User talk:Nuked

Please don't add mid-session scores. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 10:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Mattythewhite. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Mathieu Valbuena has been undone because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Wiae. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to 88th Academy Awards— because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. /wiae /tlk 22:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, please do not add fixtures like you did here at 2015–16 Leicester City F.C. season. It is not allowed and should be removed on sight. Qed237 (talk) 00:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

As I said, they are not allowed. This has to do with Copyright Laws, and we can not show fixtures. Accept it or get blocked. Qed237 (talk) 11:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at 2015–16 Leicester City F.C. season. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• 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, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Qed237 (talk) 11:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

The fixtures has been discussed on multiple times and you can read more at

• http://www.inbrief.co.uk/football-law/reproduce-fa-fixtures-on-website.htm
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 70#Premier League fixtures
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 83#Season articles
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 82#La Liga fixtures copyright?
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 79#List of fixtures on club season pages

Happy reading. Qed237 (talk) 12:08, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Inbrief are very clear:

• If you wish to reproduce the fixture list or any part of it on your website or in your publication the Football Association would expect you to pay a licence fee for the use of this information.
• If you mention more than one fixture this will not be accepted and you will be found to be in breach of Copyright laws.

Wikipedia as a free organisation can not take the risk of being put in front of court for not paying license fees so we should not list fixtures. Qed237 (talk) 13:50, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

That is YOUR interpretation, not a wikipedia policy.Nuked (talk) 13:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Whether or not you believe fixtures can be copyrighted is beside the point. For the Premier League, Football League and Scottish leagues, the formulation of the fixtures and the fixtures themselves are protected by intellectual property law and thus they cannot be replicated without a licence. For leagues covered by the Football DataCo licence, Fair Use permits us to list the team's very next fixture, but no more. This is easily searchable online, so I suggest you do that. – PeeJay 13:53, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

If you wish to debate something with me, I suggest YOU reference the articles that back YOUR argument. Until then, stop wasting my time. Nuked (talk) 13:57, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Sir, you are the one wasting everyone else's time by making us clean up after you. You have been told by multiple experienced editors that you are in the wrong, so I suggest you get off your high horse, take our advice and stop. – PeeJay 14:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Sir, I'm sure your experience with journalism means you appreciate the difference between just saying something is wrong and proving something is wrong. You and Qed237 have both expressed your disagreement with my stance, but neither of you have proven anything. And in fact it cannot be proven neither right or wrong, because it is a question of opinions. Whether you have seniority or not does not simply mean I am wrong. Plenty of users have, in the links posted to me by Qed237, expressed disagreement with these fixtures. And in fact one user referenced how a court case had ruled the fixtures "uncopyrightable" - what happened to the appeal I have not been able to find out. Until then, those fixtures stand. Unless of course you can ARGUE your point instead of just pulling seniority. Nuked (talk) 14:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at 2015–16 Leicester City F.C. season shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Qed237 (talk) 15:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

That's funny, you seem to be the one undoing my contributions, yet YOU post a notice to ME? As far as I can see, there is no reason you are more right than I am. Your only argument has been a couple of old discussions that were never resolved, much less reached any conclusion or consensus on. I suggest you post this same notice to yourself. Nuked (talk) 16:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

You have been given links to places that say it is copyright and it can not be added. Qed237 (talk) 16:20, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

You should probably reread those links. The copyright eligibility is highly doubtful (in the last link a court case is referenced that suggests future fixtures are entirely ineligible for copyright) and there was never reached a consensus. Nuked (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Just for reference, the fixtures haven't been copyrighted since 2012 (see here), so feel free to add them (I have added them back to the Leicester article). Cheers, Number 57 13:54, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, User:Number 57. User:Qed237 would have known this, had they simply bothered to read the same discussions they asked me to read. Nuked (talk) 14:14, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

There are still multiple users opposing fixtures and it does not mean that you are allowed to edit war. Qed237 (talk) 14:44, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Dude, there have to be at least two parties to an "edit war" - you were definitely a party in that "war". I didn't know about the rule, I do now. I haven't reverted anything in the last 24 hours, but you continue your mindless reverting, even after you've been told by at least three users that future fixtures are not copyrighted! You're just as much at fault as I am, perhaps even more because you have been doing this for almost three years and ought to be well-versed in the rules. So get off your high horse! Nuked (talk) 15:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

And now I see that you've not been truthful and knew that future fixtures weren't under copyright anymore. You chose very selectively in linking the discussions, even though one of them still proved fixtures weren't copyrighted, and completely omitted a vital discussion (https://en.wikipedia.orghttps://wikious.com/en/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_88#Season_article_fixture_lists) that you were even a part of, and which proved, without shadow of a doubt, that fixtures aren't copyrighted. So if I've learned anything at all, it is that I don't want to be a part of the wikipedia editor community. Forpulede svensker! Nuked (talk) 17:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Don't be childish. No one has acted in bad faith here. I didn't know until today that fixtures could no longer be copyrighted, and I'm sure Qed237 was acting on the same out-of-date info (for the most part). By starting a discussion, we have sorted this out in a pretty quick manner, which is how Wikipedia is supposed to work. You can quit, sure, but you'll only be depriving yourself of future positive experiences of actually helping the site. – PeeJay 21:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

You know what, fuck off, Peejay. You acted childish when you pulled rank/seniority rather than actually discussing the issue. I've never been an active part of the wikipedia editing community and I'm not starting now, because of Qed237 and you. Qed237 asked me to read four different discussions, the most recent one being from December of 2013, AFAIR. Now it turns out, he was a part of an even more recent discussion in which it is pretty clearly proven that future fixtures are not under copyright. Why the selective memory from qed237? Maybe because he's a stupid cunt, just like you. Probably, yeah. Now just fuck off. We have nothing more to say to each other. Nuked (talk) 23:05, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Pal, I dgaf about the details, but telling people to fuck off is prob not the right thing. Just saying... _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 23:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd probably agree with you, if earlier in the discussions, PeeJay hadn't left this comment: "Sir, you are the one wasting everyone else's time by making us clean up after you. You have been told by multiple experienced editors that you are in the wrong, so I suggest you get off your high horse, take our advice and stop." THEY were the ones wasting MY time. THEY (the experienced editors) were the ones in the wrong. THEY needed to get off their high horses. AND in another comment he said "For leagues covered by the Football DataCo licence, Fair Use permits us to list the team's very next fixture, but no more. This is easily searchable online, so I suggest you do that." which, if he had actually done the search online which was so fucking easy according to him, he would have discovered just how wrong he was, fairly "easily". But he couldn't be bothered, and only told ME to look up HIS arguments. The gall is simply infuriating, and I needed to let off some steam. I doubt Peejay will even respond, so let's not get too bogged down on the details. He is a cunt and he should fuck off. Nuked (talk) 23:52, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

And btw, this is all easily searchable on Google, so maybe you should do that...! Nuked (talk) 23:08, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

You want me to Google it??? That was pretty fucking specialist though! But obviously you meant it in the context of assuming good faith, we all understand that. Nice one! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 09:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: I don't know if you're trolling or not, so just to be clear, that comment wasn't directed at you. It was written 30 minutes before you commented. It was a reference to Peejay's claim that it was easy to look up online how future fixtures are copyrighted. Nuked (talk) 09:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

That's one helluva apt username you got! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 11:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, you can fuck off now, kid. Nuked (talk) 11:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Nuked reported by User:Qed237 (Result: ). Thank you. Qed237 (talk) 16:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. Your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System.  — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 10:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)