User talk:Docholliday11

If you have any questions about my contributions, feel free to write me a note here, on my talk page, and we can discuss further. Cheers. Docholliday11 (talk) 23:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

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) 01:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024

Hi Docholliday11! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Novak Djokovic several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Novak Djokovic, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:13, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted it because I read the wiki artivle on icons and it supported internationsl event icons on the infobox. Docholliday11 (talk) 21:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Novak Djokovic 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; read about 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. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:38, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read comment above. Use brain. Docholliday11 (talk) 21:39, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And use common sense with wikipedia rules and stop edit warring. There are multiple editors that disagree with you. You should bring it to that talk page and convince them to include it, not force them to include it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense is evidently not do common. Those are guidelines, not some draconian rule book. Wiki is a cesspool of you authority types. Docholliday11 (talk) 21:44, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"They are useful in articles about international sporting events". Straight from the icon guideline page. Olympics is an international event. Docholliday11 (talk) 21:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then it should be easy to convince others you are correct. Bring it to talk on Djokovic's article lest you be brought to administrative attention. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:44, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page for some ridiculous icon lol. Like I said, you authority types ruin this platform. I'm not going to plead for others to read the guideline exceptions. Docholliday11 (talk) 21:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then I guess you are done because that's the way Wikipedia works, by consensus and convincing others. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're done. I have a life. Cheers. Docholliday11 (talk) 22:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Edit warring over linking "Serbian" and "Serbia". Thank you. Thedarkknightli (talk) 16:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Overlinking

You have two choices: Either stop overlininking "Serbia" and "Serbian", or get blocked for disruptive editing. Which do you choose? Cullen328 (talk) 16:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? Im following eceptions clearly stated in the guidelines.

Who are you? did you right those guidelines yourself? or do you just agree with the disgusting insinuations in that chat you and a couple users had about the situation.

I'd like to report both you. You for threatening me for FOLLOWING THE GUIDELINE EXCEPTIONS. As well as that other user making ridiculous remarks and assumptions. Please provide the link where I can do so. Docholliday11 (talk) 19:00, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you made your choice. Goodbye. Cullen328 (talk) 19:03, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want this reviewed immediately. Docholliday11 (talk) 19:04, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And your passive aggressiveness is documented. Docholliday11 (talk) 19:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

September 2024

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:01, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What? Talk about abuse of so called 'power'. I want this reviewed IMMEDIATELY. Docholliday11 (talk) 19:03, 20 September 2024 (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).

Docholliday11 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was blocked INDEFINITELY NOT TEMPORARILY for following clear Wikipedia guidelines and their exceptions. There are both agressive and passive agressive users which decided that I had certain intentions behind my edits. I found these insinuations and accusations disgusting. I am a medical practitioner who is by ethnicity Serbian yes. That does not change the fact that these are not draconian rules that do not have exceptions, but rather GUIDELINES, implemented to steer articles and their information towards a consensus format. They clearly state that a nationality/ethnicity MAY BE LINKED if it is not well known by the GENERAL population. These users who disagree may subjectively believe the terms in question are well known, however I assure you that if we did a survey right now, just in the United States (not the entire world) most would not be able to locate it on a map. I have been editing wiki for YEARS. Please conduct a comprehensive investigation of the situation and change this ban. Please also conduct an investigation into those users who have been in correspondence with me throughout this mess. Some people should not weild such authority. Thank you.Docholliday11 (talk) 19:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You have been edit warring to add disputed links to nationality to articles for years. Your responses when your edits are disputed are overly aggressive and uncollaborative. This is a good block. Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:37, 20 September 2024 (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.

I was blocked INDEFINITELY NOT TEMPORARILY for following clear Wikipedia guidelines and their exceptions. There are both agressive and passive agressive users which decided that I had certain intentions behind my edits. I found these insinuations and accusations disgusting. I am a medical practitioner who is by ethnicity Serbian yes. That does not change the fact that these are not draconian rules that do not have exceptions, but rather GUIDELINES, implemented to steer articles and their information towards a consensus format. They clearly state that a nationality/ethnicity MAY BE LINKED if it is not well known by the GENERAL population. These users who disagree may subjectively believe the terms in question are well known, however I assure you that if we did a survey right now, just in the United States (not the entire world) most would not be able to locate it on a map.

I have been editing wiki for YEARS. Please conduct a comprehensive investigation of the situation and change this ban.

Please also conduct an investigation into those users who have been in correspondence with me throughout this mess. Some people should not weild such authority.

Thank you. Docholliday11 (talk) 19:26, 20 September 2024 (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).

Docholliday11 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I would like this reviewed by someone other than Ponyo. I was blocked INDEFINITELY NOT TEMPORARILY for following clear Wikipedia guidelines and their exceptions. There are both agressive and passive agressive users which decided that I had certain intentions behind my edits. I found these insinuations and accusations disgusting. I am a medical practitioner who is by ethnicity Serbian yes. That does not change the fact that these are not draconian rules that do not have exceptions, but rather GUIDELINES, implemented to steer articles and their information towards a consensus format. They clearly state that a nationality/ethnicity MAY BE LINKED if it is not well known by the GENERAL population. These users who disagree may subjectively believe the terms in question are well known, however I assure you that if we did a survey right now, just in the United States (not the entire world) most would not be able to locate it on a map. I have been editing wiki for YEARS. Please conduct a comprehensive investigation of the situation and change this ban. Please also conduct an investigation into those users who have been in correspondence with me throughout this mess. Some people should not weild such authority. Thank you. Docholliday11 (talk) 20:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Making the same unblock request again isn't going to change anything, and calling out other editors instead of focusing on your actions is a sure fire way to not get unblocked. Your unblock request needs to be about you, your edits and what you will change and the mistakes you madae. It cannot be about others in any way. And you don't get to demand investigations into other users, or any other kind of demand. Feel free to try again with an unblock request, but be aware if you continue to make it about others it will be declined. If you continue to make demands regarding others you may end up with your talk page access being removed. Canterbury Tail talk 21:49, 20 September 2024 (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.

Hello, Docholliday11,

As long as you continue to insist you are right and everyone else is wrong or needs to be investigaged, you will not be unblocked. You have to reflect on your behavior and try to understand why it was seen by the community as disruptive. Without that self-awareness, you are likely go back to your old habits if you are unblocked so the reviewing admin will not unblock you. You have to take some responsibility and indicate that the problems that led to your block won't happen again. If this is too humbling, then you will stay blocked. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:55, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]