Line 367: | Line 367: | ||
And it wasn't vandelism. Also you should read [[WP:DIS]]. [[User:The TriZ|The TriZ]] ([[User talk:The TriZ|talk]]) 15:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC) |
And it wasn't vandelism. Also you should read [[WP:DIS]]. [[User:The TriZ|The TriZ]] ([[User talk:The TriZ|talk]]) 15:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC) |
||
:Yes you should read WPDIS, your edit was nothing more then disruptive. How did it improve the article? Your goal was simple - the provoke, and you suceeded. [[User:Chaldean|Chaldean]] ([[User talk:Chaldean|talk]]) 15:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC) |
:Yes you should read WPDIS, your edit was nothing more then disruptive. How did it improve the article? Your goal was simple - the provoke, and you suceeded. [[User:Chaldean|Chaldean]] ([[User talk:Chaldean|talk]]) 15:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC) |
||
My motive was to correct what was wrong, and it improved the article in a way that the user would feel less confused. We can also discuss your motives. Read the rules, just because i reverted it 4 times and you and your friend 3 times each, doesn't say that much. Why couldn't you accept Syriac language instead of Assyrian language? [[User:The TriZ|The TriZ]] ([[User talk:The TriZ|talk]]) 15:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
== [[User:Francis Schonken]] reported by [[User:Ecoleetage]] (Result: No violation) == |
== [[User:Francis Schonken]] reported by [[User:Ecoleetage]] (Result: No violation) == |
Revision as of 15:42, 15 May 2008
Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard |
---|
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.
You must notify any user you have reported. You may use You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
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. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.
Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
|
Violations
- Please place new reports at the BOTTOM. If you do not see your report, you can search the archives for it.
User:T-1000 reported by SchmuckyTheCat (talk) (Result: 48 hours)
- Three-revert rule violation on People's Republic of China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). T-1000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 03:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: [1]
- Diff of 3RR warning: [6]
User:Boodlesthecat reported by User:Poeticbent (Result: no violation)
- Three-revert rule violation on Ghetto benches (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Boodlesthecat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 18:19, 12 May 2008
- 1st revert: 16:56, 12 May 2008
- 2nd revert: 16:58, 12 May 2008
- 3rd revert: 17:33, 12 May 2008
- 4th revert: 18:19, 12 May 2008
- Diff of 3RR warning: 18:31, 12 May 2008
- There are not 4 reversions above, and if you look at the edit history, it shows User:Poeticbent instigating an edit war, reverting demonstrably false claims, and reverting offensive claims regarding Jews in Poland. Boodlesthecat Meow? 18:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Please refrain from manipulating facts. You have been warned repeatedly against your POV crusade today after you engaged in edit war deleting my contributions and using offensive summaries. --Poeticbent talk 19:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- No violation. #1 & #2 are sequential and count as one revert. Spartaz Humbug! 19:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- I disagree. Our policy clearly states:
- An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time.
- Reverts #1 & #2 were about different parts of my well balanced single contribution, each time. They were independent of each other. --Poeticbent talk 19:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
User:All Hallow's Wraith reported by User:emerson7 (Result: Stale/No vio )
- Three-revert rule violation on Leslie Jordan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). All Hallow's Wraith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: [7]
over a period of several weeks this user has engaged in warring by systematically reverting my edits on dozens and dozens of other articles with little or no effort discuss. --emerson7 20:10, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, that makes it 3 reverts, not 4 (for the 4th, User:emerson7 provided the odd url of "http://DIFFS DIFFTIME"). As for this "edit war", the nexus of this dispute is contained in User:emerson7's post to the administrator's noticeboard in April, my reply to it, and that of others, all of which are contained here. Previous discussion about this dispute was going on between me and emerson7, and is archived here. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 21:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Stale. No violation either. But don't game the system User: All Hallow's Wraith. ScarianCall me Pat! 00:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
User:Nat reported by User:GreenJoe (Result:no action)
- Three-revert rule violation on Template:Ont post-secondary (edit | [[Talk:Template:Ont post-secondary|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Nat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: [12]
- Diff of 3RR warning: [16]
He only reverted 3 times, but he's an admin and should know better. GreenJoe 00:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm gonna need a better reason than "he should know better" to block someone for three reverts, especially when his opponent in the dispute has reverted one fewer than that. Suggest heading for dispute resolution. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- No offense, but DR doesn't work. He's an admin, yet he reverted 3 times. He really should know better. He failed to use the talk page too. GreenJoe 00:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Every time I give a source which clearly backs my edits, he reverts. I understand that both sides are responsible for their actions in an edit war, and I accept my responsibility in this edit war, however, If you can see, I have given (1) a reasonable rationale each time, (2) provided a source for my edits, (3) the second one was not a full revert as I have provided a citation for my edit. nat.utoronto 00:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Good, then block yourself. GreenJoe 00:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- To make myself clear, if no action is taken on this, I'll leave Wikipedia for good. GreenJoe 00:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Blocking someone "because they should know better" strikes me as nothing if not punitive. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Along with the fact that 3RR has not really been violated seeing as he did not revert more than three times. Tiptoety talk 00:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- The notice itself says you can be blocked even if you don't revert 4 times. Of course it's punitive, that's the point of 3RR. GreenJoe 00:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- No, the point of 3RR is to prevent edit wars. All blocking at Wikipedia is supposed to preventative rather than punitive. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- The notice itself says you can be blocked even if you don't revert 4 times. Of course it's punitive, that's the point of 3RR. GreenJoe 00:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Along with the fact that 3RR has not really been violated seeing as he did not revert more than three times. Tiptoety talk 00:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Blocking someone "because they should know better" strikes me as nothing if not punitive. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- To make myself clear, if no action is taken on this, I'll leave Wikipedia for good. GreenJoe 00:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Good, then block yourself. GreenJoe 00:34, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
User:Red4tribe reported by User:The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick (Result: blocked two weeks)
- Three-revert rule violation "in spirit" on Italian Empire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Red4tribe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
User has just come off a week-long block for 3RR violations and pleas from several editors to stop adding self-made maps at Dutch Empire using his own interpretation of sources, usually consisting of self published websites, and is now at it again at Italian Empire.
- Previous version reverted to: 17:05, 14 April 2008
- 1st revert: 16:12, 13 May 2008
- 2nd revert: 16:33, 13 May 2008
- 3rd revert: 16:59, 13 May 2008
Reversions were done prior to any engagement on the talk page. 17:26, 13 May 2008
Note that this is not a technical violation of 3RR, more of a breach "in spirit". As he pays no attention to my requests [17], even if a block is not forthcoming, a stern warning should be given on his talk page, where incidentally his previous warnings were deleted [18]. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 21:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- In defense of myself, every time I attempt to reason with the one above me, he becomes completley ignorant, saying whatever reference I post is undreliable. The same has come with this new map. I reverted 2 times, not 3. (Red4tribe (talk) 21:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC))
- For the second time, after a revert report on this page, Red4tribe has resorted to sockpuppetry to get his maps on WP. Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Red4tribe The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:44, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- I was unaware that forgeting to log into your account when attempting to make a quick edit=sockpuppet. Very interesting, so if I forget to log into my account, as I'm sure many others have, they are breaking the rules and thefore should be blocked. (Red4tribe (talk) 01:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC))
- Blocked for two weeks - the accidental logout explanation doesn't fly given the timing and was looked upon quite harshly by me. east.718 at 03:19, May 14, 2008
- I was unaware that forgeting to log into your account when attempting to make a quick edit=sockpuppet. Very interesting, so if I forget to log into my account, as I'm sure many others have, they are breaking the rules and thefore should be blocked. (Red4tribe (talk) 01:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC))
- Three-revert rule violation on Metalhead (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Badagnani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: [19]
- 1st revert: 19:01, 9 May 2008
- 2nd revert: 19:00, 12 May 2008
- 3rd revert: 19:04, 12 May 2008
- 4th revert: 19:13, 12 May 2008
- Diff of 3RR warning: 19:18, 12 May 2008
I left a message on both the metalhead and heavy metal fashion articles a while back saying I was going to eventually delete most everything in those articles, because they were both full of original research with perhaps one source each. I proceeded to do this only to have User:badagnani continually revert me and not seem to understand the situation. At first he would not respond to my numerous warnings and comments. Eventually he did respond and we conversed on my talk page and his. He broke 3RR on both pages. He seems to think deleting information like that is unhelpful to readers who may want to know some information about the subject. I told him that didn't matter and that we can't let people read misionformation either but he didn't seem to get it. I told him I deleted the information I did per WP:OR as it was all original research and that by reverting me he was also violating WP:V. It doesn't matter what "truth" is. If it can't be verified and reliably sourced then it shouldn't be there. I would also like t point out that both of those article were filled with blatant information and the article seemed like they were written by children who had no idea what they were talking about. He refused to back down, though. He has at least improved heavy metal fashion to some degree with some sources but I would kindly ask for a block as he does not seem to understand wikipedia rules and refuses to understand them even after I cited WP:OR and WP:V which he was in gross violation of. I wouldn't mind if someone would tell him why he was wron, too, so he understand as he didn't seem to believe me or care. Either reason is dangerous. He needs to understand how wikipedia works. We don't go ahead and leave articles in bad condition so readers can read and try to improve them later. It's the other way around. We can't let readers read such misinformation and need to verify things with reliabel sources before they appear for readers to see. It seems he has it all backwards and his attitude is dangerous to wikipedia. He would leave horrible and inaccurate articles up just so readers could get a "feel" for the subject or something inane like that. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 22:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
- I have blocked Navnlos for 72 hours for breaking WP:3RR and I have also blocked Badagnani for 48 hours for edit warring. Bad. did not specifically have 4 reverts, but was still edit warring. ScarianCall me Pat! 23:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
User:The Rogue Penguin reported by User:Muramasa_itachi (Result: 48h for both)
- Three-revert rule violation on Ichigo Kurosaki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The Rogue Penguin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 7:38 PM, May 13 00:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 00:29, 14 May 2008
- 1st revert: 00:33, 14 May 2008
- 2nd revert: 00:29, 14 May 2008
- 3rd revert: 00:26, 14 May 2008
- 4th revert: 22:17, 8 May 2008
- Diff of 3RR warning: 00:27, 14 May 2008
He's being completely ignorant of the source I'm giving him, claiming it doesn't exist, then goes on to cite original research as a means to trump my argument. He refused to participate in the discussion at the talk page after a while rather childishly. Check the talk page for more. Admittedly, I'm edit warring with him by responding to his reverts, but I'm willing to take whatever punishment is involved with that to have this resolved. Also, understand that I'm offering valid sources, and support of a third opinion, in backing my edits while he has nothing but his own interpretation of a scene to back his. StardustDragon 00:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Both blocked 48 hours for edit warring and various disruptive tactics. east.718 at 03:07, May 14, 2008
User:Panel_2008 reported by User:Buffer v2 (Result: 48 hour block )
- Three-revert rule violation on Central Europe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Panel_2008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 21:45, May 13, 2008
- 1st revert: 21:20, May 13, 2008
- 2nd revert: 21:24, May 13, 2008
- 3rd revert: 21:27, May 13, 2008
- 4th revert: 21:39, May 13, 2008
- Diff of 3RR warning: 06:00, April 18, 2008 + also warned in the comment section of the history page by 221.114.141.220 + countless of others in his talk page - fully aware of the rules.
Also note that this user is connected to a much larger ongoing problem - to keep it short - edit warring on Central Europe has been going on for months - Panel_2008 is a major party. After weeks of edit warring, consensus was reached with Proposal II. He violated consensus and continued edit warring (the only party to do so - the only problem). This led to mediation - see here where the mediator ruled with the majority, and warned Panel_2008 of his actions, and the consequences of it. He has ignored those warnings, and is continuing in the edit warring which leads us here. The mediator as a neutral party has avoided filling out any reports, but has recommended to the rest to fill out AIN or 3RR reports. Also, he not only vandalizes pages by ignoring consensus, and through edit warring, but he also attacks other users - as seen in the mediation, and the discussion page of Central Europe.
- Panel 2008 and 221.114.141.220 blocked, EconomistBR warned. east.718 at 05:40, May 14, 2008
User:KrytenKoro reported by User:Sesshomaru (Result: Stale. )
- Three-revert rule violation on Link (The Legend of Zelda) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). KrytenKoro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 00:54, 14 May 2008
- 1st revert: 15:23, 13 May 2008
- 2nd revert: 18:50, 13 May 2008
- 3rd revert: 22:08, 13 May 2008
- 4th revert: 00:54, 14 May 2008
- Diff of 3RR warning: 00:30, 14 May 2008
User is plainly uncivil, claims my good faith edits are vandalism, and makes personal attacks while edit warring on the Link page in spite of the discussion there. He goes as far as accusing me of wiki-lawyering and does not listen to my advice on the talk page or in my edit summaries directed to him. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 13:29, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- User hasn't reverted since early this morning, ergo, it's stale. ScarianCall me Pat! 13:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Regardless, he has violated the 3RR within a 24-hour time period and this policy agrees with me. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 14:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't agree that this is stale. 13 hours, especially when the edit warring user's revision is the top revision (thus giving no need to revert, and making the thirteen hours rather meaningless) is not long enough to be considered stale. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:28, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Regardless, he has violated the 3RR within a 24-hour time period and this policy agrees with me. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 14:13, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, both of you, blocking is used as a preventative measure to protect the encyclopaedia. It is not used as a "punishment". Please be aware of that. If the user hasn't reverted that article for 13 hours then it's stale. Thanks. ScarianCall me Pat! 14:38, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Agree with Scarian here. However, if either user were to resume revert-warring on this article in the near future, I would be inclined to block (or endorse such) regardless of whether the 3-revert limit is technically exceeded. CIreland (talk) 14:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Three-revert rule does not, in any way, suggest that "if the user hasn't reverted that article for 13 hours then it's stale". I would like to hear a better arguement than this. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 15:03, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- No one is going to argue with you because you're trying to fight against common sense. Arguing over the spelling of a Japanese word, on the other hand, isn't something to be proud of. Case closed. ScarianCall me Pat! 15:45, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment ... note that Sess (the accuser) has himself made 4 reverts in a 24 hour period on that same article (I tried to help him with a gentle warning but he removed this from his talk page saying he had "acknowledged them") ... also note the weight of reasoning from KrytenKoro compared to that from Sess ... also note the apparent expertise from K versus S ... note also the baiting and accusing tone from Sess almost from the beginning. Technicalities aside, there is only one guilty party here and it is not User:KrytenKoro. Abtract (talk) 18:04, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Stale Stifle (talk) 18:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with Scarian and Stifle on the disposition of this case. The only other reasonable option would have been to block both parties, which you probably would not do over a single accent mark. See WP:LAME. EdJohnston (talk) 03:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
User:98.221.171.223 (aka User:Cosprings?) reported by User:216.185.5.254 (Result: Article protected. )
- Three-revert rule violation on J Dilla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 98.221.171.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 19:54, 4 May 2008
This user is continually undoing the improved grammar, spelling, style, and facts to make a point that actually takes away from the article, as you can read in the edit summaries. Whoever it is, he or she refuses to take the matter up privately. I feel that his or her editing or reverting improved Wikipedia articles is not the right outlet.
- Protected for 1 week. ScarianCall me Pat! 18:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, it seems the user logged in under his normal name and just reverted it again. If you look at what's being undone, he is taking out all the improvements, primarily because he seems to disagree with the inclusion of just one fact due to it being quoted on a blog. His edit warring continues, just under another name. 216.185.5.254 (talk) 19:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs.
- See above. 216.185.5.254 (talk) 13:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
User:Duck You reported by User:AgnosticPreachersKid (Result: 24 hours)
- Three-revert rule violation on UP Sigma Rho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Duck You (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 06:44 15 May
- 1st revert: 02:34 15 May
- 2nd revert: 03:34 15 May
- 3rd revert: 05:42 15 May
- 4th revert: 06:35 15 May
- 5th revert: 06:42 15 May
- 6th revert: 06:47 15 May
- Diff of 3RR warning: 06:46, May 15
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours by User:Luna Santin. Stifle (talk) 10:13, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
User:Folken de Fanel reported by User:Buspar (Result: Protected)
- Three-revert rule violation on G-On Riders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Folken de Fanel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 09:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: [25]
- Diff of 3RR warning: [30]
Note that according to the block log for this editor, this constitutes the fourth time Folken de Fanel has violated 3RR. Buspar (talk) 09:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed it does. However, I think that both of you contributed equally to the edit war. Buspar has three reverts in 10 hours and four reverts in 29, while Folken de Fanel has three reverts in 9 hours and 4 in 16. I'm inclined to block both of you for edit warring but I suspect the block would be overturned as Buspar has technically not violated 3RR, so I'll protect the page instead. Page protected Stifle (talk) 10:20, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
3RR doesn't apply to vandalism. I've reverted copyright vandalism from Buspar. This user had previously been warned various times about violations of the Copyright and External Links policies.Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- The reverts were most assuredly not vandalism, and violations of WP:EL are not (yet) on the growing list of 3RR exemptions. Stifle (talk) 13:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
User:Koavf reported by User:A_Jalil (Result: 48 hours)
- Three-revert rule violation. Revert parole violation of ArbCom Enforcement on Pan-Arab colors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Koavf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 10:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 21:27, 4 May 2008
- 1st revert: 06:57, 14 May 2008
- 2nd revert: 19:00, 14 May 2008
- User User:Koavf is under 1RR parole by ArbCom due to his edit-warring style and other disruptive behaviour. He has reverted twice within about 12h. --A Jalil (talk) 10:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Should really be placed at WP:AE, but Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Stifle (talk) 13:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
User:The TriZ reported by User:Chaldean (Result: )
- Three-revert rule violation on Zelge Fans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The TriZ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 23:03, 3 April 2008 with the addition of "Assyrian" being linked to Assyrian language.
- 1st revert: 19:37, 14 May 2008
- 2nd revert: 12:43, 15 May 2008
- 3rd revert: 12:50, 15 May 2008
- 4th revert: 12:58, 15 May 2008
- Diff of 3RR warning: 13:05, 15 May 2008, but the user blows it off. His edit is nothing more then a provocation edit. I have tried to get the two sides to work together in the Wikipedia:Assyrian-Syriac wikipedia cooperation board, but "TriZ" edit is pure vandelism. The language is known as Syriac and Assyrian. We have somewhat agreed in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Assyrian/Chaldean/Syriac) that any Assyrian-related articles would use "Assyrian" and in any Syriac-related articles we would use Syriac. But obviously "TriZ" isn't up for working together or anything like that. Chaldean (talk) 13:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Now, see, that is a lie, we have not agreed to call the language Assyrian, sure there is Assyrian Neo-Aramaic, but in this case, the word "Neshre" is not Assyrian Neo-Aramaic, it is Syriac and if you want to call it something else, then call it Turoyo, cause the word is used in Turoyo to. And the reverts were provocated by Chaldean. He reverted the article himself twice and his friend twice to. Obviously he "tricked" me to fall in the trap so he could report me. Whatever the decision may be, I will understand it cause i broke the rule. Though I just don't like the methods used by Chaldean and his friend in this case. The TriZ (talk) 13:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Now, see, that is a lie, we have not agreed to call the language Assyrian - See Assyrian language page. It does exist. Chaldean (talk) 13:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Point is? The word "Neshre" is Turoyo and Syriac. Why redicret it to Assyrian Language then? It's just a disambiguation page. There aren't really any language with the name Assyrian. The only language with Assyrian is the Modern Eastern Syriac, Assyrian Neo-Aramaic. And the word isn't Assyrian Neo-Aramaic. The TriZ (talk) 14:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- This isn't the place to discuss. You could've done this in the talk page of Zelge Fans, but you opted to revert rathern then discuss. For the record, Syriac Language is also known as Assyrian language, but its known more as Syriac language in English. Just like how Assyrian genocide is the term more widely used in the English language rather then "Syriac genocide." Chaldean (talk) 14:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Now your really off-topic. I've only tried to explain my reverts, and that you and user:WestAssyrian co-worked with eachother by reverting the article twice each. Using such methods in wikipedia, I personally believe shouldn't be accepted either. The TriZ (talk) 14:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
You yourself has reverted the article three times and so has your friend user:WestAssyrian. I said twice before, but that was wrong. The TriZ (talk) 14:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Reverting vandelism multiple times is ok. Please read the rules. Chaldean (talk) 15:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- The TriZ has not reverted since his 3RR warning. Let's wait a few hours to be sure the reverting has stopped. I do encourage TriZ to join the Wikipedia:Assyrian-Syriac wikipedia cooperation board. EdJohnston (talk) 15:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Have you read them?
"reverts to remove simple and obvious vandalism, such as graffiti or page blanking – this exception applies only to the most simple and obvious vandalism, the kind that is immediately apparent to anyone reviewing the last edit. It is not sufficient if the vandalism is simply apparent to those contributing to the article, those familiar with the subject matter, or those removing the vandalism itself."
And it wasn't vandelism. Also you should read WP:DIS. The TriZ (talk) 15:16, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes you should read WPDIS, your edit was nothing more then disruptive. How did it improve the article? Your goal was simple - the provoke, and you suceeded. Chaldean (talk) 15:38, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
My motive was to correct what was wrong, and it improved the article in a way that the user would feel less confused. We can also discuss your motives. Read the rules, just because i reverted it 4 times and you and your friend 3 times each, doesn't say that much. Why couldn't you accept Syriac language instead of Assyrian language? The TriZ (talk) 15:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
User:Francis Schonken reported by User:Ecoleetage (Result: No violation)
- Three-revert rule violation on Pontius Pilate's wife (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Francis Schonken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: 22:09, 14 May 2008 [31] The editor in question has repeatedly deleted referenced text, despite requests to cooperate with the other editors involved in this article's expansion.
- I genuinely want to work with my fellow editors on improving and expanding this article. But this editor has repeatedly deleted relevant text (including properly referenced text) simply because he doesn't like it (check the history of the article for his comment "Sorry, this is not good enough"). Thank you for your input and assistance in this matter. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
- No violation - a violation occurs when four reverts are made within a 24-hour period. I suggest discussing it with the involved users on the talk page. --B (talk) 14:56, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Example
<!-- COPY FROM BELOW THIS LINE --> == [[User:NAME_OF_USER]] reported by [[User:YOUR_NAME]] (Result: ) == *[[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|Three-revert rule]] violation on {{Article|ARTICLE NAME}}. {{3RRV|NAME_OF_USER}}: Time reported: ~~~~~ *Previous version reverted to: [http://VersionLink VersionTime] <!-- This is MANDATORY. --> <!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to. The previous version reverted to must be a version from an earlier time than either of the two versions being compared in a diff. --> <!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff or Wikipedia:Simplest_diff_guide if you do not know what a diff is. --> *1st revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME] *2nd revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME] *3rd revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME] *4th revert: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME] *Diff of 3RR warning: [http://DIFFS DIFFTIME] <!-- COPY FROM ABOVE THIS LINE -->
See also
- Help:Diff or Wikipedia:Simplest diff guide
- 3RR report helper tool – helps simplify diff gathering and reporting. Be sure to remove non-reverts from the report or it may be rejected.