User talk:Ping909

Renaming pages

Welcome, Ping909! Wikipedia has a special procedure for renaming or moving pages that preserve the edit history for proper attribution under its license. If the relevant pages have banners at the top that a move discussion is ongoing, please wait seven days, then ask for it to be closed at closure requests. The closer will move any pages as needed. If there is no open discussion, you can ask the technical move requests board to determine if the page can just be renamed or if the move needs a discussion first. For help on other aspects of editing Wikipedia, please feel free to go to the Teahouse. Thank you, Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 17:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign Secretary

Hello Ping909. I see that you have made a number of recent edits, including to John Major, Philip Hammond and Robin Cook, which changed "Foreign Secretary" to "Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs". Sorry, but I don't think these changes are improvements, so I have reverted you in both those instances. As per WP:BRD, perhaps you could open a discussion thread at the respective Talk pages to discuss them and get the views of other editors? Thanks so much. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

sorry pal but thats literally just conforming with other foreign secretary pages, as i quite clearly commented on my edit note. david lammy, david cameron, liz truss, boris johnson, jeremy hunt and more all say secretary of state for foreign (and commonwealth (and development)) affairs on each page. not sure why you've reverted my edit intended to encourage pages of holders of the same office to conform with each other. Ping909 (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I wonder could you clarify the basis of consistency with Liz Truss article? It's rather disappointing that you have immediately stared to edit war at Philip Hammond, instead of opening a discussion thread at the Talk page there. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

how is that an edit war? i reverted your edit because its disruptive and unnecessary, its such a trivial issue and im changing the name to conform with other foreign secretaries' pages and youve blown the issue out of proportion. Ping909 (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BRD suggests that the correct course of action is to discuss, not simply revert. I don't regard my edit as "disruptive", it's a simple revert, with a clear explanatory edit summary. I await your input at Philip Hammond. But I'd be grateful if you would clarify here with regard to Liz Truss. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i didnt edit liz truss? Ping909 (talk) 22:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary here (and elsewhere) says: "conforming with other foreign secretary pages, see david lammy, liz truss, david cameron, boris johnson, jeremy hunt, james cleverly, dominic raab etc who all have their office as secretary of state for foreign and commonwealth affairs rather than foreign secretary.". Martinevans123 (talk) 08:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yes, who are all former foreign secretaries and all who have their office listed as Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs rather than Foreign Secretary Ping909 (talk) 14:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually even looked at the Liz Truss article? Where does it use "Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs"? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

under ministerial offices in the infobox, it VERY VERY CLEARLY uses that title Ping909 (talk) 17:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's only visible when the list is uncollapsed. It's the only use of that title in that entire article. It just redirects to Foreign Secretary anyway. That's the usual name used as the title of the article. Putting the "official" full name in the infobox is wholly unnecessary and is a inconsistent with use in all of the text of the article, and in all of the relevant sources. I see no added value to the reader. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

regardless, the infobox on her article and countless other foreign secretaries includes the full title. my edits support infoboxes conforming Ping909 (talk) 18:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you will put your case at Talk:Philip Hammond. I hope other editors will give their views. The last round of such changes was reverted as not necessary. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

again pal, i dont see why you think your opinion reigns supreme over wikipedia, my edit was ensuring that infoboxes conform which is completely necessary Ping909 (talk) 18:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When was Robin Cook ever "Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs"? If the aim is to get "consistency", then just using "Defence Secretary" will provide that for all. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

robin cook was foreign secretary, pal. i changed his infobox title to Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, because that was his formal title and conforms with the other pages - i didnt add development on his page Ping909 (talk) 14:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We recently saw simiar efforts relating to Home Secretary e.g. this which was reverted by consensus. The user concerned, User:Shooboo23, was revealed to be a sockpuppet of Benga502 and was indefinitely blocked. Purely by coincidence they were also interested in the format of Foreign Secretary. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC) p.s. I am not your "pal".[reply]

accuse me of sockpuppetting all you want, but im supporting infoboxes conforming, not sure how you can compare that to disruption and sockpuppeteering Ping909 (talk) 14:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do have against upper case letters in edit summaries? What did User:Shooboo23 have against them? Cheers. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

accusing me of sockpuppeteering based on me not using capital letters? discrimination much. Ping909 (talk) 14:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

good luck Ping909. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

good luck with your disruptive editing, Martinevans123. Ping909 (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you regard my editing as disruptive, the appropriate venue to report it is WP:AN/I. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January 2025

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.

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]