (edit rage?) removing tons of content at once, several times over, many, many sources were lost in the process. Turns out they are too difficult to recover because so much content was removed all in single edits. Plus the tags for sources which were cited more than once we ruined. Article has had tons of editors since it was started a very long time ago. I think the page needs to be locked for a bit. If you think it's a mess now, you should have seen it before. It was an even bigger mess than you can imagine. I can't keep trying to fix it, they keep raging back. Will probably need a disinterested third party. This sucks. Sorry. Doing what I can. CheckersBoard (talk) 01:44, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You edit-warred. You are editing disruptively. You are editing against consensus. You can try to argue your point on the talk page--but if you keep denying what to everyone else is obvious, the partial block may be lengthened. Drmies (talk) 01:47, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They were too focused on reverting. I couldn't help but laugh when I saw the edit summary. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:48, 31 May 2022 (UTC) CheckersBoard (talk) 01:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you've re-added the comment I removed. I removed my comment because I realized it was inappropriate of me to be laughing at a user on their talk page and that I should remain uninvolved. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"They were too focused on reverting" really means nothing here. You were too focused on NOT acting in a collaborative manner. Drmies (talk) 15:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bye Drmies CheckersBoard (talk) 03:30, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Ringette) for a period of 1 month for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Drmies (talk) 01:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I warned you. Drmies (talk) 01:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Ringette#Please remain polite. Thank you. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been warned multiple times about this. If you keep this up you are going to end up at WP:ANI again, this time for attacking other editors. You don't WP:OWN the article, and everyone who disagrees with you on the content is not someone to be insulted or attacked. Be civil. Meters (talk) 18:11, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meters, I am. It's one editor. Disagreement is another matter, and I have been collaborating, but the article was too bloated to make any real progress. Losing sources was a major problem. I've only had a problem when some editors are screaming mad, (not all, and I don't mind a curt response) but I do try to keep it cool. But some aren't worth it, I'd rather see progress, not bickering, unless it's about solid facts. Article is moving forward already anyways, recent changes are fantastic, but be honest, it's largely due to one editor, and not the one (no name) trying to take credit. That's recorded. CheckersBoard (talk) 03:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And btw, yes, in all fairness to me, there are editors who have landed on the ringette page but have a stronger "transgender agenda" than an editorial one. That's been becoming a big problem on that one page. This is also where and why I have been attacked while criticisms have just been criticisms, which is different. Transgender is fine, who cares, that's personal, but not when you override recorded information and replace it with trans-buzzwords and the like which only creates ambiguity for readers and alters recorded fact. That is an ongoing problem which needs and deserves to be observed, or at least, kept in mind. The ringette page isn't my page, but it isn't the the "transgender" page either. There already is a page for transgenderism and they should leave their personal feelings and expertise for that one. I absolutely love the recent changes to the ringette page, I could never have been able to do it. The article was crap when I started on it to begin with and I noticed unsourced information which was present from that time which I probably should have removed, has now been removed. This is good for me because it left me thinking that, although I thought this could be a problem, that it might not be as a big of a problem as I thought. I developed some bad habits as a result. Problem solved, it's gone. The article is nice is finally becoming nice and clean for the first time. CheckersBoard (talk) 03:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This has nothing to do with any supposed "transgender agenda", and everything to do with your bloated, improperly sourced version of the article, your edit warring on it, and your insults and attacks of other editors. Multiple editors are working to repair the article, and you are blocked from editing it. Maybe you should take the hint and WP:DROPTHESTICK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meters (talk • contribs) 04:45, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Talk:Ringette. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Meters (talk) 04:40, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Drmies (talk) 14:00, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I considered making this an indefinite block given the severity and ridiculousness of your attacks on Fram. Any more of this and it will be indefinite. You may not treat other editors this way. Note that I say this without having looked at any other recent edits of yours, which may also warrant further sanction. This is the moment for you to reflect on what you are doing here, and how you are doing it. Drmies (talk) 14:01, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I must be lost. All of the previous discussion has disappeared. Does this mean I need to make another appeal? CheckersBoard (talk) 19:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Barrel jumping, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CBC Montreal.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! In this edit to Canada national ringette team, you stated that BattyBot "destroyed and altered dates incorrectly". Could you please help me understand what dates were incorrectly changed in BattyBot's edit? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 18:05, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do my best :) . Sorry this is long: BattyBot appears to have done three things. The first is it correctly eliminated line breaks and spaces which were unnecessary. Second, it fixed links which had not been corrected: Initially there were absolutely no independent articles for the World Ringette Championships events by year. What had to be done is every entry for an event (by year) had to link to the World Ringette Championships article, and have to include an anchor, so all entries had to be typed like this for example: 1990 World Ringette Championships . It was nuts and pointlessly laborious and didn't have to be...so I finally started created SEPARATE WRC event articles by year, which will prevent problems for other editors in the future (though they haven't all be approved yet, it's in the works finally, should have been done years ago). When I went back to the national team page I tried to correct for these changes with the laborious links, but didn't get them all. Batty bot however did. What Batty bot did wrong however, is NUMBER THREE: for some reason it started altering data entered in the Team Roster tables. The dates were messed up, eg. 2017 became 2007. This was wrong. It even changed nationalities for teams, and this was a mess eg. Team Canada was changed to Team USA. It's probably because of how the tables are designed, it threw poor Batty bot off. Recently as an editor I started seeing all these problems with ringette pages and have been trying to fix, clean-up and connect articles, links and content related to the World Ringette Championships and the different national teams to try to make this process more seamless and help eliminate problems for future editors...but this is in the works, slowly but surely hopefully the project will be done within six months with article approvals. Until then though, bots misinterpreting information may be an area to be aware of and keep an eye on for national ringette team pages, since this information is tedious and difficult to do again, and finding and making corrections after a confused bot has gone on the run is tough. Poor Batty :( CheckersBoard (talk) 18:26, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CLEAR: I didn't realize the entry example wouldn't display properly! all entries had to look something like this with anchors: World Ringette Championships, # , 1990 World Ringette Championships, 1990 World Ringette Championships. It was a long annoying process. CheckersBoard (talk) 18:28, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. BattyBot visited the article because it had an empty Bibliography section. I've deleted the section manually so BattyBot won't visit again for that reason. Could you please give me a specific example of NUMBER THREE where BattyBot "started altering data entered in the Team Roster tables"? Which section, which table, and which row? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 19:23, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the delay, I think it's better to get a visual than have it described, the edit log shows them: "03:46, 12 June 2022‎ BattyBot ‎ −972‎ Removed non-content empty section(s), performed general fixes". Hope this helps! CheckersBoard (talk) 08:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree a visual would be better! Can you please take a screenshot of any table from before BattyBot edited the article and the same table after BattyBot edited the article to demonstrate an example where BattyBot "destroyed and altered dates incorrectly"? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 12:50, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would but I don't know how, I wasn't aware this was an option. Is there a wiki article on this subject you can direct me too? Thanks in advance and sorry this process is taking so long. CheckersBoard (talk) 14:53, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You could take screenshots using your favorite software, save them as files, upload them to Commons, and then show them here. Or, just give me an example by typing the section of the article and the table that had data where BattyBot "destroyed and altered dates incorrectly". Or anything else creative to demonstrate the problem. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 03:42, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this works. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1092719912

Example 1. Section: 1992 Seniors. I think it was that section. There were two teams representing the Canadians that event year: Team Canada East and Team Canada West. Battybot made wrong changes. It changed Team Canada West. Battybot changed the year from 1992 to 1994, so 1992 Team Canada West was changed to 1994 Team Canada West. It compounded the problem by then changing icons for medal placement. In 1992 Team Canada West placed first . In 1994 Team Canada West placed third , but after Battybot got to it, this area read that the 1992 team was the 1994 team and had finished in first . Both the year and medal placement was wrong. Canada West finished in first place in 1992, but finished in 3rd place in 1994. CheckersBoard (talk) 05:09, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CORRECTION: The section was Ringette Canada Hall of Fame. Just figured it out. It's a table. I couldn't find the section it changed. There were similar changes throughout, even changing "Head coach" to "Coach". Problem: there are Assistant coaches, these are different positions. CheckersBoard (talk) 05:15, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing the MobileDiff view. The problem was not BattyBot, but with how the MobileDiff view displays the data. You acknowledged above that BattyBot "correctly eliminated line breaks and spaces which were unnecessary." This makes it challenging to follow the changes in the MobileDiff view, as it "adds" new lines highlighted in orange, and then moves subsequent lines up, giving the false impression that it changed the data. Look at the desktop view of the diff, and it's easier to see that the content is the same, although the line spacing is misaligned.

You can also compare the version of the article before BattyBot's change with the version of the article after BattyBot's change, and confirm that the Ringette Canada Hall of Fame table (or any other table) displays the same data, but with less blank space. (See the screenshot on the right.)

You can duplicate this by manually deleting the blank spaces from a table, confirming that the values in the table are unchanged before saving your edit, and then studying the MobileDiff.

I'm glad that BattyBot did not destroy and alter dates incorrectly, and disappointed that the MediaWiki software makes it challenging to review the diff. Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 13:26, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

O_O ! Oh wow!! I had no idea!! Thank you so much for taking the time to explain this, I never would have known otherwise. Happy editing to you to :) CheckersBoard (talk) 14:39, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi There,

Can I humbly suggest that you read through WP:Relevance I notice a lot of additions you have made to articles (quite a few of which I removed) fall under the 'Low' and 'Very Low' relevance descriptions in this article. e.g. in your recent addition to Ringette you added a sentence about the details of Sam Jacks's floor hockey:

"Sam Jacks's floor hockey, a separate game created by Jacks predating ringette which used bladeless sticks, poles and a felt disk with a hole in the centre. Jacks created floor hockey and codified its rules in 1936."

The section on "predating ringette which used bladeless sticks, poles and a felt disk with a hole in the centre. Jacks created floor hockey and codified its rules in 1936." Is, in my opinion, 3-times removed information and is too much detail on an unrelated topic for this article (besides the fact it should have citations supporting it)

JeffUK (talk) 10:32, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you but it is relevant. Inventor is exactly the same man who invented ringette, there is an influential factor that cannot be ignored and this falls within this proper context. Ringette is not ice hockey. That's a common misconception. Gym ringette is not floor hockey, that too has been a common misconception. And yes, floor hockey influenced gym ringette eventually, but there is no concrete evidence so it isn't mentioned. Nowhere else except one place on the globe (which I won't go into) uses rings rather than disks as a playing object. Ringette uses them, and gym ringette and inline. It is unique, it is relevant. If you can find it anywhere else, you are a rare breed. Short content on Floor hockey is supportable, the reference goes to the North Bay Sports Hall of Fame which inducted Sam Jacks and recognizes both of his inventions. So too does The Canadian Sports Hall of Fame which recognizes this as well. Overlap is inevitable in this unusual instance. CheckersBoard (talk) 14:51, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Important note: The first "ringette ring" was not a torus, it was a flat disk called a "floor hockey ring" created by Red McCarthy. It is a disk and is hanging up in a Canadian arena called the Espanola Arena. I have seen the picture in a article on the origin of sport (which is cited in this article). It states this was used at first but quickly abandoned in favour of deck tennis rings. The official pneumatic ice ring developed later. Don't ask me where or when. I have also seen photos of this first "ring" (disk) posted on social media by Ringette Canada. This style of disk is still available online for sale today, advertised as a floor hockey puck. It is not used in ringette at all, on the ice or the floor. The floor hockey game (with a disk) and eventual ice sport of ringette (with a torus) intersect during the early 1960s. All that detail can go in a separate article on "Canadian ringette history" if someone creates it in the future. For now, small mention of floor hockey is necessary and relevant to avoid confusion for now and in the future. I actually bothered to check and triple check this when few others would. CheckersBoard (talk) 15:24, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. To clarify: no other sport uses a ring as a playing object ON THE GROUND except for possibly a game developed in a Spanish or Portuguese speaking country by a physical education teacher who was recognized for this by a body which exists in his country (saw the article years ago, had it translated, no longer have it). It is called "ringette" as well. However based on what I've observed, it does not use toruses at all, it uses a circular bands. The Canadian sport and that game are not related in any context so far from what I can tell and developed independently. You can also see this Spanish/Portuguese ringette on Youtube if you know where to look. Tennikoit does not count, ring is in the air. "Class dismissed" I guess, welcome to my dungeon 0_0 . CheckersBoard (talk) 15:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This was just one example... but by Wikipedia's standards, the details of a a sport created by the same person who created ringette are not relevant to the 'Ringette' article. It's 3 or maybe 4 times removed from the article itself. It's a footnote of a footnote, and belongs in another place. You seem to like following a train of thought like this (this train of comments is a good example!) where I think it leads to information being added to an article that would fit perfectly well in a book about the history of ringette, and the life and times of Sam Jacks (and it seems you have at least one in you!) but not in an encyclopedia article which is necessarily more limited in scope. JeffUK (talk) 17:00, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your patience! Makes sense, thanks for clearing this up. It's definitely a bad habit and a weak spot I have as an editor. I'll have to keep the history notes in check...this seems to be the main area where I tend to bloat up an article and veer to far off track. I admit it's a hard habit to break. Maybe I'll write the wiki "Canadian ringette history" article someday if I'm feeling sadistic :) CheckersBoard (talk) 18:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Canada national ringette team, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pilot Butte.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Drmies (talk) 19:38, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So here is the thing: this edit summary, and specifically this "trans-jargon" nonsense, combines all too easily with the ridiculous accusations you directed at Fram on Talk:Ringette, that stuff about "transgender altar"--stuff that should probably be scrubbed from the talk page. "Indefinite" does not mean "infinite", but I expect that my fellow admins will not grant an unblock request unless it comes with a promise of some sort or another that you will a. act collegially; b. not make ridiculous accusations; and c. show some respect in your language and your edits for the transgender community, whom you seem to be needlessly insulting to make an obscure point. To be clear: this isn't really about your edits to one article: this isn't really about content at all. Drmies (talk) 19:44, 21 June 2022 (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).

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

---

Request reason:

Contributing editor, helped/helping fix several pages as well, focus is not exclusive to one article, current dispute is isolated. Block from editing article in dispute a better option CheckersBoard (talk) 19:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

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
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:42, 22 June 2022 (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.

The article isn't the problem. Your repeated recourse to entirely unwarranted personal attacks when things don't go your way is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:47, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: If I am blocked from editing the ringette article, another editor will be needed to do article edits for: "Ringette by country": 1. Finland 2. Sweden 3. USA. These sections are too long but can be remedied by splitting them out. CheckersBoard (talk) 19:53, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Andy I was replying before your reply came in. I obviously won't be able to please anyone who has concerns over "transphobia" when I am aiming for accuracy, and no, it isn't trivial when put into context especially when it is sourced. However, I agree that my approach needs to change, editors have to avoid personal attacks. But to be fair, calling edits "transphobic" is exactly that as well when they aren't. Detente would be best, perhaps the sex/gender issue for this article needs further discussion somewhere, maybe not. It's a strange sport, most sports start off created for males, I've noticed this one bucks tradition so it's easy to see how some people might be thrown off and take offence, but its sourced so it shouldn't be the issue it has become, I certainly didn't expect it to. That being said, my main concern is trimming that article now and ensuring links are correct, not much else. Thank you for your consideration. CheckersBoard (talk) 20:00, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You changed "women" to "the female sex". That's not an improvement (it's verbose), and it has nothing to do with science. And "trans-jargon" and "transgender altar" are not "sourced". Also, you were not reverting "vandalism". And I didn't call your edit transphobic. Your comments to Fram, and your comment in the edit summary, that's transphobic. I still don't understand where you get off saying Fram has some kind of trans agenda. Drmies (talk) 20:16, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Regarding things being sourced, this [2] bit of partisan editorialising about supposed 'social justice movements' I removed from the article some weeks ago certainly wasn't (or not to anything that in the slightest bit supported it, anyway). And unless I've misread the article history, you seem to have been responsible for it. If that is indeed the case, I'd have to suggest that your approach to article content needs to be 'considered' too. Complaining about other contributors having an 'agenda' after writing that would seem somewhat hypocritical. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:22, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Btw I have to mention this because I just noticed it and find it interesting: I noticed Fram continues to insert the word "originally" when the lead paragraph mentions the sport's historical origin. Although Fram has called this "transphobic" in a couple of edit summaries, that one word, "originally" and where it has been placed leads me to suspect there's something else going on. It sounds as though the real issue may be that although the sentence about ringette's origin isn't wrong, the lead paragraph excludes the fact that the sport NOW includes male participation at the player level when this was not ORIGINALLY the case. If I'm right and that's the real issue behind Fram editing that one sentence, then it could probably easily be remedied. Only problem is if it requires a good source: most of what I can find online are social media anecdotes which obviously do not qualify as verifiable sources for wiki purposes so they can't be included. But I might be able to hunt a good verifiable source down with some luck. If it doesn't need a source it could still be included somehow anyways to make sure readers aren't left believing that only females play the sport today? I think this can be done. Btw the fact that boys and men now play seems legitimate, found a comment online about a guy in Canada who plays on an adult open/mixed ringette team and another group of men playing in Finland on a men's ringette team. However I think I've found better sources for boys participation. Food for thought, I think this might be a good approach that could help resolve this issue. I think it would be a good compromise and be better for wiki readers. CheckersBoard (talk) 20:41, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I should probably add, if there are concerns relating specifically to the issue of gender (sociology) that editors believe would add to the article and can provide some good sources for it as well, a separate section devoted to the topic can probably be created somewhere within the current article (though I think it could be tricky). I personally wouldn't create that section at this point but maybe someone else may find it valuable...but I'm probably the worst editor for even suggesting this since I have a habit of expanding this article to the point of bloat apocalypse. CheckersBoard (talk) 20:51, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

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).

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

---

Request reason:

I understand discussion with editors must take place, not attacks. Edit summaries and article talk pages are not the place for resolving issues. My current habits do not follow proper wiki procedure. CheckersBoard (talk) 19:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Article talk pages are for resolving article content issues. (edit summaries are not) It's good to see you recognize that your behavior has been problematic, but I don't see a sufficient explanation of what will change going forward here. I am declining this request. 331dot (talk) 09:30, 24 June 2022 (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.

{{unblock|1=Requesting an unblock: Although it may appear that as an editor I have an invested interest in the topic of transgenderism, the reality is I keep running into this subject on a variety of different pages which are not dedicated to the topic. Unfortunately it's easy to become lost in the details of the matter. For me, I see no reason to handle the topic at all in the future as an editor since it is not particularly significant except in the case of the article dealing with this subject specifically which can be dealt with by other editors. Because I edit using mobile I don't necessarily see other editors summaries etc. immediately. I seem to get a lag. I'm not sure why this happens. In the future I intend to give myself a cooling off period if I see an edit I disagree with before moving forward, it's too easy to jump the gun. Also, I am better aware of the 3 revert rule. I see no reason to engage on the topic of transgenderism since it's not even area of interest for me. I'd rather continue editing other articles and fixing typos. Thank you for your consideration. CheckersBoard (talk) 22:06, 19 July 2022 (UTC)}[reply]

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

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

---

Request reason:

Requesting an unblock: Sorry, I messed up the original unblock request by forgetting to add the last bracket. Although it may appear that as an editor I have an invested interest in the topic of transgenderism, the reality is I keep running into this subject on a variety of different pages which are not dedicated to the topic. Unfortunately it's easy to become lost in the details of the matter. For me, I see no reason to handle the topic at all in the future as an editor since it is not particularly significant except in the case of the article dealing with this subject specifically which can be dealt with by other editors. Because I edit using mobile I don't necessarily see other editors summaries etc. immediately. I seem to get a lag. I'm not sure why this happens. In the future I intend to give myself a cooling off period if I see an edit I disagree with before moving forward, it's too easy to jump the gun. Also, I am better aware of the 3 revert rule. I see no reason to engage on the topic of transgenderism since it's not even area of interest for me. I'd rather continue editing other articles and fixing typos. I also need to find out how to delete some content others have found offensive on my talk page. Thank you for your consideration. CheckersBoard (talk) 6:06 pm, 19 July 2022, Tuesday (13 days ago) (UTC−4)

Accept reason:

Per discussion with Drmies and with appellant, accepting with following conditions.

• WP:TBAN on human sexually. (regular admin action. not a GS or DS)
• Use of WP:Dispute resolution for content disputes.
• 1 revert restriction
• Zero tolerance for personal attacks.
• Zero tolerance for anti-trans edits Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:18, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited United States national ringette team, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Richmond and Langley.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, 2000 World Ringette Championships, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Mccapra (talk) 20:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Drmies: A WP:TBAN on human sexually seems reasonable to me. Thoughts?
• @CheckersBoard: Disagreements are inevitable on a project of this size. Disengaging is good, but what other steps are available to avoid edit warring, angry editing, or incivility.
• Given the history of edit warring, WP:1RR seems reasonable.
• Zero tolerance for personal attacks Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:34, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deepfriedokra, having read over the various unblock requests, I guess I'm fine with giving the editor another chance. I still don't really understand where all this anti-trans stuff comes from, and this talk page doesn't make it any clearer, and I wish they had actually addressed the specifics of what led them to talk to Fram that way. I come away with the idea that the user just really doesn't get what we found so problematic, so a gender/sexuality topic ban is reasonable.

    But here is a bit of a problem--can they edit on a woman's sport? I don't think that a simple "no sexuality topics" will cover this easily. "You may not edit about or comment on matters of sexuality, gender, or gender identity" is a bit more like it. I mean, I don't want them to not be able to edit those ringette articles (though those are problematic for other reasons), but there are things they just shouldn't be talking about. Maybe EvergreenFir, who is smarter than me in that area, can help figure something out. Drmies (talk) 02:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • The ringette was bothering me. Certainly that could be part of the TBAN unblock conditions. @CheckersBoard: Can you address Drmies concern about the way you talked to Fram?
    • So, zero tolerance for anti-trans stuff. (I know there are people who have a visceral response to that. It must not affect editing here.) Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I left a note on Talk:Canada national ringette team, and made a few edits to the article with extensive edit summaries. They're not blocked for those articles, of course, and it's good to have an editor there who knows the material--but at the same time there are guidelines that need to be followed, and we can't have edit warring and whatnot in there. Thanks Deepfriedokra, Drmies (talk) 02:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

        My pleasure. @CheckersBoard: If you are agreeable to these conditions and explain the Fram thing, I think we can unblock you. Deepfriedokra (talk) 02:58, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to wiki unblock policy I'm not supposed to comment on this or any other editor. CheckersBoard (talk) 08:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTTHEM CheckersBoard (talk) 21:11, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, yes I have no issue being prevented from editing or commenting about areas dealing with gender and sexuality. I don't want to engage in edit wars over that subject, since the overwhelming majority of my editing has nothing to do with that anyways. Only problem I might run into: I tend to try to fix up/add refs to sports related articles where people need information about available categories for competing, ie., whether a sport has a male, female, and open/mixed category. This seems to be something people are interested in, but editors are already finding a way to address this quickly in the sports infoboxes which are right at the top of the article. It's been a bit confusing but I think with time people will figure it out. So male, female, mixed, open, separate etc., it seems to be a new standard practice to add that information in sports articles if that info is available. It can be tricky sometimes ie., sports usually develop a single sex category first with the opposite sex category and mixed/open categories developing later...usually depends on how long the sport has been around and how many people participate. But generally speaking infoboxes seem to be the best place to address this, short and quick, and no hassle or complaints. It's the best method I think I've seen so far. But again as to Fram, can't comment, not something that should be addressed in an unblock request, but I honestly can't see there being any conflicts between us moving forward, I think that's all water under the bridge now and everyone has just moved on. It's not that important. CheckersBoard (talk) 21:50, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: OK to unblock? I mean I could if this is OK. (not sure it is) Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:19, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deepfriedokra, I think Checkersboard could have done a better job explaining themselves, and whether it's water under the bridge is really not for them to decide. But with restrictions, sure--we'll see how it goes. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:39, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

composing unblock conditions Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RE: better job-- me too. Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:43, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CheckersBoard:Just to make sure we have the same understanding, these are the conditions under which I agree to unblock you.

• WP:TBAN on human sexually. (regular admin action. not a GS or DS)
• Use of WP:Dispute resolution for content disputes.
• 1 revert restriction
• Zero tolerance for personal attacks.
• Zero tolerance for anti-trans edits

Please affirm understanding and acceptance of these conditions..Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:54, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I understand and accept the above restrictions. First of five refers to a topic ban which restricts editing articles dealing with human sexuality. Second involves instructions for dispute resolution involving content disputes. Third: only 1 revert allowed, not 2, not 3, only 1. Fourth, no ad hominem attacks. Last, absolutely no anti-trans edits. I'd also add that need to remember that all edits should first be considered to have been done in good faith since I have a habit of being quick to assume otherwise (another editor has patiently tried repeatedly to get this through to me prior to this block). CheckersBoard (talk) 03:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked. Welcome bac. Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Ringette ‎. You have been warned multiple times about making unsourced edits to this article, and this is dangerously close to your topic ban. Meters (talk) 07:07, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What are you doing? I said in Ringette‎ "failed verification and irrelevant". I opened a talk page thread explaining that the reference is illegible. You restored the edit with the summary "Source is available, relevant and cited. You need to access the link, not sure if it's still there, I'll check" I didn't mean that the source was irrelevant, I meant that the information about other sports was irrelevant, but I can see how you could have misunderstood that. Having said that, you didn't look at the talk page, and the one hand you claim that the reference is available, but on the other hand you admit that you have not looked to see if the link is still available. Not impressive. Meters (talk) 19:53, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Was it my talk page or the article's talk page?? 0_0 I only found this thread now, I don't always stick to editing one page or topic. However, the problem has since been fixed: you reverted it so now it's proper. Btw, I noticed that the info I was including actually turned out to be redundant: I re-read the section, so it's a good thing you removed it. CheckersBoard (talk) 05:50, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Finland national ringette team, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Finland national hockey team.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced or poorly sourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Ringette. I am getting very tired of having to check the sources for all of your edits. How many times do you have to warned for adding claims that are not in your sources? Meters (talk) 02:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where in the ringette article have I done this? I just added a reference to the ringette article, it's sourced, its the origin of original goalie trapper and that was the only addition requiring a source. The unsourced claims you recently reverted were in the floor hockey article. I was trying to make a clarification, it wasn't supposed to appear as speculation but I guess it did. CheckersBoard (talk) 04:27, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In addition the photos which were removed (fine by me, it's too peripheral) were in fact dated as 1986 at wikicommons, the date was not missing CheckersBoard (talk) 04:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was clear that this warning was for Ringette. Do you know how to go into the page history and see what an edit changed? Go and look at my edit. Look at the edits that you made prior to my edit. You added an unsourced claim to Ringette that Jacks invented his version of floor hockey in 1936. The year is not in the source that you provided. If you have a reliable source then restore the information with the source. If you don't have a reliable source for the year then don't add it. The floor hockey image was removed because it simply has no place in this article, but your caption claim that 1986 was 50 years after Jacks codified the rules is also unsourced. Meters (talk) 07:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I looked up the source, you are correct, the North Bay Sports Hall of Fame webpage did not have the date. However, this date, 1936, WAS previously sourced before the recent, massive, cleanup and I remember reading it specifically, this is now I am able to remember the exact year. The original source must have been removed and the North Bay link must have only been added to support the claim that he had invented, what was called, floor hockey. I do have a source for the date, but it is from the Ringette Canada website. Although it's usually reliable, I recently discovered that site was recently rebuilt, so links to those pages now mean there is a risk that there will be information which no longer corresponds with the article...because the content on some of those pages have changed. As a result, I will only use archived copies from their older webpages because I can longer trust it. https://www.ringette.ca/inductees/sam-jacks/ CheckersBoard (talk) 11:28, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the exact sentence: "In 1936 Jacks created the game of floor hockey, and developed the first set of rules, and was recognized by the Youth Branch of the United Nations for the creation of the game." CheckersBoard (talk) 11:50, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Really? After already having been blocked and later indef'ed by user:Drmies, in part for your interaction with user:Fram, you think it a good idea to suggest that Fram is socking [3]?

You were unblocked by user:Deepfriedokra with "Zero tolerance for personal attacks" Special:Log/block&page=User:CheckersBoard. And that unblock also included a "1 revert restriction" that it appears you have broken more than once, and on more than one article.

Here are four identical reverts (not including your original edit) to Ringette in less than two days. The first three reverts were made in less than a 24-hour period, as were the last three:

• [4] Revision as of 08:37, September 24, 2022 CheckersBoard (Undid revision 1111987326 by Clocktower101 *sigh* it is SOURCED and substantiated, credit IS given to both founders but their roles were different and it is in chronological order. Please stop.)
• [5] Revision as of 01:51, September 25, 2022 CheckersBoard m (Undid revision 1112060769 by Sofaking999 Meeting minutes aren't referenced)
• [6] Revision as of 04:35, September 25, 2022 CheckersBoard (Undid revision 1112199224 by Sofaking999 NOTHING has been doeted. Nothing. It is sourced. It gives credit to both men, both are founder, McCarthy is the co-incpventor, SpJacks was the inventor/idea man. It is clear their roles we different. Jacks wanted credit to go to NORDA, but this information was removed as some point, probably because it wasn't sourced. Stop.)
• [7] Revision as of 22:46, September 25, 2022 CheckersBoard (Undid revision 1112274288 by Clocktower101 Check the article's talk page, I mentioned NORDA. And no, Jacks are McCarthy are both founders according to Ringette Canada, but Jacks is the inventor, McCarthy the co-inventor. History is correct.)

And on the related Red McCarthy we have the following four identical reverts. The first two reverts were 10 hours apart, the third revert was 21 hours after the second, and the third was 18 hours after the third. These all broke 1RR:

• [8] Revision as of 22:00, September 23, 2022 CheckersBoard (Undid revision 1111805003 by Sofaking999 relevant and germane to the section)
• [9] Revision as of 08:20, September 24, 2022 CheckersBoard (Undid revision 1111991516 by Clocktower101 Your accusations are unfounded as can be seen by reading the available sources. Take it to the talk page, stop attacking me, and refrain from vandalizing the article)
• [10] Revision as of 05:01, September 25, 2022 CheckersBoard (Undid revision 1112062370 by Sofaking999 Vandalism
• [11] Revision as of 23:04, September 25, 2022 CheckersBoard (Undid revision 1112275842 by Clocktower101 Where does it say he was co founder? He was co-inventor, not the same thing, see ringette article talk page

Meters (talk) 10:22, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • Thanks for the ping, hadn't seen that edit summary yet. Of course I was socking, that's why I created Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/GECollins (and yes, this was sarcasm, not an admission, obviously). Blocking all four editors (the 3 socks and Checkersboard) and locking the pages to deter new socks may be the best solution to stop the disruption. Fram (talk) 10:26, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Socking was the problem to begin with CheckersBoard (talk) 14:11, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, "Fram socking" was a JOKE. It wasn't meant to be taken literally. CheckersBoard (talk) 14:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think it's a good idea to post on Fram's talk page about sockpuppet issues? Why not take it to the SPI case? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:39, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have no idea what SPI is, but Fram helped out the other day so I was just asking. I don't understand why asking Fram would be a problem? CheckersBoard (talk) 01:43, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think I figured it out, so I've removed my recent request at Fram's talk page. It took me a while to find out what the process was. The user has only made one edit and only appeared less than 72 hours ago. User is: Sablecanoe CheckersBoard (talk) 03:55, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Canadian Ringette Championships, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Regina.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at 2000 World Ringette Championships instead.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Two copies of this page have been created, in draft space and in article space. It is not necessary to create two copies of the same page, and it annoys the reviewers. This is sometimes done in order to bypass Articles for Creation review. However, if a submitter is ready to have the article in article space, it can be moved into article space, rather than creating a copy. It is common for a page that has been duplicated in draft space and in article space to be nominated for deletion or proposed for deletion. If the article is kept, this draft should be redirected to the article. If the article is deleted, this draft may be kept for future improvement.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:2000 World Ringette Championships and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 04:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Ringette. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Do not add articles that are already linked to the "See also" section. See MOS:NOTSEEALSO. This is not the first time you have done this. Meters (talk) 20:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One of your recent edits has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. Moxy- 11:02, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry only found this now, left a topic on your talk pages so either page can be used. No worries about copyrights btw lol, I actually wrote it myself, there is no plagiarism either. As for the rest of the article, it doesn't appear well sourced, so I should probably add sources to avoid future problems and not repeat the error. It's my first time editing that page. CheckersBoard (talk) 11:10, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, was this the History of sports in Canada page, or did you mean the ringette page? I was referring to the history page. Recent edits made by me on the ringette page were sourced, but not the history page. CheckersBoard (talk) 11:12, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

not sure what your saying...? did you copy and paste from here to many pages? Moxy- 11:15, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I've been trying to edit/fix/source/organize a variety of articles for a while, mostly different sports, but have landed on a lot of ringette related articles. As a result, it turned out to be easy to put together a few notes and paragraphs in the History of sport in Canada article without copying other articles but including notable parts/facts, etc. Btw, since I've been editing, I've never found any books on ringette that are currently still in circulation. It seems the few books that there are on the sport, are all out of print, so I can't copy anything from a book even if I wanted to. However, now that I looked at it, that history article o

is poorly sourced and not well developed, so I now think adding to the article didn't help matters. CheckersBoard (talk) 11:25, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Major women's sport leagues in the United States and Canada, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Meriden.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. Regarding the Sam Jacks article, I should still have that book. Will need to check through my library but I should be able to get the source. Appreciate you reaching out. Kind regards Mark Staffieri (talk) 15:41, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! No rush, just trying to hunt down sources. Turns out sourcing any related ringette topic is far more difficult than I thought it would be. Seems I can find news articles but actual books appear to be scarce. Thanks again :) CheckersBoard (talk) 14:55, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article Rive-Sud Révolution has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of notability in the 36 Google hits or the 3 mentions in Google News.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fram (talk) 14:41, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you! It made need to be binned for sure, I'm not happy with it as it is, one ref isn't good enough even for a stub. Still trying to find more sources but I'm sure most are in French. Might be better to keep it in the sandbox. Pretty sure I'll have to find archived material for english refs, I'm sure they're floating around. I'll get on it asap. CheckersBoard (talk) 14:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rive-Sud Révolution is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rive-Sud Révolution until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Fram (talk) 08:42, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Czech Republic national ringette team, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:27, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An article you recently created, Calgary RATH, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more in-depth coverage about the subject itself, with citations from reliable, independent sources in order to show it meets WP:GNG. It should have at least three. And please remember that interviews, as primary sources, do not count towards GNG.(?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:49, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you, I honestly thought there was more source material on this topic (since the team has apparently been around for some time) which was easily accessible online, but I've looked and I was mistaken. I'll have to look elsewhere. CheckersBoard (talk) 00:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Ringette, you may be blocked from editing. Stop doing this. You were reverted. Either discuss it on the talk page or leave it alone. It is not a minor edit to restore a contested edit. Did you even read the garbage that you created? The edit makes no sense. It is impossible for a new sport toot be created to maintain participation in itself. Meters (talk) 22:20, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I have no intention of reverting the last edit because you were correct. I don't know what I was thinking. I was trying to do too much at once. CheckersBoard (talk) 22:25, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are on a one revert restriction. You need to be much more careful about how you revert. Meters (talk) 22:33, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]