User talk:One way system

Hi One way system! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Cordless Larry (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:01, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello. I'm not going to revert your removal of English from the opening sentence, although I do disagree with it. Please understand that the JFF President saying for a domestic TV audience that a string of UK-based footballers being "in the process of" getting a Jamican passport means little more than they've identified players who could switch, filled in forms in the hope they might, and talked to the relevant government officials to smooth the path if and when it became necessary. Nathan Redmond appears in that list, but in his own words in the Southampton daily paper, he says they've never approached him and he's never discussed it with his family. We don't know whether Demarai Gray (or any other that hasn't spoken or acted publicly on the matter) is any further along the path than that.

Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy is really quite clear about the need to get living people's articles correct, based on reliable published sources appropriate to the context. Until there are such reliable sources that clearly confirm that Mr Gray has Jamaican nationality, we cannot suggest he's anything other than English football-wise. Thanks, Struway2 (talk) 13:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay well that sounds fair. The thing is with Rickett's statement is that it's quite vague and open to interpretation. I remember Redmond saying that stuff (and I know Max Aarons has also said he hasn't actually been contacted despite having his name being mentioned), but Ricketts says of the list of players: "All of these we are in the process of acquiring their Jamaican passports. The process is becoming a little tedious because of the pandemic but the process is ongoing and we are hopeful we will get the passports for these gentlemen in reasonable time". On the surface, it just sounds like he is saying these players are all already on the path to getting clearance to play for the country, not just being considered by the JFF. So I think his statement is a bit confusing and potentially misleading. Rickett's statements were originally reported in the Daily Mail on 3 March: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-9321995/Jamaica-plot-call-10-English-stars-including-Michail-Antonio-Demarai-Gray-Aarons.html, and despite the Daily Mail being about as reliable as a Boeing 737 MAX 8, 10 of the 15 it said could switch have now already committed themselves to Jamaica. So while his statement isn't wholly reliable, it has so far proved quite accurate. So to many people I think it's difficult to tell whether to take his words seriously and at face value or not. One way system (talk) 14:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I wanted to explain why your recent edits to Tosin Adarabioyo are speculative and/or journalistic. It's not that the information is necessarily untrue. The problem is that someone being "ready to apply" for something is not information that a) can be proven or b) belongs in an encyclopedia article. Information like that is journalistic and fluid. It is reporting on a current situation. That is not what encyclopedia articles do. Encyclopedia articles provide concrete, provable, completed information. Once Tosin's application is submitted and accepted by FIFA, then this information will be appropriate for the article. Until that, it is something that cannot be confirmed and is too fluid to include. The source you provide is also rather questionable. The number of typos in the article as well as the amateurish formatting do not suggest that the source is reliable or trustworthy. That, and after searching for any confirming reports from trusted sources, I found nothing about this but a lot of suggestions that he has every intention of continuing to represent England. Here are some more recent sources on that:

1) https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/patient-approach-pays-off-for-tosin-adarabioyo-the-thinker-of-fulham-m0gbb6gqr (April 4, 2021)

2) https://theathletic.com/2445118/2021/03/13/tosin-fulhams-bargain-buy-who-has-grown-into-his-body-and-the-premier-league/ (March 12, 2021)

3) https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2021/02/27/adarabioyo-eyes-england-call-up-ahead-of-euro-2020/ (February 27, 2021)

All of these are more recent than your source, and they all say quite the opposite of what your source suggests. Anwegmann (talk) 02:21, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive, speculative, poorly-sourced, and/or premature edits to Wikipedia, as you have repeatedly done at Mason Holgate, Ademola Lookman, Tosin Adarabioyo, Isaac Hayden, and Demarai Gray, to name a few. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and go against the standards laid out in WP:biographies of living persons and WP:reliable published sources. As such, they have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. To parrot what Struway2 correctly stated above, "Until there are such reliable sources that clearly confirm that [the players] ha[ve] Jamaican[/Nigerian] nationality, we cannot suggest [they're] anything other than English football-wise." Thank you. Anwegmann (talk) 02:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Anwegmann. I don't think its fair or appropriate to label such edits as 'vandalism'; they are clearly good-faith edits. In several cases you yourself have deleted content without good reason. For example, on Max Kilman, you deleted the section saying he was denied the opportunity of playing for Ukraine by claiming it was 'unsourced', yet it states clearly it the international career section that Kilman's application to play for Ukraine was rejected by FIFA last week. On Ademola Lookman, you deleted the section that said he had decided to switch his nationality to Nigeria, saying there are 'conflicting reports', but what are these conflicting reports? All recent sources, as noted in the international career section itself, state clearly that he has almost formally completed his switch. What sources, might I ask, contradict this fact? One way system (talk) 07:07, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence in Kilman that I reverted was repetitive, and it got lost in the many other inappropriate, speculative, and/or premature edits you had made. And it is not included in my original post here. In the articles listed above, among several others, you have repeatedly relied on sources that either cannot be substantiated anywhere else, report only that the player has considered switching, applied to switch, or was "ready to" apply to switch—all far cries from completed switches. And yet you have repeatedly changed something as major as the lead of the article to suggest that the switches were complete and official. That is inappropriate, as mentioned in my original comment, contrary to the standards laid out in both WP:biographies of living persons and WP:reliable published sources. I understand you are new to editing, and I appreciate that. I too am interested in a lot of players that have switched sporting nationalities lately, but there are standards we need to rely upon so that the information we make public is not questionable or outright incorrect. Until a player is officially a member of a sporting nationality—a one-time FIFA switch, an appearance for a national team in an official FIFA match, etc., not just that they have a passport, which means nothing and is very common throughout the sporting world—it is inappropriate and misleading to change their nationality in the lead. And concerning the conflicting reports about Lookman, I have provided both citations on Talk:Ademola Lookman and in a previous edit to his article. Anwegmann (talk) 15:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well fine, but none of my edits can be really be classed as 'vandalism'. Vandalism is a strong word meaning intentional damage or destruction, and I don't think you can fairly describe my edits as that. They might have been premature, granted, but its not fair to say that I was just intentionally ruining articles. And anyway, the Kilman line was in the lead so obviously it was going to be necessarily repetitive as it summed up a point that was made in a detailed section of the article. One way system (talk) 16:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of solved missing person cases, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hannah Foster. 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) 05:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, you are right!  Self-trout Hockeycatcat (talk) 09:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at RAF Lakenheath 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. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:44, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to edit war I will report you to the appropriate editor's page. One way system (talk) 16:48, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of solved missing person cases, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Bulger.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

---

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

---

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Drmies (talk) 00:40, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]