Portuguese Man o' War (talk | contribs) →User:79.223.30.75 reported by Buggie111 (talk) (Result: 24 hours): Special:Contributions/91.10.26.140, too |
|||
Line 341: | Line 341: | ||
*{{AN3|b|24 hours}} [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] ([[User talk:Parsecboy|talk]]) 20:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC) |
*{{AN3|b|24 hours}} [[User:Parsecboy|Parsecboy]] ([[User talk:Parsecboy|talk]]) 20:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC) |
||
*: [[Special:Contributions/91.10.26.140]] would seem to be the same person... same reverts. —[[User:Portuguese Man o' War|Portuguese Man o' War]] 21:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== [[User:Halaqah]] reported by [[User:Tamsier]] (Result: ) == |
== [[User:Halaqah]] reported by [[User:Tamsier]] (Result: ) == |
Revision as of 21:04, 24 September 2011
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. |
|
User:Artiomjar reported by User:Jc3s5h (Result: 24h)
Page: Mobile phone radiation and health (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Artiomjar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 12:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 17:35, 28 August 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 447032035 by Bhny (talk) People can die from mobile phone radiation exposure")
- 17:55, 20 September 2011 (edit summary: "/* Effects */ Mobile phone radiation can lead to death. here is the proof: http://writenow.wordpress.com/2008/03/30/brain-expert-says-cell-phones-may-be-deadly/")
- 10:20, 21 September 2011 (edit summary: "/* Non-thermal effects */")
- 17:26, 21 September 2011 (edit summary: "/* Non-thermal effects */ Mobile phone radiation can lead you to premature death.")
- 17:29, 21 September 2011 (edit summary: "/* Mortality */")
- 09:48, 22 September 2011 (edit summary: "/* Non-thermal effects */ People can die from mobile phone radiation exposure.")
- 10:01, 22 September 2011 (edit summary: "/* Mortality */")
- Diff of warning: here
—Jc3s5h (talk) 12:29, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- Result: 24 hours for long-term edit warring. The reverts have been going on since August and Artiomjar has never commented on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 20:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
User:Godmadeuniverse1 reported by User:Darkwind (Result: 48h)
Page: Rio Dell, California (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Godmadeuniverse1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [1]
- 1st revert: [2]
- 2nd revert: [3]
- 3rd revert: [4]
- 4th revert: [5]
- 5th revert: [6]
- 6th revert: [7]
- 7th revert: [8]
- 8th revert: [9]
- 9th revert: [10]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [11] and [12]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [13]
Comments:
This editor has not responded at all to my attempts to discuss their edits, whether on the article talk page, their talk page, or even via edit summary. Additionally, there are two IP edits that introduced the same content immediately prior to this string of reverts, which leads me to believe they are also by this editor. —Darkwind (talk) 14:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- Result: 48 hours for long-term edit warring. User has reverted the same article 9 times since 17 September. The identical reverts always change 'opposite-sex' to 'heterosexual' and 'same-sex' to 'homosexual'. The user has never participated on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 23:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
User:41.133.47.137 reported by User:MikeWazowski (Result: semi-protected)
Page: Shepperton Design Studios (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 41.133.47.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [14]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [19] and [20]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [21]
Comments: Anon IP is removing factual statements, adding false statements based on misinterpreted original research, and appears to be trying to edit the article to be more positive towards the company. This has been ongoing for some time, but this is the first time the IP has violated 3RR.
- OK, this is a weird one. The IP has clearly violated 3RR, and as such * Blocked – for a period of 24 hours, but they are probably correct about the edit, and as such I have restored it with a reasonable edit summary. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - it doesn't appear that this editor was ever actually blocked. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
The user is me. I was unaware of the 3RR at the time. After having been made aware of it, I ceased editing the article. I also explained certain things on one user's article. Rather than summing it all up again, here is a link(which hopefully won't get removed as others have been by certain editors):
As noted, the editor User:MikeWazowski has hardly been spotless himself, having removed WP:RS. Also note, that after having been alerted of the existence of the 3RR, I made no further edits to the article, whereas User:MikeWazowski almost immediately edited the page-as-protected re-inserting unsourced POV material. 41.133.47.137 (talk) 15:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- What you call "removing reliable sources" was in fact removing your mis-interpretation of sources. As for calling my additions unsourced, let's look at how the article existed before you started, and how it exists now - all of the sourced additions and rewrites were done by me. And as the UK court issued an associated ruling in which they agreed Lucasfilm's copyright had been infringed in the US, and those infringements were enforceable in Britain, the use of the word "unauthorized" is factual, sourced in the article, and not POV. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Such as "misinterpreting" this?
which you removed here
I must note a certain sense of arrogance on your part "all of the sourced additions and rewrites were done by me", "I will be updating this article later, but this statement will not stand" etc.
Meanwhile as far as "before I started", wrong again..
the original article
[25] (that article was created on October 12 2006)
it wasn't until May 17 2010(ie FIVE YEARS LATER) that an anonymous editor FIRST added the word "unauthorized"
this is what was reverted wand has started the troubles. Meanwhile, the question STILL stands..."is there a WP:RS which specifically refers to these props as 'unauthorized', especially given the link I provided above (not for the first time as you have removed it before)?"
As far as my removing the WP:OR of the inclusion of the word "unauthorized", and others insisting on re-instating it, please read WP:BURDEN and WP:V. You have DELIBERATELY removed not one but 2 WP:RS that I added, just because they conflicted with your POV, and you insist on re-inserting a contentious, unsourced term without a WP:RS. 41.133.47.137 (talk) 16:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
User:Bbb23 reported by User:Russavia (Result: Protected again)
Page: Boris Berezovsky (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bbb23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [27]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [32]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Boris_Berezovsky_(businessman)#Use_of_libel_tourism.2Fterrorism
Comments:There is a serious issue here. Just yesterday, bbb23 was warned for making 11 reverts in 2 hours on another article. Now, they are reverting essentially all changes to the Boris Berezovsky article, and is actively gaming to keep information out of the article that they don't like. I have posted messages at russia and biography wikiprojects, RSN and BLPN, in addition to starting an RFC on one issue relating to the article, but introduction of further information is also being reverted wholesale without rhyme nor reason. A block is in order. Additionally, User:Off2riorob is also acting quite disruptively, by additionally removing others edits, in addition to stalking and harrassing me on my talk page. Russavia Let's dialogue 21:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Adding additional comment: It appears that Bbb23 is also using WP:RBK to do reverts as per this edit. Additionally, to comment on Off2riorob, seeking uninvolved outside opinion is a standard for any type of dispute. It's call good practice. this and this is not good practice, it's called harrassment, which is worse because you are in a content dispute, and because of previous harrassment just the other day by another using who accused me of being Russian government employed. There's no excuse for it. I would also mind to stop bringing up BLP, when nothing that I introduced into the article was in violation of BLP, so that is no excuse to be wholesale reverting other editors. Russavia Let's dialogue 22:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- - Without even looking at the diffs this is an attacking report - there was no warning,(User:Russavia added a warning but not as a warning because they just immediately reported - after he gave his warning no more edits occurred, he warned and reported immediately.) no good faith offer or request to revert. The topic is East European - an area that the reporter has prior arbitration Wikipedia:DIGWUREN restrictions and is in dispute at related BLP article and is posting to multiple noticeboards after a BLP with long term disruption was only today unprotected. Looking at the diffs presentted they are not even a violation of 3RR but are rather differing editorial developments. Off2riorob (talk) 22:02, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- With the Arbitration Requests Amendment still under way, and a bunch of other noticeboard combats, I suspect this is a remarkably ill-timed noticeboard usage by Russavia. A cup of tea and a short "vacation" might help Russavia at this point. And a cup of tea. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Although I was aware of the note Russavia put on my Talk page, I was not aware of the request here until just now. In fact, I was just composing a message to WP:AN about guidance on this issue. I'm not sure where best to post it, but I guess I'll post it here. As for Russavia's comment about the 11 reverts, he's referring to the Troy Davis case article, and I probably made more than 11 before I bowed out and let others take over. The article was in a state of turmoil over the impending execution of Davis, and I think I can safely say that I was reverting with the full blessing of at least two admins, User:Wehwalt, and User:Slp1. I turned the article over to Wehwalt when I had go to dinner at my mother-in-law's. Now back to Berezovsky.
As some background, please see this topic at ANI. The administrative result of that discussion (although more has been added subsequently) was to indefinitely block User:Deepdish7.
After that, User:Black Kite, who had previously locked the Berezovsky article entirely because of BLP issues, unlocked the article. Not unexpectedly, editors with a significant interest in the subject matter of the article started editing. Also, editors with more of an interest in protecting the article (I include myself in this group as I have no special knowledge of Berezovsky or Russian politics) started monitoring those edits and, in many instances, reverting contributions and modifying contributions. Some of those content disputes have made their way to the Talk page of the article and to other forums.
User:Russavia, whom I consider one of the editors interested in the subject matter, has made edits that have been the topic of discussion on the Talk page, and I and others have objected (reverted, modified, discussed) to some of those edits. He then placed a note on my Talk page that I have violated WP:3RR (although nothing about bringing the request here). He's probably right, and if an admin feels I should be blocked, so be it. But what I want to know going forward is how are editors supposed to handle these kinds of fast-paced edits from all sides without running afoul of the rule? Do I rely on exemptions (such as BLP violations) because in some instances, the material doesn't really qualify as a BLP violation, it's wrong for other reasons? Do I have to allow the edits to stand and take up each and every change on the article's Talk page? If I have to do that, honestly, it's too much work, and I'll just bow out of articles like that. In many cases, the edits can be reverted with a good edit summary, and a discussion isn't necessary. I'm trying to avoid reverting the same edit more than once because, regardless of the 3RR rule, I don't want to edit war over a particular edit.
While this request is pending, I've stopped editing the Berezovsky article.
As a P.S., because it was added later, I did not use the rollback command, I used "sum" so I could explain the reversion.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Please note, even whilst this is going on, Off2riorob is engaging in wholesale reverts as per this. This is a problem that even other editors are having their basically neutral WELL sourced edits wholesale reverted. Some admin intervention and instruction is needed here. --Russavia Let's dialogue 22:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- Note to other admins I have placed a note at User_talk:Lifebaka#Article_or_topic_ban_for_two_users as he is familiar with the ANI report relating to this article, and may be able to provide some more insight that other admins will find useful here. I have advised him of this report and trust that other admins will confer with Lifebaka. Cheers, Russavia Let's dialogue 22:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- Um -- I fear your own reverts at 17:56, 18:10, 18:36, 18:50, 19:25, 20:03 , 21:21 -- oops - seven reverts by Russavia, who is the complainant here. I think that WP:BOOMERANG claims another victim. Cheers - you really should have settled for the cup of tea. Collect (talk) 22:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- Would you care to show diffs of the reverts? Because what I have done on the article is introduced new material, with 2 reverts at my count. And 1 edit was caught up in an edit conflict where more sources were demanded, which I provided. Anyway, diffs please showing said reverts would be nice. Russavia Let's dialogue 22:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- Um -- I fear your own reverts at 17:56, 18:10, 18:36, 18:50, 19:25, 20:03 , 21:21 -- oops - seven reverts by Russavia, who is the complainant here. I think that WP:BOOMERANG claims another victim. Cheers - you really should have settled for the cup of tea. Collect (talk) 22:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- Article protected again. As I said on the talkpage, I unprotected the article in good faith, and would protect it again if that proved to be a problem. Which it clearly has been. Please use the talkpage to sort out these differences. If more time is needed, that is not a problem either. Thanks. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:20, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
User:Fearingpredators reported by User:Ruud Koot (Result: 31h)
Page: King Cobra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fearingpredators (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [33]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [44]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:King Cobra#Clarification
Comments:
- Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fearingpredators
- And also, this constitutes a further violation of 3RR.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Result: 31 hours. User has restored similar material to the article 11 times since September 14. It seems that his change does not have consensus, but he makes it anyway. He may have been using two IPs to participate in the war. Another admin has blocked the IPs for a week per the SPI case mentioned above. EdJohnston (talk) 00:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
User:Cossde reported by User:Intoronto1125 (Result: 24h)
Page: Trincomalee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Cossde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [45]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [50]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [51]
Comments:Well on this article the edit war is over if the place is a city or town. I have provided a source to indicate its a city another editor is also in the opinion of Trincomalee being a city not a town (see talk page). He has followed by getting into another war. (see below) Intoronto1125TalkContributions 18:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Result: 24 hours for 3RR violation. Intoronto1125 should not refer to Cossde's changes as vandalism; this can lead to sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 00:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- Wasn't meant to be intentional when using twinkle one press of the button can cause that outcome. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 00:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
User:Cossde reported by User:Kanatonian (Result: Declined)
Page: Chandre Dharma-wardana (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Cossde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [52]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [57]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [58]
Comments: Well the reported editor seemed to have followed another editor with whom he is been having edit warring into this article and since then has removed cited material number of times. Kanatonian (talk) 19:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Result: Declined. The language that Cossde is removing from the article includes:
This wording sounds inappropriate under WP:BLP, so I would not block for removing it. Editors on talk should find consensus to describe the matter in more neutral terms. It is unclear whether even a newspaper would word it that way. EdJohnston (talk) 00:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)According Asian Human Rights Commission, Chandre Dharma-Wardene maintains false, defamatory and a potential death list of alleged former rebel Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam supporters.
- Another editor has restored the above wording to the article. The guy operated a web site about Sri Lankan matters and he had a wiki-like section where anyone could submit material. (Does the idea sound familiar to anyone?) Some people logged in over the internet and added material to his web site that became very politically contentious and may have been defamatory. Since the above brouhaha, he fixed his web site and took down the offending material. Please see a discussion at Talk:Chandre Dharma-wardana#Claims about inappropriate information on a web site. I hope that the editors on the article talk page will be able to come up with better wording to describe this controversy. EdJohnston (talk) 02:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- Ed you have suggested a very good compromise on the talk page and we should go with it, it follows WP:NPOV. But does the BLP questions give cart blanche to User:Cossde to violate 3rr ? Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 02:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- BLP is #7 in the list of exemptions to WP:3RR. Admins may differ as to when to grant the exemption. Saying that someone maintains a 'potential death list' is a very serious charge. The actuality (it seems) is that the guy was slow to remove political attack statements added by contributors to his web site. EdJohnston (talk) 03:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- O.K at least I understand your perspective on Cossde, but the good old professor still maintains the alleged "death list" and only removed the name of the AHRC president from it after the public exposure. That is a fact. Kanatonian (talk) 03:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- Please continue this on the article talk page. You seem to know more than what the reliable sources have documented so far. EdJohnston (talk) 04:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- You are right, he moved the offending list to a different website (link not provided) but we cant mention it in the Wikipedia article because, no one has mentioned it yet in an RS source. But time will tell, I have proposed a compromise and looking for suggestions. Kanatonian (talk) 04:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- Please continue this on the article talk page. You seem to know more than what the reliable sources have documented so far. EdJohnston (talk) 04:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- O.K at least I understand your perspective on Cossde, but the good old professor still maintains the alleged "death list" and only removed the name of the AHRC president from it after the public exposure. That is a fact. Kanatonian (talk) 03:49, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- BLP is #7 in the list of exemptions to WP:3RR. Admins may differ as to when to grant the exemption. Saying that someone maintains a 'potential death list' is a very serious charge. The actuality (it seems) is that the guy was slow to remove political attack statements added by contributors to his web site. EdJohnston (talk) 03:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- Ed you have suggested a very good compromise on the talk page and we should go with it, it follows WP:NPOV. But does the BLP questions give cart blanche to User:Cossde to violate 3rr ? Thanks Kanatonian (talk) 02:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- Another editor has restored the above wording to the article. The guy operated a web site about Sri Lankan matters and he had a wiki-like section where anyone could submit material. (Does the idea sound familiar to anyone?) Some people logged in over the internet and added material to his web site that became very politically contentious and may have been defamatory. Since the above brouhaha, he fixed his web site and took down the offending material. Please see a discussion at Talk:Chandre Dharma-wardana#Claims about inappropriate information on a web site. I hope that the editors on the article talk page will be able to come up with better wording to describe this controversy. EdJohnston (talk) 02:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
User:24.163.39.26 reported by Dawnseeker2000 (Result: 24h)
Page: Big (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 24.163.39.26 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 18:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Previous version reverted to: [59]
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 23:17, 22 September 2011 (edit summary: "rv vandalism. The issue is under consensus discussion. Read Wikipedia policies. Tagging does not justify violation of WP:CON or WP:V. Add your comments to the talk page instead of vandalizing and edit warring.")
- 16:22, 23 September 2011 (edit summary: "rv contentious material currently in a consensus discussion. And no evidence of any relationship to the film Big.")
- 16:39, 23 September 2011 (edit summary: "Sourcing alone is not always sufficient to include something in an article. It is disputed. Wait for consensus.")
- 16:48, 23 September 2011 (edit summary: "WAIT FOR CONSENSUS.")
- 16:49, 23 September 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 452050579 by 93.44.211.27 (talk)")
- Diff of warning: here
- I started a discussion on the articles talk page here after seeing an edit war.
- I submitted that page be protected from the extended revert war and it was protected on September 12th
- Additional information: This particular user has been a little aggressive in this dispute with a level four disruption warning and here also. These warnings were to several of the Italian IP user(s). I don't think those warnings were justified as the Italian editor that's been adding the disputed material has been acting in good faith. The addition of the material hasn't harmed WP in any way and in fact another editor placed an original research tag as a means to work towards a resolution and I thought that was fine.
—Dawnseeker2000 18:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- No evidence whatsoever that there are "several" Italian users; that is an attempt by Dawnseeker to exaggerate my behavior. Look at the "Italian users'" edits; they all follow the same pattern of adding the same material repeatedly without consensus. And it's quite obvious that the "Italian user" has not always "been adding the disputed material acting in good faith". He/she has done it again and again and again in the midst of an ongoing consensus discussion after multiple requests to wait for consensus. I am not criticizing Dawnseeker for making this report, but he/she has a marked tendency toward hyperbole. 24.163.39.26 (talk) 19:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
User:79.223.30.75 reported by Buggie111 (talk) (Result: 24 hours)
Page: ARA Moreno (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and ARA Rivadavia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 79.223.30.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 16:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC ARA Moreno
- 13:51, 24 September 2011 (edit summary: "Fix the templates if you don't like the distances. Your mode prevents a unified look and makes WP:ACCESS harder.")
- 14:20, 24 September 2011 (edit summary: "See discussion")
- 14:24, 24 September 2011 (edit summary: "Seems to be uncontroversial then. If you want a space, take it to the navbox and stop destroying Wikipedia unified style.")
- 15:17, 24 September 2011 (edit summary: "I don't know what AWB is or why you would like to AWB-proof the navbox. However, stop creating ad-hoc style, change the navbox if you want more spaces.")
- 15:26, 24 September 2011 (edit summary: "rv disruptive style-breaking edit. See Talk:ARA Rivadavia.")
ARA Rivadavia
- 14:23, 24 September 2011 (edit summary: "Stop preventing a unified look across articles. If you want a space, take it to the navbox people.")
- 15:17, 24 September 2011 (edit summary: "See discussion")
- 15:26, 24 September 2011 (edit summary: "rv disruptive style-breaking edit. See Talk:ARA Rivadavia.")
- 16:13, 24 September 2011 (edit summary: "Stop lawyering and start discussing the issue, see Talk:ARA Rivadavia.")
Previous version reverted to: [60] and [61]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [62]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [63]
Comments:
IP attempting to remove <!-- non-breaking space to keep AWB drones from altering the space before the navbox--> in order to "create a unified look". Talk page discussion is leading nowhere with IP not contributing constructively. Buggie111 (talk) 16:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- That last part is simply a lie, look for yourself. --79.223.30.75 (talk) 17:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, I correct myself. One of your edits did help the discussion [64]. The rest of them, like this:[65] are not helping. Buggie111 (talk) 17:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- With "helpful", I assume you mean comments that agree with your point of view. I suggest that you start participating in said discussion before lamenting that I'm not helpful.
- One more question: Who was it that initiated the discussion? --79.223.30.75 (talk) 17:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- No, by helpful, I mean comments that actually move the discussion along, not spomething that denies compromise like: "That shows that you don't understand the issue: The navbox can't change anything. If you prefer a space in front of any navbox, you have to take it there. Otherwise, you will create a look that is not unified across pages" or "You quote is too long: "Where more than one style is acceptable [...]", and patching spaces by inserting HTML comments certainly is not. If you'd actually used a style (eg. by changing navboxes), we wouldn't have this discussion. --79.223.30.75 (talk) 16:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC) ", which basically just pushes your POV. Also, the fact that you initiated the discussion does not mean that you instantly are right (i.e. He started it.....) Buggie111 (talk) 19:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, whatever, if you want to discuss the issue, go to the known place. --79.223.30.75 (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- No, by helpful, I mean comments that actually move the discussion along, not spomething that denies compromise like: "That shows that you don't understand the issue: The navbox can't change anything. If you prefer a space in front of any navbox, you have to take it there. Otherwise, you will create a look that is not unified across pages" or "You quote is too long: "Where more than one style is acceptable [...]", and patching spaces by inserting HTML comments certainly is not. If you'd actually used a style (eg. by changing navboxes), we wouldn't have this discussion. --79.223.30.75 (talk) 16:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC) ", which basically just pushes your POV. Also, the fact that you initiated the discussion does not mean that you instantly are right (i.e. He started it.....) Buggie111 (talk) 19:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, I correct myself. One of your edits did help the discussion [64]. The rest of them, like this:[65] are not helping. Buggie111 (talk) 17:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- IP is being disruptive; the talk is all against the abrupt removes @ Talk:ARA_Rivadavia#Spacing, ip has spread this to Rivadavia-class battleship. I've reverted the last ones and suggest ip get a day off. i told them, twice, to raise their concern at the navbox-level. —Portuguese Man o' War 20:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Parsecboy (talk) 20:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
- Special:Contributions/91.10.26.140 would seem to be the same person... same reverts. —Portuguese Man o' War 21:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
User:Halaqah reported by User:Tamsier (Result: )
Page: Senegal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Serer people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Serer Religion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Fula language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Halaqah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [66]
- 1st revert: [67]
- 2nd revert: [68]
- 3rd revert: [69]
- 4th revert: [70]
- 5th revert: [71]
- 6th revert: [72]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [73]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [74]
Comments:
This person has persued me and my edits and will not stop until action is taken against them. It is mostly about Religion. Islam V Serer religion. Every notable sources cited about Serer people's experience with Islam has been deleted by this person and deemed biased against Islam, even when they are direct quotes from authors. This person is present in all Serer related articles and other articles I have edited. Articles this person has never shown any interested in until recently. The level of edit warring has gotten so bad that, I should just give up on the articles and let them fall naturally. Articles I have invested a lot of time in and effort and a person who have no interest in the article other than their edit war. The Serer people article has been protected for now after my request. Tamsier (talk) 19:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC) -->