In my view, the sections you have been contributing to regarding state of origin football do not need any further quotes. These sections already read somewhat stiltedly with a string of player quotes with no context. Thanks. Aspirex (talk) 06:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to spend a lot of time arguing with you this year. From your language style and editing patterns, you are clearly the same editor who previously edited under the name User:SportsEditor518. There is an article ban on you relating to Interstate matches in Australian rules football which you are evading with your new user name. The fact that I have copyedited your contributions down (addressing style, grammar and due weight issues) rather than deleting them outright represents good faith on my part. But if you revert my copyedit again, I'm going to report you for sockpuppetry and block evasion. Aspirex (talk) 11:22, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what your talking about. There is nothing wrong with my style and grammar. And if you want to talk about Due Weight there is a lot of things that you deleted that aren't covered in your version, which describe the fabric of Interstate football. And most importantly everything I've added is sourced. So if you have problems with sourced material or style there are proper avenues to go down, I suggest you go down one of those.Qwermnbv12 (talk) 11:48, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• What I have done now is the following. I have noticed now that the exact same content from Interstate matches in Australian rules football was already on the three team pages (Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia) in the same level of detail. That content is better suited to those team pages, and having it in the same level of detail on the overall interstate football page bogs it down. I've done minor edits to fix up the grammar and remove some of the puffing on those team pages (and I believe there are still improvements to be made in style and overall flow of the text), but I've left the vast majority of the content in tact and have no intention to make any other major deletions from those team pages. I've then reverted to the summary style on the overall interstate football page. That seems like a fair and reasonable solution, wouldn't you say? Aspirex (talk) 23:20, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SportsEditor518. Thank you.

No you've completely ignored the Victorian perspective of where their side of the rivalry stems from. It's unbalanced. Also the content is also relevant on the Interstate matches in Australian rules football page, therefore it should be there. People mightn go to those pages and therefore mightn see it.Qwermnbv12 (talk) 01:59, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy for you to do the edits you have in terms of grammar.Qwermnbv12 (talk) 02:10, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Your account has been blocked indefinitely because it is believed to be a sock puppet of SportsEditor518 (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is permitted, but using them for illegitimate reasons is prohibited, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked (or were blocked in error), you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text ((unblock|Your reason here ~~~~)) below. We apologize for any inconvenience you have experienced. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:47, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]