m Signing comment by 108.26.243.70 - "→User:108.26.243.70 reported by User:R Prazeres (Result: ): " |
108.26.243.70 (talk) |
||
Line 290: | Line 290: | ||
::Not original research. The majority of the article is already direct quotes from the Bible. If that is OR then you people need to gut the article of those passages as well. I will stop trying to add my material when you do so! <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/108.26.243.70|108.26.243.70]] ([[User talk:108.26.243.70#top|talk]]) 03:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
::Not original research. The majority of the article is already direct quotes from the Bible. If that is OR then you people need to gut the article of those passages as well. I will stop trying to add my material when you do so! <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/108.26.243.70|108.26.243.70]] ([[User talk:108.26.243.70#top|talk]]) 03:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
Explain to me what is the difference between this reference (already in the article) |
|||
In the biblical canon, the earliest, direct use of the phrase is in Isaiah 2: "For the day of the LORD of hosts shall be upon every one that is proud and lofty, and upon every one that is lifted up; and he shall be brought low" (Isaiah 2:12). Another early use of the phrase is in Amos 5:18-20.[4] Wright suggests that the phrase was already a standard one, and Amos' hearers would take it to mean "the day when Yahweh would intervene to put Israel at the head of the nations, irrespective of Israel's faithfulness to Him."[4] Yet Amos declares "Woe to you who long for the day of the LORD! Why do you long for the day of the LORD? That day will be darkness, not light" (Amos 5:18 NIV). Because Israel had sinned, God would come in judgement on them. Thus, the day of the Lord is about God chastening his people, whether it be through the Babylonian invasion of Jerusalem or a locust plague described in Joel 2:1–11.[4] Yet Joel 2:32 holds a promise that on the Day of the Lord, "everyone who calls on the name of the LORD will be saved." |
|||
and this reference (part of my addition) |
|||
According to Zechariah 14, the day of the lord will be a time when Jerusalem is captured. Zechariah 14.2 "I will gather all the nations to Jerusalem to fight against it; the city will be captured, the houses ransacked, and the women raped.", before the Lord takes action and strikes the attacking nations with a plague. Zechariah 14.12 "This is the plague with which the Lord will strike all the nations that fought against Jerusalem: Their flesh will rot while they are still standing on their feet, their eyes will rot in their sockets, and their tongues will rot in their mouths."<ref>https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Zechariah%2014&version=NIV</ref> |
|||
aside from the formatting?[[Special:Contributions/108.26.243.70|108.26.243.70]] ([[User talk:108.26.243.70|talk]]) |
Revision as of 03:41, 12 March 2024
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:Only in death reported by User:InfiniteNexus (Result: No violation)
Page: Paul Atreides (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Only in death (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 21:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1212847316 by InfiniteNexus (talk) Per previous message. Please stop violating the NFCC policy."
- 21:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1212845313 by InfiniteNexus (talk) Removal of clear violations of the NFCC policy is an exemption from edit warring. Please desist from blatant use of non-free media."
- 21:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1212802415 by 2603:8001:3F02:518C:511C:83F1:2C18:40D7 (talk)"
- 10:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1212634026 by Goweegie2 (talk)"
- 14:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1212416343 by Kokaynegeesus (talk)"
- 15:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1212377823 by TAnthony (talk) See previous. This article is about the literary character, not the film depicition."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 21:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Paul Atreides."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 20:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC) "/* Infobox image removal */ +"
Comments:
- Violations of WP:NFCC are exempt per WP:3RRNO. The article is about the literary character, who has been played by multiple actors on screen (of which there are free pictures). A depiction of the character could be easily created which strikes out point 1 of NFCC, and given both the article scope, subject barely mention the latest actor, this fails contextual significance (point 8) by miles. Its not a difficult policy to understand. "Can you create a free alternative? Yes? Dont use non-free media." "Does the picture add significantly to the article or reduce understanding by omission? No? Dont use the picture." It really isnt that complicated. Its just the usual crap arguments to avoid abiding by a policy which is deliberately strict to avoid editors, who are legally liable for their edits, being sued. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hostile comments like this one,
This discussion is done, you clearly lack the capicity to understand a plainly written policy. I suggest you go find an admin to run to.
[1], andThat is frankly an idiotic interpretation of the policy and would justify *any* use of non-free media.
[2] are not going to help your cause. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hostile comments like this one,
- (edit conflict) User has reverted a seventh time: Special:Diff/1212848687. As have been explained to them multiple times, the fact that multiple editors have disagreed with their incorrect interpretation of NFCC is evidence that this is not a clear, obvious, or blatant violation. This user has refused to get the point, instead claiming that their actions are exempt from 3RR — which explicitly states (emphasis in original):
Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy (NFCC). What counts as exempt under NFCC can be controversial, and should be established as a violation first. Consider opening a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion instead of relying on this exemption.
InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC) - No violation. Using a non-free image when a free image is clearly available is unambiguously a violation, and as such is exempt from 3RR. Black Kite (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- A free image is not available. No image is present on the article or on Commons. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:33, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- Free images of the actors who have played the character are available. Frankly, though, this is a fictional literary character, and probably doesn't need an image anyway. Black Kite (talk) 21:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- Free images of the actors who have played the character do not depict the subject of the article. This like saying articles about films should put free images of their cast and crew in the infobox, rather than a non-free poster. But regardless, this should be discussed on the article's talk page, and the user should not have reverted seven (!) times, against the consensus of multiple users. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- And if this was an article about the film character you might have a point. But it isnt. Its an article about the literary character and the (existing) pictures of the actors who have played him are already in the article which barely mentions them to start with. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- Then discuss on the article's talk page (as you were). Start an RfC if you disagree with the overwhelming consensus. The crux of the matter is, don't edit-war against consensus. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- Right now the article title is "Paul Atreides", not "Paul Atreides in the Dune novels". I agree it is entirely possible that in the future we could have separate articles on the character on the page and on screen (although I see that as sort of fancruft-y) But at present we don't, so that's not a valid argument against using the image. Daniel Case (talk) 22:13, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- I dont need to make an argument to not use non-free content. There needs to be a credible argument as to why non-free content should be used over free content. The article is not remotely about the film character, which even a skim-read should have shown you, regardless of what the title actually is, and I think insisting that because the title of the article doesnt explicitly exclude other depictions, we should ignore the NFCC is wikilaywering around a policy that has pretty bright lines about this sort of thing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- You understand the nuances of the NFCC about as well, it is clear to me, as a utensil perceives the taste of food. Daniel Case (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- Addendum. To be more specific about where you're going wrong, you seem to have concluded that just because the article has only one section about the character in other media it can only be about the character in the novel. If there's some policy I'm missing that supports this, please educate me. Otherwise, I would point you to WP:LABELFICTION, which refers to "the work(s) [characters] are a part of". Now, I know this could be taken as referring to just, say, a series of books by the same author. But I think the absence of clear text to that effect suggests an understanding that an article about a fictional character will discuss all works the character appears in, even adaptations. Daniel Case (talk) 22:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- That's what I said. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- You understand the nuances of the NFCC about as well, it is clear to me, as a utensil perceives the taste of food. Daniel Case (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- I dont need to make an argument to not use non-free content. There needs to be a credible argument as to why non-free content should be used over free content. The article is not remotely about the film character, which even a skim-read should have shown you, regardless of what the title actually is, and I think insisting that because the title of the article doesnt explicitly exclude other depictions, we should ignore the NFCC is wikilaywering around a policy that has pretty bright lines about this sort of thing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- And if this was an article about the film character you might have a point. But it isnt. Its an article about the literary character and the (existing) pictures of the actors who have played him are already in the article which barely mentions them to start with. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- Free images of the actors who have played the character do not depict the subject of the article. This like saying articles about films should put free images of their cast and crew in the infobox, rather than a non-free poster. But regardless, this should be discussed on the article's talk page, and the user should not have reverted seven (!) times, against the consensus of multiple users. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- (EC)Again though, you left out the important next part of the line "or could be created." There is literally nothing stopping anyone creating a picture of the literary character. There is a reason we dont use non-free pictures of live people (with the exceptions of some dictators) because there is always the ability to create one. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- Uh, yes, Only in death, there is. As I went into detail below, there is this little thing called "copyright law", more specifically "copyright law as we apply it in our fair-use policy". Either you draw (by hand or with Illustrator, Inkscape or whatever) or have AI render a youngish dark-haired white man, but it would still look like just any such individual (of which there are millions in the world). A free image of either MacLachlan or Chalamet would be ... a free image of the actor, not the character. So, to look like the character, you'd have to add something specific to the Duneiverse, like as I said that special water-retention suit ... which is not everyday attire and thus for which any depiction still comes under Herbert's copyright as a derivative work and thus cannot be a free image. So, yes, "cannot be created" very much applies.
And, by the way, you're also wrong about the fair-use policy precluding any use of a fair-use image for a living person: we can use one if:
- it's iconic and the subject of reliably-sourced third-party non-trivial commentary in the accompanying article text,
- it depicts the subject as they were at a time in the past when their appearance was a notable aspect of their public persona,
- if their whereabouts have been unknown for some time and thus it is unlikely anyone could take a fresh picture,
- if they're incarcerated and unlikely to have many public images taken of them, but there are some from prior to that time,
- if they're notably reclusive and avoid the public eye (for the longest time this allowed a fair-use image of Terence Malick in the infobox, and if a recent fair-use photo of John Deacon or Thomas Pynchon became available, I'd advocate for using it over the considerably dated free images we currently use).
- NFCC is not as absolute as too many editors think. Daniel Case (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed, but none of those bullet points apply here. The image of Chalomet is not iconic and the others really only apply to biographies - this is not a biography of Chalomet. Black Kite (talk) 14:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- No, but those bullet points are not the only reasons we use fair-use images of living people in articles. In my reading, they're all derived from FUC#8: "if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." And it is that which this debate is grounded on. Daniel Case (talk) 16:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed, but none of those bullet points apply here. The image of Chalomet is not iconic and the others really only apply to biographies - this is not a biography of Chalomet. Black Kite (talk) 14:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- Uh, yes, Only in death, there is. As I went into detail below, there is this little thing called "copyright law", more specifically "copyright law as we apply it in our fair-use policy". Either you draw (by hand or with Illustrator, Inkscape or whatever) or have AI render a youngish dark-haired white man, but it would still look like just any such individual (of which there are millions in the world). A free image of either MacLachlan or Chalamet would be ... a free image of the actor, not the character. So, to look like the character, you'd have to add something specific to the Duneiverse, like as I said that special water-retention suit ... which is not everyday attire and thus for which any depiction still comes under Herbert's copyright as a derivative work and thus cannot be a free image. So, yes, "cannot be created" very much applies.
- Free images of the actors who have played the character are available. Frankly, though, this is a fictional literary character, and probably doesn't need an image anyway. Black Kite (talk) 21:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- A free image is not available. No image is present on the article or on Commons. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:33, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- No violation. Concur with Black Kite. Clear NFCC violation, exempt from 3RR. CIreland (talk) 21:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- Are we sure about this? That section of 3RRNO is, to me, only valid where there is no doubt that the material in question could not be used under fair use (i.e., when people copy and paste large portions of material from elsewhere). Here I think the question's still open.
I have just full-protected the article; I think that's the better solution.
I have not seen evidence that there is a free image of Chalamet (or for that matter MacLachlan) that could be used. More to the point, however, such an image could not be free, even one drawn with software or created using AI since it would necessarily have to depict Atreides wearing something distinctive to the Duneiverse (i.e., one of those water-retention suits; I'm not sure what they're called as I'm not sufficiently familiar with the franchise), which is not everyday attire and thus is not copyright-exempt. So Only in death is incorrect, on US copyright law and policy, when he asserts that a free image could easily be created; any image of Atreides that is recognizably the character is going to be a derivative work which cannot be covered by fair use. Thus IMO using an image of Chalamet as Atreides would be acceptable.
Further, I do not see the logic by which Only in death can assert that an article about a character that originated in a literary work must not be illustrated by an image of the character from a visual-media adaptation where there is no separate article on the character as portrayed in the latterm (which is to say, pretty much all our articles about fictional characters). Those articles necessarily include material about the character in those adaptations, not only what actor or actors have portrayed them, but how the character had been changed (and contrary to his claim on the article talk page, the section on portrayals in the media is longer than "two lines". I do not see any other article about a literary character from a work still under copyright later portrayed on screen where anyone has raised this objection. For instance Tyrion Lannister has a full image of Peter Dinklage in costume in the infobox; furthermore, our article on the character's father is illustrated by an image of Charles Dance in costume from the series despite his appearance being markedly different from the way Martin describes him in the books.
Ideally, I think, the best solution for the infobox here would be images of both MacLachlan and Chalamet as the character, or better yet a triptych if there are any illustrations of Atreides from a book cover or comic book not derived from either actor's likeness that could be scanned and used. Daniel Case (talk) 22:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- Are we sure about this? That section of 3RRNO is, to me, only valid where there is no doubt that the material in question could not be used under fair use (i.e., when people copy and paste large portions of material from elsewhere). Here I think the question's still open.
- Multiple users hold the view that this complies with NFCC; this is the only user acting against consensus. I will once again note that only unambiguous copyright violations are exempt from 3RR; the fact that this is contested, and the overwhelming consensus is that this isn't a violation, shows that this is not unambiguous. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:46, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
I agree with CIreland and BK.Unambiguous doesn't mean perfectly harmonious, and it wouldn't be a 3RR exemption otherwise. Someone should start an FfD. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC) striking 22:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)- That would be the best place to decide this; I agree. Daniel Case (talk) 22:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- DC's points here have convinced me, and I've stricken part of my comment above. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- That would be the best place to decide this; I agree. Daniel Case (talk) 22:04, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- The policy says, "unquestionably violates the non-free content policy (NFCC)". It beyond unquestionable that a free image of a any literary character "could be created". I'm not unsympathetic to your frustration but there is no way I am willing to block Only in death in this circumstance. CIreland (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think letting users exploit 3RR to go against consensus sets a bad precedent, but at the very least, I ask that the WP:STATUSQUO be restored per the longstanding consensus at the article. If necessary, I will start an RfC afterward to reinforce that consensus. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- Using consensus to override policy is equally a bad precedent. Black Kite (talk) 14:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- Not if the majority don't agree with one user's interpretation of that policy. Kokaynegeesus (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) This isn't a clear-cut case, so consensus is used to interpret policy. Usually, admins are expected to have a greater understanding of policy and can thus accurately "predict" how the community would interpret a policy. But today, let it be known that the ANEW process failed and a user got away with brazenly edit-warring. It's SNOWing over there at the RfC and it can probably be closed early. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- Using consensus to override policy is equally a bad precedent. Black Kite (talk) 14:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think letting users exploit 3RR to go against consensus sets a bad precedent, but at the very least, I ask that the WP:STATUSQUO be restored per the longstanding consensus at the article. If necessary, I will start an RfC afterward to reinforce that consensus. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- Multiple users hold the view that this complies with NFCC; this is the only user acting against consensus. I will once again note that only unambiguous copyright violations are exempt from 3RR; the fact that this is contested, and the overwhelming consensus is that this isn't a violation, shows that this is not unambiguous. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:46, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- RfC initiated, see Talk:Paul Atreides#RfC on the infobox image. If the folks here are not going to do anything about Only in death's edit-warring behavior, please leave any further comments about the copyright status of the image at the RfC. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- FfD would be better than an RfC. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- The image will be automatically deleted if it's decided we don't want to use it. The RfC has been opened; I think we should take this discussion there. Daniel Case (talk) 22:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
- FfD would be better than an RfC. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Just for one last time to bring this back around to the question of whether edit warring occurred. The relevant section of 3RRNO reads:
Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy (NFCC). What counts as exempt under NFCC can be controversial, and should be established as a violation first. Consider opening a deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion instead of relying on this exemption.
For me this indicates that Only in death was edit warring and could properly have been blocked. We chose to deal with it differently (or I did, anyway). But there was a violation. We failed. Daniel Case (talk) 05:38, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
User:TE(æ)A,ea. reported by User:Aquillion (Result: Page protected)
Page: Sweet Baby Inc. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TE(æ)A,ea. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 01:23, 10 March 2024 (UTC) "the employee account did encourage people to report the Steam group, which is important for understanding why the group's following grew; quote from "Aftermath" is summarizing Belair's comments, so it's appropriate to attribute it to her"
- 00:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1212878445 by Rhain (talk); I meant "'similar sentiments' according to journalists," which I have incorporated (with better phrasing) in this revision"
- 23:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1212866876 by Rhain (talk); DEI is about "diverse representation," that's what DEI is; "safer working environments" is more broad then DEI (and so it is not germane to a DEI reference); also, there shouldn't be that much text under one Wiki-link in general; {{advert}} is appropriate because the discussion of "the company's operations" are written in a non-neutral manner (promotional), not little amount but most of lede/history"
- 23:05, 9 March 2024 (UTC) "Minor changes and revert section name change—it is a "controversy" even though our sources/prose just show the one side"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 01:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC) "/* WP:3RR violation on Sweet Baby Inc. */ new section"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 00:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC) "/* This article needs more citations covering both sides of the "controversy" */"
- 01:17, 10 March 2024 (UTC) "/* Advert */"
Comments:
They've continued to edit without responding since I warned them on talk. The final revert reverted both this and this. -- Aquillion (talk) 01:54, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- The rule requires three or more, I've only made two: first one is re-wording, fourth one is a different change, not a revert (mainly because I didn't know that policy now discourages "Controversy" sections). Thank you for notifying me, though, the last time I was banned for "edit warring" I wasn't notified. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- The fourth one was a revert of this edit, as you were aware (you said "revert" in your edit summary.) The first one (aka the final one I referenced above, since they're in reverse-chronological order) was a substantial revert of the two edits I linked - you do not have to literally use the "undo" button for something to be a revert. --Aquillion (talk) 02:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- I "undo" when I revert to note that I'm reverting, you can't just call something a revert to get me to violate policy. For the name, as I said, I didn't know about the policy change. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- Also, the second one (labelled "revert") was not really a revert but a re-wording; I changed my action from a revert to a re-wording after I had started editing. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- Reverts are defined in WP:3RR:
An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert.
It's pretty broad (sometimes overly-broad) but this is clear-cut. The substantial intent of the second one was clearly to undo this edit; it doesn't cease to be a revert just because you made other changes as well. --Aquillion (talk) 02:16, 10 March 2024 (UTC)- No, the purpose was to re-word that section, along the lines of what that user said. The objection (in the reversion) was to the OR-like phrasing, so I adjusted the phrasing. I had originally intended, in that edit, to delete any reference to the October 2023 Kiwi Farms threads; that is why I started to "undo" ("revert" in summary) the edit. I then changed my mind, and instead re-worded the extant provision. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:27, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- 3RR is a bright line rule, but please note that admin can block you for less than if they believe you are warring. Even one revert, under the right circumstances. You don't get to just keep reverting as long as you stay under 4 per 24 hours, and get off scot-free. In this case, it is a clear violation of the bright line rule. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- The edit in question unambiguously moved and reworded the line
In October 2023, Sweet Baby attracted negative attention on Kiwi Farms, a web forum...
in a way that reinstated the change to that sentence that you previously made here. There were other aspects that were also a revert, but that was the most clear-cut. Adding additional changes doesn't change the fact that it was a revert - if you intended for it to not be a revert, then you needed to leave that contested sentence in place, entirely untouched. --Aquillion (talk) 02:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- Reverts are defined in WP:3RR:
- I "undo" when I revert to note that I'm reverting, you can't just call something a revert to get me to violate policy. For the name, as I said, I didn't know about the policy change. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- The fourth one was a revert of this edit, as you were aware (you said "revert" in your edit summary.) The first one (aka the final one I referenced above, since they're in reverse-chronological order) was a substantial revert of the two edits I linked - you do not have to literally use the "undo" button for something to be a revert. --Aquillion (talk) 02:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- FWIW, regardless of what happens here, with regard to the Sweet Baby Inc. article I've added the Contentious Topics warning to the talk page as it's covered by WP:GENSEX (which itself covers Gamergate related topics), and notified all users who have edited the article since March 6th (all prior edits are unrelated/from the draft) except those who have an "aware" template up or had a prior notice for this topic. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 06:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- Page protected by Ymblanter for three days. Daniel Case (talk) 18:34, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
User:Pugdad78 reported by User:LilianaUwU (Result: Blocked for 48 hours)
Page: Pug (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pugdad78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 06:08, 10 March 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1212921577 by Meters (talk) #diff-undo"
- 06:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1212919551 by Jamedeus (talk) https://ckcusa.com/breeds/pug Breed descriptions from a registry detailing breed standard and nonstandard. AKC considers anything not fawn or black as not pure blooded which is erroneous. Pugs didn't arrive in the US until after the Civil War, arriving from Europe not the origin country. AKC began registering the breed in 1885, establishing coat colors at that time from erroneous information..."
- 05:43, 10 March 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1212916808 by Jamedeus (talk) https://medium.com/@WelcometotheGrumble/the-pugs-of-many-colors-a9601d09899a#diff-undo"
- Consecutive edits made from 04:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC) to 04:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- 04:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1212912134 by Reshadp (talk) #diff-undo"
- 04:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1212912273 by Pugdad78 (talk) https://medium.com/@WelcometotheGrumble/the-pugs-of-many-colors-a9601d09899a#diff-undo"
- 04:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1212912899 by Pugdad78 (talk) https://medium.com/@WelcometotheGrumble/the-pugs-of-many-colors-a9601d09899a#diff-undo"
- 04:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1212910000 by CycloneYoris (talk) #diff-undo"
- 03:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC) "/* top */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- Consecutive edits made from 04:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC) to 06:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC) on User talk:Pugdad78
- Talk:Pug#lead_addition_of_minor_colour_variants talk page thread opened at same time this report was started. Reverts by Pugdad78 have continued [6], [7]
Comments:
Without a doubt, the most clear violation of 3RR I've ever seen. They've undone themselves a few times, but even excluding that I count five reverts. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 06:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yet another revert [8] Meters (talk) 06:23, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- Still going [9] 7RR now Meters (talk) 06:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 48 hours ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 07:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
User:Bijzindia reported by User:Jeraxmoira (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page: Bigg Boss (Malayalam season 5) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bijzindia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 12:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC) "Kindly do not change this edit by saying other bigg boss or bigg brother pages dont have such information. We always welcome Innovative informative contributions"
- 12:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC) "Do not delete the program logo add to this page"
- 11:53, 10 March 2024 (UTC) "Undo revision [ have a discussion in talk regarding this matter before you make any change"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 12:30, 10 March 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Bigg Boss (Malayalam season 5)."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
Other editor User:2A02:6B68:10:6100:2C77:613F:6B52:1872 Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- The revert was done for a user which deleting the valuable information from the page Bijzindia (talk) 12:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- No it’s no valuable information I have given my reasons in fact this user is not listening to others point I have given my reasons saying big brother snd bigg boss pages do not user that info. Concepts need to follow similar things, 2A02:6B68:10:6100:2C77:613F:6B52:1872 (talk) 12:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- Both are still edit warring on Bigg Boss (Malayalam season 5). Pinging active admins 331dot, Deb and MER-C. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- Like over here he had added day entered for late entrants https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bigg_Boss_(Malayalam_season_5)&oldid=1212971816#Nomination_table whereas in here Celebrity Big Brother (British series 15)#Nominations table they don’t use it. 2A02:6B68:10:6100:2C77:613F:6B52:1872 (talk) 12:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
- @331dot: both the user and an ip are at it again. havent blocked as didnt spot the notification till id already warned them. Amortias (T)(C) 18:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- We are not edit warring we haven’t even edited on that page. We are just discussing on talk page. 2A02:6B68:10:6100:54CE:D971:7BF1:43E1 (talk) 18:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- @331dot: both the user and an ip are at it again. havent blocked as didnt spot the notification till id already warned them. Amortias (T)(C) 18:05, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
User:Hyperion82 reported by User:Bgsu98 (Result: Both blocked 48 hours)
Page: World Figure Skating Championships (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hyperion82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 21:52, 10 March 2024 (UTC) ""
- 21:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC) "Previous design didn't violate any Wikipedia rules. II explained in detail the reasons why your changes make this page are inconvenient to read. You did not give any reason for changes other than the inconsistency with the design of other pages that were also changed by you."
- 21:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC) ""
- 21:22, 10 March 2024 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 21:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on World Figure Skating Championships."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
- In addition, User:Hyperion82 refers to edits she doesn't like as "vandalism", which qualifies as a personal attack.
- Both editors blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Bbb23 (talk) 22:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
User:Fourixxxx reported by User:BilledMammal (Result: Blocked 2 days)
Page: K'gari, Queensland (island) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fourixxxx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: Move warring
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 06:37, 11 March 2024, saying
Fourixxxx moved page Fraser Island to K'gari, Queensland (island)
- 01:43, 11 March 2024, saying
Fourixxxx moved page Fraser Island to K'gari (island), Queensland: Revert undiscussed move (WP:RMUM): Previous editors have provided no verifiable evidence for their change, only anecdotal. Until then the name change remains.
- 06:41, 8 March 2024, saying
Fourixxxx moved page Fraser Island to K'gari (island): Perform requested move, see talk page: Fraser Island has now officially and unambiguously been renamed K'gari
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 06:29, 11 March 2024
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:K'gari, Queensland (island)#The island is now unambiguously known as K'gari
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 06:50, 11 March 2024
Comments:
While not a bright-line violation, the move warring is a violation of WP:RMUM and it appears they have no intention of stopping - in addition to the user talk page warning, at 06:12, 11 March 2024 they were pinged to the talk page and told that they were going about this the wrong way and should not continue to make disputed moves, particularly since this move has been discussed five times previously. BilledMammal (talk) 06:52, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Shortly after making this report Liz reverted the move, and in line with that I restored the pre-move content. Fourixxxx has once again restored their preferred content, although they haven't moved the article again yet. This is their third revert in the past 24 hours. BilledMammal (talk) 07:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 2 days Courcelles (talk) 18:28, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Protected the page given the obvious logged out continuing of the disruption. Courcelles (talk) 18:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
User:86.187.171.52 reported by User:MrOllie (Result: 48 hours)
Page: Neal D. Barnard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 86.187.171.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- 19:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1213224099 by MrOllie (talk)A list of publications does not make a cv. Most biographies have such lists/"
- 19:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1213223718 by Bon courage (talk)See WP:BLP, and you are edit warring"
- 19:32, 11 March 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1213223261 by Bon courage (talk)Stroll on!! Take that to the Talk page!"
- 19:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1213222919 by Bon courage (talk)I just told you why in the edit summary. More to the point, why are you removing it???"
- 19:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1212818235 by Bon courage (talk)Reverted bizarre removal of a book from the list of published works. There is no requirement for items in the list to be notable in their own right. Only the article subject must be notable. Very many biographies have lists of publications that include non-notable items. There is no reason for the book in question to be left off the list."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
- 19:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
- 19:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC) "/* Publications list */ new section"
Comments:
- Reviewing admin, please look at this one carefully. The user Bon courage is clearly pushing his own POV here. That's clear from the article in question, and from his combative approach right across the board. Look at his editing history. 86.187.171.52 (talk) 19:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Please also note, there are two separate edits here, so not a 4RR. 86.187.171.52 (talk) 19:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- it's 5RR. Bon courage (talk) 20:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Clear reverts at 19:29, 19:31, 19:32, 19:36, 19:39. It does not matter that the material being reverted is different. Sam Kuru (talk) 20:03, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- I have also put a CTOPS notice on the talk page. Daniel Case (talk) 20:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
User:108.26.243.70 reported by User:R Prazeres (Result: )
Page: The Day of the Lord (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 108.26.243.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [10] (initially; see explanation)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [16]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [17] (or see discussion here)
Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [18]
Comments:
IP edit-warring over their personal WP:OR. In their second revert ([19]) they attempted to add sources, without understanding, much less fixing, the WP:OR problem. (They have since added more rambling after their latest revert ([20]). Ignored multiple warnings on user talk page, article talk page, and in edit summaries. R Prazeres (talk) 03:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- I was just about to file a report here. Thanks. AlphaBetaGamma (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 03:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Some more edit-warring over latest addition since I wrote this: [21], [22]. R Prazeres (talk) 03:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
- Not original research. The majority of the article is already direct quotes from the Bible. If that is OR then you people need to gut the article of those passages as well. I will stop trying to add my material when you do so! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.26.243.70 (talk) 03:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Explain to me what is the difference between this reference (already in the article)
In the biblical canon, the earliest, direct use of the phrase is in Isaiah 2: "For the day of the LORD of hosts shall be upon every one that is proud and lofty, and upon every one that is lifted up; and he shall be brought low" (Isaiah 2:12). Another early use of the phrase is in Amos 5:18-20.[4] Wright suggests that the phrase was already a standard one, and Amos' hearers would take it to mean "the day when Yahweh would intervene to put Israel at the head of the nations, irrespective of Israel's faithfulness to Him."[4] Yet Amos declares "Woe to you who long for the day of the LORD! Why do you long for the day of the LORD? That day will be darkness, not light" (Amos 5:18 NIV). Because Israel had sinned, God would come in judgement on them. Thus, the day of the Lord is about God chastening his people, whether it be through the Babylonian invasion of Jerusalem or a locust plague described in Joel 2:1–11.[4] Yet Joel 2:32 holds a promise that on the Day of the Lord, "everyone who calls on the name of the LORD will be saved."
and this reference (part of my addition)
According to Zechariah 14, the day of the lord will be a time when Jerusalem is captured. Zechariah 14.2 "I will gather all the nations to Jerusalem to fight against it; the city will be captured, the houses ransacked, and the women raped.", before the Lord takes action and strikes the attacking nations with a plague. Zechariah 14.12 "This is the plague with which the Lord will strike all the nations that fought against Jerusalem: Their flesh will rot while they are still standing on their feet, their eyes will rot in their sockets, and their tongues will rot in their mouths."[1]
aside from the formatting?108.26.243.70 (talk)