Wesley Wolf (talk | contribs) →User:Tony0106 reported by User:Wesley Mouse (Result: ): I do apologise, I forgot to add the user being reported in the submission, and also to sign my comment with them wiggly line things. |
|||
Line 605: | Line 605: | ||
::::And if you could have presented that information, found in [[WP:MEDRS|medically reliable sources]], then we wouldn't be having this discussion. I've analyzed the sources you have presented, and compared them to the statements made by numerous medical and dietary organizations - clearly the two are at odds. I do not object to coconut oil being healthy in principle. I do object to portraying it as healthy in the absence of an indication that this idea is mainstream. Merely because other viewpoints exist doesn't mean they are equally valid, particularly compared to the scholarly community. Wikipedia is about [[WP:V|verifiability, not truth]]. You bring up your points once, and people clearly disagree sufficient to establish a talk page consensus, you don't get to keep raising them. [[User:WLU|WLU]] <small>[[User talk:WLU|(t)]] [[Special:Contributions/WLU|(c)]] Wikipedia's rules:</small>[[WP:SIMPLE|<sup><span style='color:#FFA500'>simple</span></sup>]]/[[WP:POL|<sub><span style='color:#008080'>complex</span></sub>]] 20:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC) |
::::And if you could have presented that information, found in [[WP:MEDRS|medically reliable sources]], then we wouldn't be having this discussion. I've analyzed the sources you have presented, and compared them to the statements made by numerous medical and dietary organizations - clearly the two are at odds. I do not object to coconut oil being healthy in principle. I do object to portraying it as healthy in the absence of an indication that this idea is mainstream. Merely because other viewpoints exist doesn't mean they are equally valid, particularly compared to the scholarly community. Wikipedia is about [[WP:V|verifiability, not truth]]. You bring up your points once, and people clearly disagree sufficient to establish a talk page consensus, you don't get to keep raising them. [[User:WLU|WLU]] <small>[[User talk:WLU|(t)]] [[Special:Contributions/WLU|(c)]] Wikipedia's rules:</small>[[WP:SIMPLE|<sup><span style='color:#FFA500'>simple</span></sup>]]/[[WP:POL|<sub><span style='color:#008080'>complex</span></sub>]] 20:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::::Really? The medical dietary sources say coconut oil is bad due to saturated fat. When newer higher quality medical sources are brought up to show that actually there is a controversy about it, they are removed on the basis of what? Synthesis? But in any event I have provided medical sources specifically about coconut oil—but they were removed. News and media sources? Removed. What is kept are dietary guideline by bodies (that could be accused of having conflicts of interest) that have been criticized by members of the medical community. From a geographic standpoint the article is definitely not neutral encompassing primarily a Western point-of-view. The experience of leading doctors in the coconut producing nations who have coconut eating populations and who have studied and performed trials with it have been cut. On the other hand name the leading coconut oil expert against it? Or are they all hiding behind the veil of anonymity? [[User:Lambanog|Lambanog]] ([[User talk:Lambanog|talk]]) 20:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC) |
:::::Really? The medical dietary sources say coconut oil is bad due to saturated fat. When newer higher quality medical sources are brought up to show that actually there is a controversy about it, they are removed on the basis of what? Synthesis? But in any event I have provided medical sources specifically about coconut oil—but they were removed. News and media sources? Removed. What is kept are dietary guideline by bodies (that could be accused of having conflicts of interest) that have been criticized by members of the medical community. From a geographic standpoint the article is definitely not neutral encompassing primarily a Western point-of-view. The experience of leading doctors in the coconut producing nations who have coconut eating populations and who have studied and performed trials with it have been cut. On the other hand name the leading coconut oil expert against it? Or are they all hiding behind the veil of anonymity? [[User:Lambanog|Lambanog]] ([[User talk:Lambanog|talk]]) 20:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC) |
||
*Let's break this down to the bare facts so we don't get bogged down in the back and forth. Lambanog has edit-warred against 5 different editors: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coconut_oil&action=historysubmit&diff=425198087&oldid=425198017 Ocaasi], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coconut_oil&action=historysubmit&diff=447302464&oldid=447255792 Yobol], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coconut_oil&action=historysubmit&diff=442891056&oldid=442865254 Ronz], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coconut_oil&action=historysubmit&diff=442859818&oldid=442791189 Belg4mit], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coconut_oil&action=historysubmit&diff=444731278&oldid=444456458 WLU] numerous times over the course of 5 ''months''. No one else has put the POV tag back except for Lambaong. Meanwhile, Lambanog justifies their behavior by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACoconut_oil&action=historysubmit&diff=447346674&oldid=447341161 numerous accusations of bad faith], basically trying to justify why ignoring the consensus on the talk page, accusing everyone else in being in a coordinated cabal against them. Lambanog has disrupted this article for 5 months now, and does not accept consensus despite multiple noticeboard postings. [[User:Yobol|Yobol]] ([[User talk:Yobol|talk]]) 00:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== [[User:Tony0106]] reported by [[User:Wesley Mouse]] (Result: ) == |
== [[User:Tony0106]] reported by [[User:Wesley Mouse]] (Result: ) == |
Revision as of 00:44, 30 August 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:Nroets reported by User:China's Tiger (Result: No Violation)
- Page: Bengal tiger (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Page: Save China's Tigers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported: Nroets (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
There is an editing war going on with Nroets and many other members of the Wikipedia committee, Nroets keep editing and removing relevant information, huge chunks of them from the above stated page. Many users have tried to undo his edits, but he refuse to back down and led to editing wars. What is worse is that he is a Pot calling a Kettle black, complaining and asking his rivals to be blocked despite himself being one in wrong.
Nroets removed a fully referenced subsection, only to add 2 or 3 sentences of his own without references. I want to clean up and to just edit that subsection accordingly and has mentioned it in his talk page, but he just removed the entire subsection without valid reasons.
What he does is weird because the whole section and subsection has been there for over 3 years, just waiting for some minor clean up, and updates, however he is removing the whole chunk and adding his own little tales in it. How can the subsection be updated or clean up then? Can the administrators do something about this? He has caused another user to be banned just for trying to protect the page's integrity.
I tried warning him in his talk page, but to no avail.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute via the various article talk page, Bengal Tiger discussion page and Save China's Tigers Discussion page.
Comments:
NRoets could be a puppet of User:TigerAlert because what they edit is really similar.
China's Tiger (talk) 02:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- Note that 'China's Tiger' (CT) has been reported on the COI notice board. His talk page says he has volunteered for Save China's Tigers (SCT). SCT's founders (Li Quan et al) has had a public spat with John Varty. CT has made allegations of fraud against Mr. Varty on the Bengal Tiger page. -- Nic Roets (talk) 11:47, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- I am trying to resolve the edit war by removing material that John Varty's supporters may find offensive / misleading. -- Nic Roets (talk) 11:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
As you mentioned, you are removing information which JV's "supporters" may find offensive. But does it make it untrue? These are information which have been sourced and information given. These seems to be the truth, and you are just hiding them by removing everything? Not just on wikipedia, but look at so many other websites out there on JV, there are still allegations out there that says his project is a fraud. JV's page has been highly biased since the beginning and these allegations, or counter-arguments can bring neutrality to an article, otherwise seems like an advertisement. I am just undoing what you did because they have been there for a long time, over 3 years, why are you suddenly purging all the materials away? These are information which can intrigue the public's mind. China's Tiger (talk) 11:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- The truth is often difficult to establish. So at some point we just delete things that cannot be proven through credible sources (It is a WP policy). It is especially true where someone's credibility is at stake.
- But more importantly, we are writing an encyclopedia. Things must be properly structured an relevant. John Varty is irrelevant to Bengal Tigers ! -- Nic Roets (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
There are other sources out there, just not used as references. Surely you have done some research on your part regarding the subject matter, and knows that there are credible sources out there, why not help establish them or create a rebuttle? To just delete an entire subsection seems a little absurd, especially a subsection which has been there for over 3 years standing and is guided by multiple sources. JV is relevant to Bengal Tigers because he has claimed that Ron and Julie are Bengal Tigers for over 5years, he only recently admitted that they aren't. With that said, do you agree to stop reverting the edits? We can drop this, i have nothing against you. =) China's Tiger (talk) 17:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. -FASTILY (TALK) 23:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
User:69.171.160.28 reported by User:Hurricanefan25 (Result: 31 hours)
Page: Hurricane Irene (2011) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 69.171.160.28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
- 1st revert: Revert of Cyclonebiskit
- 2nd revert: Revert of IP
- 3rd revert: Revert of OptimumPx
- 4th revert: Revert of same IP (Revert #2)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [5]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [6]
Comments: Negative response
HurricaneFan25 14:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
User:Vecrhite reported by User:Fluffernutter (Result: indef)
Page: Boyd Holbrook (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Vecrhite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [7]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13]
Note that this is a BLP and the user is repeatedly re-inserting information he readily states that he either cannot or will not source.
A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- Blocked Sole contributions are to edit war to add unsourced outing to a BLP; has specifically stated there are no sources and was warned several times. Blocked until he acknowledges BLP and 3RR. Kuru (talk) 17:03, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
User:75.68.34.2 reported by User:Kudzu1 (Result: Declined)
Page: Arab Spring (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 75.68.34.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [14]
- 1st revert: [15]
- 2nd revert: [16]
- 3rd revert: [17]
- 4th revert: [18]
- 5th revert: [19]
- 6th revert: [20]
- 7th revert: [21]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [22]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [23] [24]
Comments: While this user has not violated 3RR, he/she continues to change the flag icon without discussion despite reverts by User:Czolgolz and myself over a series of several days, a note on his/her User talk page, and a Talk page discussion in which he/she has chosen not to participate.
-Kudzu1 (talk) 16:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- Declined All but one of this user's edits were reverted without explanation as far as I can determine and the only time a comment was made, it was merely a comment that "this has been discussed" with no link to any discussion in the edit summary or on the user's talk page (which only contains generic vandalism warnings). While people can be blocked even without violating 3RR (especially on this article which is in the scope of WP:ARBPIA), I think that before we block them they should at least be informed specifically why their editing is considered disruptive. Regards SoWhy 18:48, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Page: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dicklyon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [25]
Edit-warring in a style guideline to win a content dispute in Talk:Halley's_Comet#Requested_move. He changed the guideline to support his position[30] and one minute later he opened the RM[31] citing the changed guideline. In the talk page of the guideline he never mentioned that he wanted to change the comet examples or that the comet examples would allow him to win another related dispute. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:38, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [32]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: it was discussed in a user page [33][34][35]
Comments:
- The brief dispute with Trovatore last night was ended and discussed before Enric came along and inserted an error that I fixed in number 4. Only one edit was an actual revert, and all were in the spirit of finding an acceptable result, which was being discussed opening and calmly at the time on talk pages Talk:Halley's Comet and WT:Manual of Style (capital letters)#When is something a proper noun? and User talk:Trovatore#capitalization. Dicklyon (talk) 21:13, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- I think this report is an overreaction. I was kind of irritated with the sequence of Dick's edits, but he gave a plausible account of his thought processes and seemed to be aware after the fact that they could be interpreted differently than he had intended. --Trovatore (talk) 22:54, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
- Yeah, and then he reverted you again, making again changes that favored his position in the content dispute. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
User:58.7.246.145 reported by User:NJZombie (Result: 72h)
Page: Mike Skinner (musician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 58.7.246.145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [36]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [41]
Comments:
The user insists on using padded language and has been instructed several times, by myself and another user, that it is inappropriate. He lists no reasoning and is non-responsive when warned on his talk page. As of today, he has officially broken the 3RR rule with his fourth revert. NJZombie (talk) 01:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
User:08OceanBeach SD reported by User:Karnifro (Result: 1 week)
Page: Global City (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 08OceanBeach SD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: 21:16, 25 August 2011
- 1st revert: 02:00, 26 August 2011
- 2nd revert: 02:02, 26 August 2011
- 3rd revert: 02:03, 26 August 2011
- 4th revert: 02:14, 26 August 2011
- 5th revert: 02:23, 26 August 2011
- 6th revert: 03:16, 26 August 2011
The following reverts, althought not technically within the 24 hours period for 3RR, are evidence that he's both ignoring requests at the talk page to get direct inline citations and a warning by an administrator. He's well aware of the 3RR, please see below for
more explanation:
- 7th revert: 18:18, 27 August 2011
- 8th revert: 01:41, 28 August 2011
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned by administrator
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Started by user Alex Covarrubia
Comments:A list of cities arbitrarily sorted was being alphabetically ordered to fulfill Wikipedia policy about NPOV and stop anonymous IP vandalism that consisted in altering this list. It was immediatly reverted several times by the reported user.
08OceanBeach SD does know the 3RR rule very well as he has been blocked for edit-warring with several users (including me) in the past [42]. He aknowledges the 3RR rule in this edit summary [43] which is evidence that he's trying to gamble the system, by stopping his edit-war and returning today to continue his reverts (see reverts number 7 and 8). He has ignored our arguments of neutrality to sort the list alphabetically and has not provided direct inline citations for the POV he's trying to support KarniFro( Talk to me) 02:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC).
User:Rush2rush reported by Logan (Result: Blocked)
Page: Feloni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rush2rush (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 03:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 02:40, 28 August 2011 (edit summary: "Vandalism attempts... edits stating "needing more info" added after user protested file deletion of Feloni image. Integrity is not being honored by certain wikipedia users. a few select user are trying to delete the page for personal reasons.")
- 02:56, 28 August 2011 (edit summary: "")
- 02:59, 28 August 2011 (edit summary: "attempts at vandalism by user Bbb23... unjustified modifications based on personal reasons by user unknown.")
- 03:03, 28 August 2011 (edit summary: "undoing attempts at vandalism:")
- 03:15, 28 August 2011 (edit summary: "")
- Diff of warning: here
—Logan Talk Contributions 03:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
User:Ronald Wenonah reported by Daniel (Result: 1 week)
Page: Hunting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ronald Wenonah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 15:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 22:39, 27 August 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 446993619 by Daniel J. Leivick (talk)")
- 22:40, 27 August 2011 (edit summary: "/* Conservation organisations */")
- 22:44, 27 August 2011 (edit summary: "/* Conservation organisations */")
- 22:54, 27 August 2011 (edit summary: "/* Conservation */")
- 22:57, 27 August 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 447049444 by Fluffernutter (talk)")
- 22:58, 27 August 2011 (edit summary: "/* Conservation */")
- 12:47, 28 August 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 447051907 by ThatPeskyCommoner (talk)")
User has been blocked twice before for edit warring. —Daniel 15:50, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
User:79.97.144.17 reported by Muhandes (talk) (Result: 24 hours)
Page: Prince Ernst August of Hanover (born 1954) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 79.97.144.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 18:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 16:13, 28 August 2011 (edit summary: "Undid unexplained removal of cited material by DWC LR (talk)")
- 17:27, 28 August 2011 (edit summary: "Do not accuse other editors of vandalism because you disagree with their edits. Read WP:NOTVAND")
- 18:24, 28 August 2011 (edit summary: "restored reference")
- 18:40, 28 August 2011 (edit summary: "Restoring references to reliable sources is not vandalism. Read WP:Notvand. Also, read the Defamation article as you seem to not understand what it is.")
- Diff of warning: here
—Muhandes (talk) 18:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment this IP’s registered account is Dbpjmuf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as can be seen from this history where they make the same edit.[44] - dwc lr (talk) 19:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- Question: Is there any specific reason you haven't made any attempt to discuss this with the IP on the article's talk page, or any other talk page? Looking at the page's history, it appears to be a edit war stretching back to July with constant reversions on both sides, with no apparent attempt at a discussion by any party. - SudoGhost 21:06, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- This all goes back to their unsuccessful RM where a huge discussion took place and where they wanted to deny his right to a title. The consensus went against them so they started to try and put doubt about his title in the article by saying he styles himself, so implying no one else styles him that way even though numerous sources have been added to show that is in correct and he is styled this way by reliable soucres. - dwc lr (talk) 21:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- Can you show a link to this previous discussion? Even if it is likely that the IP is the user, discussion is never a bad thing, lack of discussion is. The sources shown for that title seem to be primary sources, and if that is being contested, a primary source may not be sufficient, which is why discussion is important, to stop this constant edit warring. - SudoGhost 21:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- This all goes back to their unsuccessful RM where a huge discussion took place and where they wanted to deny his right to a title. The consensus went against them so they started to try and put doubt about his title in the article by saying he styles himself, so implying no one else styles him that way even though numerous sources have been added to show that is in correct and he is styled this way by reliable soucres. - dwc lr (talk) 21:16, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- Talk:Prince Ernst August of Hanover (born 1954)# Requested move started by Dbpjmuf aka this IP. Recently the user moved Emich, 7th Prince of Leiningen, I went to them and asked them to go to WP:RM and start a move discussion. To me they don’t seem interested in discussion so that article unfortunately got moved back and forth I don’t know how many times and they never went to start a request move. They try to impose themselves against the outcome of a discussion or they avoid it all together as they know they won't get the outcome they want so they editwar. - dwc lr (talk) 21:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- Well, there's no proof that the user and the IP are the same, just a guess based on a similar edit. Also, that discussion was about a move, not content within the article. So what's going on is, months ago, you discussed a similar subject with someone you think might possibly be the IP, but have made no recent attempt at a discussion of the edit in question, even though this has been going back and forth for over a month. While the old talk page discussion covered similar subjects, the fact that you made no attempt at discussion about the substance of the edit makes you as guilty of edit warring as the IP, even if you didn't technically violate 3RR. - SudoGhost 21:40, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- Talk:Prince Ernst August of Hanover (born 1954)# Requested move started by Dbpjmuf aka this IP. Recently the user moved Emich, 7th Prince of Leiningen, I went to them and asked them to go to WP:RM and start a move discussion. To me they don’t seem interested in discussion so that article unfortunately got moved back and forth I don’t know how many times and they never went to start a request move. They try to impose themselves against the outcome of a discussion or they avoid it all together as they know they won't get the outcome they want so they editwar. - dwc lr (talk) 21:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- Not similar an identical edit. And the IP is awfully similar to a past known one. Current former Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dbpjmuf/Archive. Myself and the other users who have reverted this user are well aware it is Dbpjmuf and a checkuser has been filed by the two others. This IP has now made SIX reverts even after being given a warning yesterday! I didn’t even file this 3RR an uninvolved editor did. I think it’s clear what version is the consensus one without a new discussion but of course next time we can start a brand new discussion and rehash old arguments that we had gone through a month or so before and I doubt would make any difference to their behaviour. - dwc lr (talk) 22:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours I see one editor reverting three others with no signs of slowing down despite being warned. Indeed, the IP has even filed a report here before, so there's little chance of them not being aware of the problem. I don't see any other editors over 3RR at the moment. Kuru (talk) 22:32, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
User:William S. Saturn reported by User:Screwball23 (Result: page protected )
Page: Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: William S. Saturn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
- 1st revert: [45]
- 2nd revert: [46]
- 3rd revert: [47]
- 4th revert: [48]
- 5th revert: [49]
- 6th revert: [50]
- 7th revert: [51]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [Talk:Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012]
Comments: User:William S. Saturn had previously argued that it was "against consensus" to remove Jonathon Sharkey from the list. He sidestepped the issue again and again, and continued to revert the candidate. More recently, after he lost the argument, he has claimed that it should be added anyway, based on the idea that editors should wait for "future consensus".
Problem is that the reverts cover several days ... while Screwball23 has reverts within a single 24 hour period at [52] 2:53, [53] 18:21, [54] and 19:46 in short order on 28 August. That said, Sharkey is not anything more than a joke wth regard to being a candidate for anything at all, and should be excised on wP:BLP grounds anyway. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:17, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- Screwball23 also is a repeat offender, having been blocked several times in the past for violating 3RR. Also, calling a candidate a "joke" is really just a statement of WP: IDONTLIKEIT. Difluoroethene (talk) 20:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- Um -- did you read the c.v. of Sharkey? I do not think any relaible source calls him a serious candidate. [55] presents the opinion of Nick Stevens: Jonathon ‘The Impaler’ Sharkey (or if you’d prefer to call him by his ‘Magikal Path’ name, Lord Ares) is a vampire, and clearly a creature you do not want to fuck with. And I can find absolutely no serious articles discussing his candidacy. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
- This is a weird one because of BLP concerns. We need to be treating each candidate with a basic fairness, no matter how much of a long shot they might be. While still respecting WP:DUE, looking over the Talk page discussion, there seems to be a lack of clear consensus for what criteria you are choosing to include or exclude anyone. In short, its a bit of a mess. While I don't think William should be edit warring, it seems like other people are ALSO edit warring. I'd say, include anyone for the time being who is or was a declared candidate, take this up the chain to a politics manual of style type discussion that is less partisan, so you can get a wider view. The idea that polls and news outlets will decide the bare minimum of who gets listed on Wikipedia, when we have FEC filing records to rely on (for verifiability) seems inherently biased to me.
- There's quite a bit of reverting going on from multiple parties; Salvio giuliano has fully protected the page - now would be good time to come to a consensus on the article's talk page. Kuru (talk) 21:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
Note: [56] at 20:16 shows a clear 4RR ... Is the "bright line" optional for Screwball23? Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
User:Kayastha Shiromani reported by User:Qwyrxian (Result: 48h)
Page: Kayastha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kayastha Shiromani (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 1st revert: [57]
- 2nd revert: [58]
- 3rd revert: [59]
- 4th revert: [60] (note the uncivil edit summary on this one)
- 5th revert: [61]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [62]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See various discussions on article talk page.
Comments:
Note This is a general edit warring report, not a 3RR report. The user, who edited the page a lot earlier in the year, came back in August to find that very signficant changes had been made: specifically, sources were added, unsourced content was removed, content sourced to primary sources was removed, etc. The user insists upon reverting back to a much older version of the page that is not compliant with policy. Editor has been reverted by 3 different people, and has refused to discuss on the talk page (other than to simply say that he is right, and to give some non-reliable sources. Editor needs to be blocked to prevent continued disruption. I'm not sure if a short-term block will work, since most of the diffs are about a week about, but it is technically a "first offense", so .... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwyrxian (talk • contribs)
- Note: 6th revert [63] after EdJohnston pointed out the report here, with no attempts by editor to communicate
here, on xyr talk page, or the article talk page, other than the edit summary on the revert of "malice just wont do". Qwyrxian (talk) 11:06, 29 August 2011 (UTC) - FYI I've just made another revert (my first) of Kayastha Shiromani on this page. [64] ThemFromSpace 16:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
To those who are against my version
A few fellow scholars seem to have based the latest version more on an exception(the sudra status, which I personally would like to be acknowledged by the Govt of India so that we and our coming generations get reservation benefits) than the general rule. How can you discount all of Newton’s Laws by quoting Einstein's. Well as for the secondary research of this article and claim to caste status. The following three are independent and extensive websites and here is what they have to say. As per my efforts I have unearthed refs to the Kayastha in books like 11th century rajatarangini among others. If after reading the two articles, you still find mine lacking in quality to yours then check your grades!
- The Sanskrit dictionary at Hindunet.org defines Kayastha as follows:
- ka_yastha, ka_yata a man belonging to the writer-caste; a tribe of bra_hman.as whose employment is writing (Ka.)(Ka.lex.)[1]
- BRAHMINS by vedah.net is an arcticle on who the brahmins are and the various sub-groups of Brahmins. The Kayastha Brahmins are mentioned at sl.no. 15 (in alphabetic order). [2]
- The Brahmins : A List of Brahmin Communities is an extensive list prepared by Kamat.com of all Brahmin communities in India. Kayastha Brahmins are mentioned (in alphabetic order). [3]
And I do feel an undercurrent of malice, in the statement made by a few, who say that these sources are unreliable, what would constitute as reliable in their veiw seems to be their view itself. Kayastha Shiromani (talk) 10:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- Kayastha Shiomani, first of all, none of this excuses edit warring. 3 separate editors have said that there are significant problems with your version. At this point, you are required to stop reverting and discuss the issue on the talk page. If after that discussion we still disagre with you, then you can take this issue through dispute resolution. That being said, if you care, I'll tell you one more time: those sources are not reliable sources, based on our guidelines, not just my opinion, but the fact that self-published websites simply never qualify as reliable sources unless they are published by people who are already proven to be exprerts in the field. Furthermore, the version you're reverting to supports most of its claims through the use of ancient religious texts--these will never be reliable for "factual" information in Wikipedia. We can sometimes say "The Puranas say X", but even then we must be very careful to only state literally what they say--no interpretation, per WP:PRIMARY and WP:OR. But, again, this is all stuff you must discuss on the article talk page. Given that you were notified of the edit warring rule, told by an uninvolved admin there was a report here, and still reverted anyway says to me that you need to be blocked, at least temporarily, to prevent further disruption (editing against consensus). Qwyrxian (talk) 11:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I should say that you are basically a well meaning guy with only one shortcoming, i.e. not much respect for the identity of others. As far as the quotes from puranas and manusmritis are concerned, these very same were presented in a British law court in India for the very same reason which is a bone of contention between us. The court took them as reliable sources to decide on the varna status and the decision was 'Kshatriya'. So the likes of us dont have much scope to be choosy with them when the righteous English Courts can accept them as relevant!Kayastha Shiromani (talk) 15:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- Result: 48 hours for long-term edit warring. User gives the impression that they are going to keep on doing their thing regardless of any feedback. Check out this personal attack in an edit summary: You dear sir are a little piece of coal in the world of vast knowledge of which I am the Kohinoor. Look at my edit history. What is a person of such wonderfulness doing in a run-of-the-mill place like Wikipedia that just wants neutral articles. EdJohnston (talk) 16:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
User:117Avenue reported by User:Me-123567-Me (Result: Declined)
Page: Yukon general election, 2011 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 117Avenue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [65]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [70]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [71]
Comments:He's being difficult and claiming a talk page that has feedback from no one. Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- Me-123567-Me has been notified of BRD, but has refused to read it. 117Avenue (talk) 00:44, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- I don't see any effort from either party to discuss the issue on the article's talk page. It also looks like 117Avenue stopped the reverting after the 3RR warning was received; the fourth revert likely overlapped the warning and was performed before the new message notice showed up. —C.Fred (talk) 00:43, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- His last revert was after the warning. And we started with his talk page, probably should have used the article page but we used his page. Not a big deal, he still violated 3RR. Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- After the warning by a scant 57 seconds. Hence my comment about the timing.
Also, I'm not sure that all of the edits are full-on reverts;there seem to have been some efforts to compromise along the line. —C.Fred (talk) 00:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)- He never tried to compromise. That was all me. And he's been around long enough to know the rule, even if the last edit was shortly after the warning. Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- And even attempts at compromise can count as reverts, per WP:3RR. Editor has stepped away from the topic, so I don't think a block will prevent any further disruption to the article, compared to taking no action. —C.Fred (talk) 00:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- He only stepped away because the article is how he wants it at the moment. Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- Which does not give you license to break 3RR to change it back to your preferred version.[72] —C.Fred (talk) 01:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- And he violated 3RR so it could be his version, not mine. Me-123567-Me (talk) 01:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- Which does not give you license to break 3RR to change it back to your preferred version.[72] —C.Fred (talk) 01:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- He only stepped away because the article is how he wants it at the moment. Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- And even attempts at compromise can count as reverts, per WP:3RR. Editor has stepped away from the topic, so I don't think a block will prevent any further disruption to the article, compared to taking no action. —C.Fred (talk) 00:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- He never tried to compromise. That was all me. And he's been around long enough to know the rule, even if the last edit was shortly after the warning. Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- After the warning by a scant 57 seconds. Hence my comment about the timing.
- His last revert was after the warning. And we started with his talk page, probably should have used the article page but we used his page. Not a big deal, he still violated 3RR. Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:49, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- Declined I agree with what C.Fred said and did. Please start discussing instead of reverting one another. There will be no leeway for the next individual in the dispute who makes a revert. FASTILY (TALK) 04:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
User: 97.87.29.188 and 99.119.128.88 and 99.181.138.168 and 99.181.139.210 reported by User:NewsAndEventsGuy (Result: Page Protected)
Page: Talk:Climate change policy of the United States (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:
- 97.87.29.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 99.119.128.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 99.181.138.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 99.181.139.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [[73]] <- Not sure I showed what template wants me to show here.
FIRST, note that 48hr 3RR blocking for IP 97.87.29.188 expired at 23:45 on Aug 25
SUBSEQUENT 3RR violation
- [First revert]
- [Second revert]
- [Third revert (as IP 99.119.128.88)]
- [Fourth revert (as IP 99.181.138.168)]
- [Fifth revert (as IP 99.181.138.168)]
- [Sixth revert (as IP 99.181.139.210)]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I only used tag text and edit summaries as shown in the diffs above PLUS this is the same behavior that just earned the IP a block this week. What more warning could I have added?'
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Ditto
Comments:
On 8-27-11 ~ 03:41 I collapsed several news-aggregation type of posts which lacked specific ideas for improving the article. These had been posted from the following IPs.
- 97.87.29.188 <--- At this time this appears to be the main IP, which is registered to the Kalamazoo Public Library.
- 99.181.138.215
- 99.35.12.88
Each of the reverts simply un-collapsed the news aggregation threads. All seven of the IPs above track back to Grand Rapids/Kalamazoo Michigan area. The main IP appears to be 97.87.29.188, and appears to be spoofing the other IPs to engage in a revert edit war less than 48 hrs after coming out of a 3RR block. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
76.175.193.153 reported by User:SpyMagician (Result: No Violation)
Page: Flash mob (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 76.175.193.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [78]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [79]
Comments:
The IP address user at 76.175.193.153 is clearly Meiert Avis—the director of this and other videos— and he is clearly making edits to this page—and others—solely to promote himself and his work. Additionally he has made edits to replace valid sources with URLs to his self-promotional page on the web such as this one and this one and even this one. --SpyMagician (talk) 06:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. I count three reverts. The IP's first few edits to the page are additions, not reverts. Subsequent edits to the page are reverts however. If the IP makes another revert, please make another report, or leave a note on my talk page. -FASTILY (TALK) 07:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
User:90.199.34.136 reported by User:Puffin (Result: Blocked 72 hours)
Page: International Ultraviolet Explorer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 90.199.34.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff and user talk page.
Comments:
User has already been blocked for edit warring before. Puffin Let's talk! 10:38, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
User:Lambanog and User:WLU reported by User:TransporterMan (Result: )
Page: Coconut oil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User 1 being reported: Lambanog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User 2 being reported: WLU (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [80] (I would note that there was one prior addition and removal, but both were by the same editor and could not in my opinion be considered to be edit warring, though they kind of presaged what was to happen later. Moreover, the EW could arguably be dated to an earlier date as a EW over a section POV tag, but it moved to one over an article POV tag at this point.)
- 1st revert: [81] introduction by Lambanog
- 2nd revert: [82] removal by Belg4mit
- 3rd revert: [83] restoration by Lambanog
- 4th revert: [84] removal by Ronz
- 5th revert: [85] restoration by Lambanog, who subsequently made changes to cure what he perceived to be the POV issue and removed the tag he had restored, followed by reversion of Lambanog's changes by Yobol
- 6th revert: [86] restoration by Lambanog
- 7th revert: [87] removal by WLU
- 8th revert: [88] restoration by Lambanog
- 9th revert: [89] removal by WLU
- 10th revert: [90] restoration by Lambanog
- 11th revert: [91] removal by WLU
- 12th revert: [92] restoration by Lambanog
- 13th revert: [93] removal by WLU
- 14th revert: [94] restoration by Lambanog
- 15th revert: [95] removal by Ronz; I gave a warning to all editors on the article talk page after this removal
- 16th revert: [96] restoration by Lambanog
- 17th revert: [97] removal by Yobol
- 18th revert: [98] restoration by Lambanog; I reiterated my warning at this point, clearing up an ambiguity in my initial warning which might have suggested that it was okay to continue the EW if DR broke down
- 19th revert: [99] removal by WLU
- 20th revert: [100] restoration by Lambanog
- 22st revert: [101] removal by WLU
Diff of first edit warring / 3RR warning: [102]
Second notice: [103]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: As above
Comments: I am only involved in this as a neutral. This is reported as a general edit war, not as a 3RR violation (though some 3RR violations may have occurred, though I haven't looked at that. The POV disputes with this page have been discussed extensively at the POV noticeboard at least twice. An attempt at DR was made at the DRN but failed. WLU argues here that this is the result of tendentious editing by Lambanog, but I express no opinion about that except to say that edit warring is not the way to solve it. I only include WLU and Lambanog as reported users because only they continued to revert and delete after my second notice, but others could arguably be included as well.
— TransporterMan (TALK) 18:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- Other areas where this has been discussed includes:
- In addition, there is an extensive set of discussions at talk:coconut oil in the archives. Every section starting here, and the Questionable content section in archive 3, as well as the current NPOV tag section on today's talk page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- I have made different edits trying to improve the article and have built it up in various ways with a variety of information. I have tried various tags as well to show the multiple errors that the article has. The result is basically the same: removal or reversion to a version with clear factual errors. In my opinion the editors blocking my edits are effectively acting as indiscriminate censors blocking me from editing, displaying a level of article ownership with the implicit message "YOU CANNOT EDIT HERE". They are not looking at the quality of the edits. They seem to behave like this over multiple articles with various editors. They do not build articles, but acting like a pack, tag team individual editors on different articles. At [104] a couple of other editors commenting on a different article share my experience. One also sees there WLU's penchant for hiding stuff. Many noticeboards have been approached for outside opinions but unfortunately little in the way of meaningful suggestions have been provided. I would note that without my persistent editing the article would contain less information because when outsiders have bothered to engage, WLU was compelled to compromise and add stuff that I had originally contributed but had earlier been blocked. Lambanog (talk) 19:09, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- Ownership can go both ways, such as by continuously adding tags and information against a clear consensus. In my opinion much of the grief in the article revolves around issues of how much weight to give ideas about the health value of coconut oil. Weight issues are tricky, requiring both a grasp of the sources and one of wikipedia's more nuanced policy (neutrality). Lambanog appears to believe that saturated fats are healthy for you, and adds this idea to several articles. Quite naturally, an editor noticing the same (in their opinion) error being added across several articles would then go on to correct those articles. Many noticeboards have indeed been approached for outside opinions. As ventured by Hasteur at the DSN ([105]), Lambanog doesn't seem interested in the input from these noticeboards unless it agrees with his interpretation of things. These issues have been discussed extensively, but apparently Lambanog has not heard these discussions. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- With my tags I have brought up the matter of neutrality, but they are swatted away without consideration. The coconut oil producers do not wholeheartedly agree with the findings of certain organizations given weight here (and who also it might be argued could possess a conflict of interest) and their viewpoint is significant for this article. But it is not given. Do a search for sources on this topic and you will be flooded with information quite favorable to coconut oil. As for article ownership, WLU and company's ownership behavior preceded my participation by years. Regarding the noticeboard outcomes, they cannot be said to be particularly conclusive. A look at the talk page archives will show I am not alone in thinking more viewpoints from a different sources would be appropriate. I would also add that removal of sources can be interpreted as vandalism and that the indiscriminate removal of such sources as practiced by WLU isn't ideal to say the least and violates WP:Editing policy. If he believes something is in error let him present the better references; but he doesn't and instead removes references. Simple reason: my sources are better. Lambanog (talk) 19:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- And if you could have presented that information, found in medically reliable sources, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. I've analyzed the sources you have presented, and compared them to the statements made by numerous medical and dietary organizations - clearly the two are at odds. I do not object to coconut oil being healthy in principle. I do object to portraying it as healthy in the absence of an indication that this idea is mainstream. Merely because other viewpoints exist doesn't mean they are equally valid, particularly compared to the scholarly community. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. You bring up your points once, and people clearly disagree sufficient to establish a talk page consensus, you don't get to keep raising them. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- Really? The medical dietary sources say coconut oil is bad due to saturated fat. When newer higher quality medical sources are brought up to show that actually there is a controversy about it, they are removed on the basis of what? Synthesis? But in any event I have provided medical sources specifically about coconut oil—but they were removed. News and media sources? Removed. What is kept are dietary guideline by bodies (that could be accused of having conflicts of interest) that have been criticized by members of the medical community. From a geographic standpoint the article is definitely not neutral encompassing primarily a Western point-of-view. The experience of leading doctors in the coconut producing nations who have coconut eating populations and who have studied and performed trials with it have been cut. On the other hand name the leading coconut oil expert against it? Or are they all hiding behind the veil of anonymity? Lambanog (talk) 20:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- And if you could have presented that information, found in medically reliable sources, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. I've analyzed the sources you have presented, and compared them to the statements made by numerous medical and dietary organizations - clearly the two are at odds. I do not object to coconut oil being healthy in principle. I do object to portraying it as healthy in the absence of an indication that this idea is mainstream. Merely because other viewpoints exist doesn't mean they are equally valid, particularly compared to the scholarly community. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. You bring up your points once, and people clearly disagree sufficient to establish a talk page consensus, you don't get to keep raising them. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- With my tags I have brought up the matter of neutrality, but they are swatted away without consideration. The coconut oil producers do not wholeheartedly agree with the findings of certain organizations given weight here (and who also it might be argued could possess a conflict of interest) and their viewpoint is significant for this article. But it is not given. Do a search for sources on this topic and you will be flooded with information quite favorable to coconut oil. As for article ownership, WLU and company's ownership behavior preceded my participation by years. Regarding the noticeboard outcomes, they cannot be said to be particularly conclusive. A look at the talk page archives will show I am not alone in thinking more viewpoints from a different sources would be appropriate. I would also add that removal of sources can be interpreted as vandalism and that the indiscriminate removal of such sources as practiced by WLU isn't ideal to say the least and violates WP:Editing policy. If he believes something is in error let him present the better references; but he doesn't and instead removes references. Simple reason: my sources are better. Lambanog (talk) 19:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- Ownership can go both ways, such as by continuously adding tags and information against a clear consensus. In my opinion much of the grief in the article revolves around issues of how much weight to give ideas about the health value of coconut oil. Weight issues are tricky, requiring both a grasp of the sources and one of wikipedia's more nuanced policy (neutrality). Lambanog appears to believe that saturated fats are healthy for you, and adds this idea to several articles. Quite naturally, an editor noticing the same (in their opinion) error being added across several articles would then go on to correct those articles. Many noticeboards have indeed been approached for outside opinions. As ventured by Hasteur at the DSN ([105]), Lambanog doesn't seem interested in the input from these noticeboards unless it agrees with his interpretation of things. These issues have been discussed extensively, but apparently Lambanog has not heard these discussions. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:11, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
- Let's break this down to the bare facts so we don't get bogged down in the back and forth. Lambanog has edit-warred against 5 different editors: Ocaasi, Yobol, Ronz, Belg4mit, and WLU numerous times over the course of 5 months. No one else has put the POV tag back except for Lambaong. Meanwhile, Lambanog justifies their behavior by numerous accusations of bad faith, basically trying to justify why ignoring the consensus on the talk page, accusing everyone else in being in a coordinated cabal against them. Lambanog has disrupted this article for 5 months now, and does not accept consensus despite multiple noticeboard postings. Yobol (talk) 00:44, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
User:Tony0106 reported by User:Wesley Mouse (Result: )
Page: Eurovision Song Contest 2012 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tony0106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [106]
- 1st revert: [107]
- 2nd revert: [108]
- 3rd revert: [109]
- 4th revert: [110]
- 5th revert: [111]
- 6th revert: [112]
- 7th revert: [113]
- 8th revert: [114]
- 9th revert: [115]
- 10th revert: [116]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [117]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [118]
Comments:
The user has constantly reverted the article to suit his own beliefs, despite several polite requests from other editors to cease doing so, and to leave the article alone while a dispute is in progress regarding the reliability of a specific Azerbaijani news website as sourcing for the main article. Wesley Mouse (talk) 23:25, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
User:BlueonGray reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: )
Page: Ricardo Duchesne (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BlueonGray (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [123]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
- ^ Sanskrit Dictionary at Hindunet.org
- ^ Vepachedu, Sreenivasarao. "Brahmins". vedah.net. Retrieved 2009-07-18.
- ^ Kamat, Vikas (April 01,2003). "A List of Brahmin Communities". kamat.com. Retrieved 2009-07-18.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help)