Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive117

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Mo HH92 reported by User:Manticore55 (Result: Use DR)[edit]

Page: Stephenie Meyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Mo HH92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

  • 1st revert: [1]
  • 2nd revert: [2]
  • 3rd revert: [3]
  • 4th revert: [diff]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Comments:

  • the page you are reporting the violation on doesn't exist please fix up the report as it won't be actioned otherwise. Spartaz Humbug! 16:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I repaired the header; report should be ready for review now. User:Mo HH92 seems to be repeatedly removing a well-sourced Criticism section from the article. I'll leave him a note, and ask him to respond here. EdJohnston (talk) 17:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with the criticism section, but why include it again when it is already mentioned in the main Twilight series page? The author's article only comments on her life, backgrounds and literary achievements. All the criticism of her books needs to go on the pages of the books itself and not on HER article. People may find it extremely confusing.Mo HH92 Talk 18:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined Slightly stale report where subsequent discussion has shown a willingness to discuss changes to avoid a continuing edit war. Nja247 18:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

User:ASOTMKX reported by User:67.66.219.252 (Result: Declined)[edit]

Page: Feel It (Three 6 Mafia song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: ASOTMKX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

  • 1st revert: [4]
  • 2nd revert: [5]
  • 3rd revert: [6]
  • 4th revert: [7]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Comments:

  • Comment. The links that User:67.66.219.252 has been adding, and User:ASOTMKX has been reverting, seem to be spam links (free song downloads) that violate WP:EL. I have now warned 67.66.219.252 on their talk page about posting spam links. In my opinion, User:ASOTMKX was right to revert the addition of these links repeatedly. Dawn Bard (talk) 20:43, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
  • No 3RR warning was given. I have now notified ASOTMKX of this discussion. It is arguable whether a download link is actually spam when this is the article about the song. One might argue the song isn't notable enough to have its own article, but that's another question. ASOTMKX has made about 40 reverts in the last couple of days, some of which are self-reverts. Mysterious. EdJohnston (talk) 00:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I thought the link was spam and agree with Dawn Bard completely. ASOTMKX (talk) 02:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Above under the Definition of the three revert rule it states "The three-revert rule does not apply to self-reverts, reverts within a user's own user space, or reverts of obvious vandalism, banned users, copyright violations or libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons."
The 3rd and 4th revert were self reverts which this page says do not count. And it also says the reverts do not apply to copyright violations, which I believe the link is. ASOTMKX (talk) 02:55, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
  • An admin can now change this discussion title to Result: No Violation, because I am completely in the right. And i also agree to the suggestion that EdJohnston put on my talk page to post the situation at WT:WPSPAM if this type of thing happens again. ASOTMKX (talk) 03:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined See comments above. All seems reasonable. Nja247 18:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Fragma08 reported by User:Hipocrite (Result: 31h )[edit]

Page: Mufti Ebrahim Desai‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Fragma08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [14]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [15]

Comments: This is a WP:COATRACK blp violation. Hipocrite (talk) 22:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Please in your own words--rather than just referencing/linking to the guidance, explain why this particular source is a violation. We know the rule, but how do you believe it applies to the fatwa?--Epeefleche (talk) 23:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


In my defence, I would like to bring to the board's attention, which I also explained several times to User:Hipocrite, that this is not a coatrack issue. The grounds on, which User:Hipocrite removed the content ("coatrack and defamatory information"), when clearly one can not a claim a person's work or words are defamatory to same persons article, were the reason for my reverts which I also explained in my edits as well on his talkpage. I will eloborate.

The article was reduced to a stub following discovery of copyright issues, hence large part of the biography was removed at 21:16, 24 November 2009 . Only 6 minutes later, User:Hipocrite calls the article coatrack at 21:22, 24 November 2009 and repeatedly removes the information pertaining to the mufti, which could also be reported as violation. Opinions and fatwas of muftis are quite common to the relevant scholar's biography (interlinked), if you look at other mufti or scholar articles on wikipedia. Thus I fail to see the rationale of User:Hipocrite. Attempted disussion with User:Hipocrite, resulted in him telling me, he did not want to discuss with me, which I respected. I now learn he has reported me.

Fatwas are dependent on the mufti or scholar, who issues them and therefore talking about secondary references is irrelevant as the fatwa depends solely on the fatwa issuer again dependent on sectarian background. The fatwa is, what the mufti issues, and the content was quoted in context but as it was in his own words. The information belongs there but the article must be expanded. One can not seriously expect expansion to happen straight away as it is time consuming.

Hence the report filed by User:Hipocrite is quite irrational and coatrack claims are unfounded considering the above. I can not help feel this is an attempt based on bias of getting rid of editors, one does not agree with. Fragma08 (talk) 22:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

More reverts:

  • 7th revert (still in one 24 hour period) [16] - Removes the tag directing readers to talk to discuss the coatrack issue.
  • 8th revert (still in one 24 hour period) [17] - reverts yet another editor removing the coatracky rape discussion.

Is this page watched by anyone? Hipocrite (talk) 12:09, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The issue can not be a coatrack 6 minutes afte majority of the biography has been removed. The whole coatrack argument would be valid if it was over longer period of time. Hence tag removed. I did not see the harm therefore. If this really was a coatrack I would have no problem, but in the period of 6 minutes, hardly. Allow for time for the article to be built again with references.Fragma08 (talk) 12:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

  • 31h for the clear 3RR violation - I would advise User:Hipocrite to stop at 3RR in future where the BLP issue is not completely obvious, though. Black Kite 12:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Spitzer19 reported by User:Gaius Octavius Princeps (Result: 3 days)[edit]

Page: National Democratic Party of Germany (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Spitzer19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [27] The User deleted a previous warning.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [28]

Comments:

Endless reverts. Completely unreasonable behaviour from user who has been blocked several times before for this. Gaius Octavius Princeps (talk) 01:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC) -->

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 3 days Though reduced to 24 hours as they haven't edited in 2 days. I was distracted andf failed to realise the date stamps. Nja247 18:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

User:119.122.174.129 reported by User:ianmacm (Result: 31h / page protected)[edit]

Page: Flash Video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Template:119.122.174.129


Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

  • 1st revert: [diff]
  • 2nd revert: [diff]
  • 3rd revert: [diff]
  • 4th revert: [diff]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

Comments:

There is an ongoing problem at Flash Video with IP users based in China adding links to brand name software. The issue has been discussed on the talk page, but it is becoming tiring to remove this without discussion. Also a violation of WP:NPA here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 11:20, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

  • 3 spamlink entries and an NPA = 31 hours. Page semi-protected. Black Kite 12:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Fragma08 reported by User:Quantpole (Result: 31h)[edit]

Page: Mufti Ebrahim Desai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Fragma08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [34]

Diffs of attempts to resolve dispute: [35], [36] and see [37]

Comments:

Repeated reinsertion of material into an article that is only sourced to a persons website, with no independent sources to show importance of info. Continuing edit warring after being warned. Quantpole (talk) 12:36, 25 November 2009 (UTC) Ooops, sorry, whilst (very slowly) putting this together I failed to notice that this had already been reported. No further action needed thanks! Quantpole (talk) 12:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Already blocked Nja247 18:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Epeefleche reported by User:YellowFives (Result: Declined)[edit]

Epeefleche (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 13:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

  1. 06:43, 24 November 2009 (edit summary: "this statements is true, and RSs in the article backing individual instances support it")
  2. 18:29, 24 November 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted 2 edits by 92.10.110.132 identified as vandalism to last revision by YellowFives. (TW)")
  3. 18:36, 24 November 2009 (edit summary: "/* Ideology */")
  4. 01:33, 25 November 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 327763527 by YellowFives (talk)")

In three of these reverts, Epeefleche is edit warring to include a WP:BLP violation, which I have explained in my summaries. The revert of 92.10.110.132 is a misuse of Twinkle rollback to call a content dispute vandalism.

(This is not the first recent instance of calling good-faith IP edits vandalism. Epeefleche left five consecutive vandalism warnings at User talk:98.204.201.79, starting at 17:26, for a series of six content-dispute edits which had already ended at 17:09, two of which had edit summaries which made clear that this was a content dispute and not vandalism. The IP editor then asked at Talk:Anwar al-Awlaki why the warnings, and received no answer.)

Please let me know if the harassment of the IP editor and the abuse of Twinkle can not be dealt with here, so I can report it at AN/I instead. ~YellowFives 13:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks very much like a content dispute to me. Let's see:
I count 4:3 in favour of the plaintiff. Why don't you discuss - a bunch of edit summaries do not constitute a discussion. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 13:45, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
It is indeed a content dispute. Where do you suppose edit warring usually happens, if not in content disputes? That does not make it acceptable for Epeefleche to break 3RR. My removals of BLP-violating content are required by the WP:BLP policy, which says that it is Epeefleche who must argue to gain consensus for their inclusion.
That does not address Epeefleche's harassment of the IP editor and abuse of Twinkle, by the way. ~YellowFives 14:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Also this edit which you called "revert one" was not a revert. ~YellowFives 14:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
  1. My above-indicated four edits differ. Some deal with completely different paragraphs. Some revise the language in an effort to placate YF. One adds footnotes (that were already in the article, but not appended to the sentence).
  2. As explained to YF in the very first edit, the statements that YF and an unknown IP in tandem were deleting have RSs, already reflected in the article.
  3. There was no synth. The RSs made the indicated statements.
  4. There was not BP violation. The RSs made the statements.
  5. The IP reverted at #2 above on YF's list--who has made only two references ever--made two deletions, both of which included deletions of refs, and didn't even leave an edit summary for either deletion.
  6. When I reverted IP 98.204.201.79 (the second IP YF mentions), and left an edit warning, it was appropriate, as YF well knows, and as a glance at those edits will show (they consist, for example, of the IP's deletions of sourced statements along with their footnotes, and insertion by the IP of debatable unsourced blog-like statements). See here.
  7. YF then wikihounded me (something he has done before, and continues to do), and told that IP in essence to ignore my warnings--writing "Your edits are not vandalism".
  8. YF has been a problematic, tendentious editor who has appeared at article I edit shortly after his recent creation, and even before the Muslim Mafia AfD that he brought. A glance at his interactions with other editors there gives a sense for his style. He insisted on fighting with other editors, who voted 17-2 against his AfD (with one telling me after he would have changed the vote to 18-1 if I had asked him to take another look). One of the other editors there was concerned as well that YF might be wikihounding him.
  9. Just 12 days ago I had a problem with YF constantly reverting me. I tried edit summaries. I then tried discussion on his talk page. To no avail. Only then did I go the 3RR page. During that discussion, the information YF was deleting as not backed by a RS (despite contrary views on the RS Noticeboard) was ultimately supported by clear RSs as well, so the issue became moot. Whereupon Black Kite -- embroiled in a concurrently in a separate dispute with me, but somehow not seeing that as a COI -- closed the 3RR as no violation.
  10. I find it exceedingly odd that YF, shortly after being created, would seek me out and cause so much disruption.
  11. When this is closed, I would appreciate it if someone would suggest to YF that he not wikihound me. Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
I am not "wikihounding" you, and I did not "seek you out." You should retract these personal attacks. I started editing at the Fort Hood shooting article and that led me to Anwar al-Awlaki.
Please explain how telling the IP 98.204.201.79 that their edits were not vandalism -- which they were not -- constitutes "wikihounding" you.
What are "the statements that YF and an unknown IP in tandem were deleting"? I do not see any edits which are shared by myself and either of the IPs in question.
The IP deleted references, yes, but that is still a content dispute, not vandalism. ~YellowFives 14:52, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I stand by what I said above. Answers: 1) the IP e.g. blanked appropriate material w/out reason; I understand that to be vandalism; 2) following me to his page disruptively is wikihounding; 3) you and the IPs deleted appropriate material from same article. You clearly know I didn't violate 3RR above; therefore it may be less than civil for you to say I did. My suggestion is that in the future where either of us sees the other on a page, we seek to avoid the page. I think its time to cool jets.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
  • My point is that YellowFives deigned to call the four diffs reverts when he himself actually made four straight reverts. I believe Epeefleche's edit (4th diff) is not a revert in that it actually took account of YellowFives' concern, by citing the three sources. What synthesis is he complaining about? Three sources say he's a terrorist. Full stop. It's binary; there's nothing simpler and less synthetic than that. Properly cited and attributed, I don't see how there is any BLP violation. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Again, my first edit was not a revert, it was just an edit. ~YellowFives 15:29, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
OK, so the score is 3:2. You're still ahead ;-) And you didn't answer my question or address the points I made. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 15:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
None of the sources "say he's a terrorist" and that is not even the content in dispute. To my knowledge not even Epeefleche is asserting that he's a terrorist. But the content of the article is not the discussion here. This board is only about the act of edit warring. ~YellowFives 16:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Retraction: I see Ohconfucius' point about the fourth revert not strictly being a revert. By that reasoning, Epeefleche may not have broken 3RR. And I have taken the issue of the IP harassment and Twinkle abuse to WP:ANI. If admins would like to take this retraction to save themselves the trouble of determining 3RR, I will not complain. ~YellowFives 16:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined Discussed at ANI. Nja247 19:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

User:ReligionScholar reported by Jeff3000 (talk) (Result: 31h)[edit]

People of the Book (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). ReligionScholar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 14:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

  1. 02:11, 26 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "the facts are presented and then the opinions are shown, it is placed in a proper format.")
  2. 02:23, 26 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 327972869 by Warrior4321 (talk) absolutely NO references have been removed.")
  3. 02:45, 26 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 327974095 by Warrior4321 (talk) ok only one was missed but you will have to look at the discussion page.")
  4. 04:39, 26 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 327986655 by Warrior4321 (talk) see discussion")
  5. 05:07, 26 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 327990693 by Warrior4321 (talk) see discussion, thanks")
  6. 06:35, 26 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "article put back in neutral form. if further vandalism occurs mods will neet to ban users who are continously vandalising article.")
  7. 06:46, 26 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 328000915 by Prodego (talk) just read this format and you will see that its completely neutral.")
  8. 09:18, 26 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "the definition was changed into something completely wrong based on original research and "opinion". have replaced it with the correct definition based on facts and have put opinions in seperate secti")
  9. 10:20, 26 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "citation already given directly from the quran in surah maidah see definition section. the quran is the highest source in islam, there is no secondary source that can be used as argument against it.")
  10. 13:10, 26 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 328021036 by Bjenks (talk) which is why another section was created for opinions.")
  11. 14:40, 26 November 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 328040157 by Warrior4321 (talk) undoing spam")
  12. # 15:56, 26 November 2009 (edit summary: "i am not undoing but i am editing the page. that does not count as a revert right? i am changing the article to the previous neutral form and requesting a lock on article thanks.")


  • Diff of warning: here

This editor was first reported as breaking 3RR about a week ago (see here), and the admin at that time decided to not block him, but pursue a more consultative attitude toward him since he was a new editor. Since that time, multiple editors, including the last admin, have very civilly tried to consult with the editor about what are constructive ways to edit, and what the policies are (both on the talk page, and his user talk page), but the user does not agree with them because they don't align with his notion of Truth (capital T). In the past 24 hours he has reverted the page 11 times, even after a second 3RR warning, and a pleading to play within the rules. —Jeff3000 (talk) 14:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

See a discussion of a reform plan at User talk:ReligionScholar#Imminent sanction. EdJohnston (talk) 16:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Result -- 31 hours for edit warring. No agreement could be reached on a reform plan. EdJohnston (talk) 18:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Mutbue reported by User:LaVidaLoca (Result: already blocked )[edit]

Page: Hayden Panettiere (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Mutbue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [38]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [43]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [44]

Comments:
This editor has spent hours today trying to add a chart ranking for a song which did not chart. The editor has repeatedly returned the ranking, adding various "cites" which either are non-existent or do not support any mention of chart ranking. In addition, it appears, from the edit history, this is yet another new sock puppet of User:Xtinadbest who has taken dozens of new identities (Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Xtinadbest, Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Xtinadbest) but edits the same block of articles. This user does not respond to postings nor talk page requests. Most importantly, the song did not chart. Thanks. LaVidaLoca (talk) 19:48, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

  • had been blocked indef already when I looked at this. Spartaz Humbug! 04:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Math.geek3.1415926 reported by User:William M. Connolley (Result: 12 hours)[edit]

Page: Climatic Research Unit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Math.geek3.1415926 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [45]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [50] In this diff, user shows awareness of 3RR rules. Subsequent warnings [51] have brought no change in behaviour.

Note: this diff [52] asserts the user is up to 7R on Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident. Certainly the user is inserting exactly the same material there [53].

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see user talk page. Article talk page is "busy".

Comments:

William M. Connolley (talk) 22:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

It is inaccurate to refer to my contributions as simple reversions. Each of my subsequent edits adressed issues raised during the discussion: references were improved, wording was changed, etc. The talk page discussions indicate that the editors objecting to my edits have clearly missed that the references were improved per the prior discussion.Math.geek3.1415926 (talk) 23:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Duchamps comb reported by User:William M. Connolley (Result: 31h)[edit]

Page: Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident ‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Duchamps comb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

  • 1st revert: [54] (edit comment: "readd")
  • 2nd revert: [55], reinserts climategate link, reverts [56]
  • 3rd revert: [57] (same revert)
  • 4th revert: [58] (reverts [59])


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Long term user, already familiar with 3RR [60].

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The article talk page is quite "busy". The user has been discussing stuff there [61] but it hasn't helped.

Comments:

Those aren't all, just a sample William M. Connolley (talk) 12:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


  • [62] My comment here stoaked the fire.
  • [63] William M. Connolley was asked/warned to step away from the article due to WP:COI as some of his emails were part of those hacked.
  • [64] Warned for editwaring on the article here.
  • From the above it becomes easy to see William M. Connolley's bias, conflict of interest, whitewashing, and Edit warring.
  • As far as my actions technically I think I'm guilty. I promise to leave the article alone for the next 24hrs. However my edits were in good faith, I tried to use the talk page often. I mostly tried to be bold by saving refs, add a redirect (which was nominated for speedy deletion and gone before I got a chance to develop it), and change verbiage here and there. I did not even really get involved too much with overall content. I did stick to my guns with the MSM dubbing the event "climategate".--Duchamps_comb MFA 16:31, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
    • The misleading summary and personal attacks made by Duchamps_comb above should be taken into account by the closing admin. None of WMCs emails are involved, he is mentioned peripherally, and has no clear CoI. He was found not to have broken 3RR in the reports due to removing clearly BLP infringing material. There is no evidence for the slurs of "bias, conflict of interest, whitewashing, and Edit warring". Besides, none of these arguments are valid reasons for ignoring 3RR. Verbal chat 17:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Update an attempt to bate me to revert by removing "climategate" & ref [67]--Duchamps_comb MFA 17:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
  • 31h Not only a 3RR block, although that is an issue, more a generally disruptive editing block, including inserting negative material sourced only to blogs, for exampple. Black Kite 20:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

User:William M. Connolley reported by User:Duchamps comb (Result: I think not)[edit]

Page: Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident ‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: User:William M. Connolley

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

  • 1st revert:[68] removed term (re-rm climategate)
  • 2nd revert: [69] (same revert) re-rm climategate; re-rm meaningless "statistical data"
  • 3rd revert: [70] removed the word forgery with ref
  • 4th revert: [71] removed FOIA requests and ref
  • For any additional information or please see previous report.

Comments:

Nice try, but note that edits 1 and 4 are contiguous so count as one. It is curious that you just "happened" to place those first and last, to make this less obvious - someone more suspicious might wonder if you're being entirely honest William M. Connolley (talk) 19:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
No vio someone even more suspicious might think this is disruptive. Black Kite 19:56, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

User:92.247.238.43 reported by User:Anothroskon (Result: No vio)[edit]

Page: Saints Cyril and Methodius (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 92.247.238.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [72]

  • 1st revert: [73]
  • 2nd revert: [74]
  • 3rd revert: [75]
  • 4th revert: [diff]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [76]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [77]

Comments:


No vio of 3RR yet but edit warrior mentality and off colour language on second edit. --Anothroskon (talk) 18:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

  • No vio as you say, but worth taking elsewhere if this continues. Black Kite 19:59, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Igorwindsor reported by User:DrKiernan (Result: 24 h)[edit]

Page: Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Igorwindsor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [78]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [83]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom#Australian territories

Comments:


24 h. Also edit warring elsewhere, so longer would probably be merited if behaviour continues. - 2/0 (cont.) 09:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

User:WLU reported by User:Riverpa (Result: no vio)[edit]

Page: Bioidentical hormone replacement therapy ‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: WLU (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Constant Reversions, Edit warring and Ownership of the page. WLU has some interesting interpretations of WP policies., such as ""The fact that there is so much criticism and skepticism about bioidenticals means the article should be both critical and skeptical" which I tried to address with him on the Talk page here [[84]]

He indicates his Ownership, after acknowledging that there is a valid minority viewpoint here that he should accommodate [[85]] he indicates that he will be the one to make the editorial changes.

[revert] - First revert - I did a clean-up on the lede, also I changed location of a paragraph - he did just a straight revert, and listed some reasons on the Talk page.

[revert] - Second revert - I revised the changes that I had previously done so they incorporated the points he had raised in his objections, even though I did not agree with them, to provide a compromise. I noted that on the Talk page. He reversed it again here.

[revert] Third revert - continues to insist that a paragraph heading "Lack of evidence for claims" is not POV when Style clearly states not to make a conclusion in the para headings, he reverted here when I changed it to Evidence for claims.

These two reverts [[86]] [[87]] (I guess these are still 3rd revert since no intervening edit was done) - manage to again change the text to show that the WHI was a study about hormone treatment for menopausal symptoms, which is untrue. WHI was a study to support use of hormone therapy for coronary heart disease, and possibly other chronic diseases. [1]

Excerpt from the Conclusions of the abstract "The risk-benefit profile found in this trial is not consistent with the requirements for a viable intervention for primary prevention of chronic diseases, and the results indicate that this regimen should not be initiated or continued for primary prevention of CHD."

[revert] Fourth revert - same topic

WLU has taken virtual control of this article over a period of months, skirting the edges of 3RR, and rejecting other editors when they attempt to introduce any neutrality into the article. Any changes made by other editors are revised over a period of days to a version that is in keeping with his POV. He will not engage in trying to reach consensus, rather he argues the same POV over and over.

His writing style is not particularly graceful, yet even when I change the grammar, spelling, and try to bring areas into compliance with WP:Style without significantly changing content, he still reverts back to his version, such as here [[88]]. He refuses to allow the inclusion of any quotes from sources, no matter how brief: [[89]] insisting on re-phrasing to better reflect his POV.

His treatment of me has been WP:Bitey and WP:Pointy from the day I joined Wiki. He has removed POV tags on the article multiple times[[90]] [[91]] without any attempt to bring the article to a more neutral point, and without any explanation other than his WP:Truth.

While he is quick to change or delete my entries and those of other editors, he makes it known here [[92]] that "If three other editors revert my changes, I stop making them and discuss on the talk page", indicating that he is unwilling to come to a consensus unless he is outnumbered 3 to 1, by editors assertive enough to do a delete of his contribution.

Also, has a hard time keeping terms straight - estriol becomes estrogen, progesterone becomes progestin, skeptical becomes critical, championing becomes "intense promotion', and "stimulates breast cancer cell growth" becomes "leading to breast cancer". These are significant differences in this discussion, yet he continues to re-introduce them even when they are corrected and documented as not properly reflecting the source. Riverpa (talk) 22:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

  • No violation of 3RR and this is a content dispute which should be dealt with via disupte resolution. Black Kite 10:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

User:RepublicanJacobite reported by User:Jimsteele9999 (Result: Article protected)[edit]

Page: A Perfect Day for Bananafish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: RepublicanJacobite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

[93] Previous version reverted to: [94]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [100]

Comments:

I think it's best we nip this in the bud. In fact, I may be guilty of 3RR too but at least there's a record of my work on the talk page. Isn't that where we're supposed to start? And the edit summaries are so poorly written I can't follow his logic, I just see insults. The article needs help, and this edit war isn't helping at all!

Jim Steele (talk) 01:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I've warned both editors that it would be logical to block both. (Why do people come here who are already over 3RR themselves?) I'm hoping that we will see promises of improvement. If not, the inevitable may follow. EdJohnston (talk) 04:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Well, where to begin? My intention, throughout all of my edits, both to this article, and other articles related to J. D. Salinger and the Glass family, is to remove what I viewed as uncited opinions. Mr. Steele has claimed numerous times that the interpretations and analysis he has added to these articles is backed up by sources, so I have asked that said sources be provided, and that they be quoted, not paraphrased or summarized. Some examples:
  1. [101]
  2. [102]
  3. [103]
  4. [104]
Some of the diffs provided above by Mr. Steele are inaccurate in that they skip over edits I made which were rewrites, format fixes to titles and refs, etc., edits which improved the readability of the article. Indeed, many of the diffs he provides are not reverts, per se, but substantial rewrites which, yes, removed information, but never without an explanation, i.e., that the information added was uncited. In fact, Mr. Steele made reverts which reinserted bad links, badly formatted references, repetitive information, analysis with no references, and details he said were "important" without quoting anyone who said why:
  1. [105]
  2. [106]
  3. [107]
Now, this edit [108] was a mistake on my part, an edit made in a fit of pique, which I regret.
And how about some of the personal comments made by the user in regard to me, like "I mean, if this is how you express yourself via the written word, and you consider yourself a 'writer' I'm glad, very glad you live very far away!" [109] That was, to say the least, totally uncalled for. Indeed, the very first comment he ever made to me was the following: "Are you at all familiar with Salinger's works?" [110] I took this as a clever way of implying that he believes I am not, thereby implying that my edits to said articles are unwelcome. And there are others: [111], [112], [113] My reticence to engage with the editor on the talk page arose, in part, from the fact that he could not seem to stop making these sorts of comments.
In closing, I will not claim that my behavior has been saintly, and it is possible that an earlier discussion could possibly have avoided this idiotic back-and-forth, but I believe the diffs show that my intention was to seek references for the editor's claims, not merely to revert to my preferred version of the article. I am more than happy to see the articles in question expanded and improved, but they are not improved by simply adding opinions and/or analysis that is unsourced. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 04:24, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Oy vey. I'm glad to see the article now has an analysis section, and I know there's more to be done. That is one of my intents in editing the article. Thankfully, there are some good critical interpretations of this story. I've included some. There will be more to follow. I'd also expect a more experienced editor, who has violated 3RR in the past to exercise some restraint. Then again, the user has self-referenced to his anger in various posts, as well as a posting saying he "didn't give a shit." All I asked, initially was if he was at all familar with Salinger works? I've asked it before, and get a multitude of responses including: not really, I just like Catcher. Or, I find his Glass stories great but haven't read them all. I wanted something to start with. Well, that didn't work. All I can follow are comments embedded in his edit histories, and no, they don't all pertain to lack of references. I'm happy with whatever decision is made, and will continue to edit/expand pages, as it's great to to see an article expand before my eyes!

Jim Steele (talk) 03:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Whilst the correct course of action should really be to block both editors', I have instead protected the article for three days, during which both editors should attempt to come to a mutually acceptable version by engaging on the talkpage. If edit-warring re-occurs after the protection expires, then blocking will be used. Black Kite 10:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

User:66.56.16.251 reported by User:Mason.Jones (Result: No vio)[edit]

Page: Sandy Springs, Georgia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 66.56.16.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

  • 1st revert: [diff]
  • 2nd revert: [diff]
  • 3rd revert: [diff]
  • 4th revert: [diff]




Link: Sandy Springs, Georgia: discussion Actual "Discussion" text copied as follows

As a native Georgian, I realize there's some competition among Georgia's 2nd- and 3rd-tier cities. Some people wish to inflate the population of their hometown. But where do these figures raising Sandy Springs' population to over 100,000 come from? According to the 2008 population estimates (released just this year), Sandy Springs has 82,674 people and is the 8th-largest city in the state, not the 6th-largest. The US Census estimate (2008 is the last one before the official census of 2010) is the only figure used in encyclopedias, including Wikipedia--no others are considered valid.Mason.Jones (talk) 19:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this "estimate"...which, by the way, is very likely an UNDERestimate?76.17.118.157 (talk) 20:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

There was no underestimate. I believe that the 100,000 figure for Sandy Springs was erroneously taken from preliminary statistical "spreads" that were not populations and that were not final. The final 2008 estimate of 82,674 was just released by the Census Bureau on July 1 of this year. The exact link is: http://www.census.gov/popest/cities/tables/SUB-EST2008-04-13.xls Mason.Jones (talk) 00:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC) [diff]

Comments:

Unidentified user constantly inflates latest official US Census Bureau population of Sandy Springs, GA from 82,674, eighth-largest city in Georgia, third-largest city in the Atlanta metro area) to different figures ("100,000 or 101,000", "sixth-largest" city in state, "second-largest" city in Atlanta metro area), which is mendacious and outright vandalism. His/her changes appear where the population is mentioned at three points in the article (in the info box, in first paragraph of article, and in "Population History" section toward end of article). Can these become protected fields for a time or is my daily monitoring/changing the proper solution? Will do this if it's the current policy. Thanks for your advice.Mason.Jones (talk) 01:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

  • No vio Three of the four edits were contiguous, so nothing to do here. If edits are vandalism they should be reverted and the editor reported at WP:AIV. Black Kite 10:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

User:StephenTech reported by Falcon8765 (talk) (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Flash Video (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). StephenTech (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC


  • Diff of warning: here

Falcon8765 (talk) 04:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 07:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Tillman reported by Cardamon (talk) (Result: Page protected)[edit]

Page: Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident ‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Tillman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Tine reported: 05:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC The following reversions of different edits on a rapidly changing page. So, they don't all revert to the same version. But, they are all clearly reversions. The 2nd and 3rd revsions are almost the same reversion.

1) 21:16, 27 November 2009 (edit summary: "/* Hacked and leaked documents */ sub "unauthorized release" & leak for NPOV, see talk") This is a reversion of this edit by ChrisO: [114].

2) 21:39, 27 November 2009 (edit summary: "/* See also */ restore FOI section, see talk") Reversion of this edit by Tony Sidaway: [115].

3) 23:37, 27 November 2009 (edit summary: "Restore -- see talk. Comment there, please. Science Insider is clearly a RS,") Reversion of this edit by Itsmejudith: [116].

4) 02:20, 28 November 2009 (edit summary: "bold by convention, alt. name") This reverts the following edit by me: [117]

  • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: These are numerous and include, to his credit, some by Tillman himself.

Cardamon (talk) 05:22, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

KDP has since struck his complaint, see diff. here. But I see from above that I seem to have lost track. I apologize -- this has become a very active article, and it's hard to get some editors to discuss this particular issue (among others) at talk. No disruption or edit-war intended. Also see BLP/N for another attempt to resolve this issue. Thanks, Pete Tillman (talk) 05:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Here are two new reverts by Tillman:

5) This edit by Tillman 05:13, 28 November 2009 completely reverts this edit by Viriditas: [118].

6) Following 5), this edit by Tillman 05:22, 28 November 2009 is an almost complete revert of this edit by Viriditas: [119]. Cardamon (talk) 05:59, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

This article is in a lot of flux. Even some of the regulars who should know better have been pushing the limits. Nothing significant here. Please move along. --GoRight (talk) 06:07, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

User:76.199.115.208 reported by User:Anaxamandra (Result: already blocked)[edit]

Page: Gabourey_Sidibe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 76.199.115.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Note there are more from this user as well.


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [124]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] I have not as I suspect this is pure vandalism.

Comments:


Anaxamandra (talk) 09:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Already blocked for vandalism. Black Kite 10:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

User:TheSickBehemoth reported by User:Lykantrop (Result: 31 hours)[edit]

Page: The Red Chord (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: TheSickBehemoth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [125]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [130]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [131]

Comments:
Fillowing the WP:1RR I tried to explain the problem to the user, who after being unable to respond properly, repeatedly deleted the discussion from his talkpage as a spam ([132], [133]). After he confirmed that the discussion was over, he ignored my further attempt to discuss, my warnings and resumed reverting.--  LYKANTROP  20:11, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

My notice that he has been reported on this page has been removed after one minute from his talkpage by himself ([134])--  LYKANTROP  20:19, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours NW (Talk) 20:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Xandar reported by User:Karanacs (Result: protected)[edit]

Page: Catholic Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Xandar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


  • Epczaw added unsourced text to the article [135]
  • Eustress added a citation to a reliable source [136]
  • Another editor modified this text to make it more NPOV [137]
  • Xandar reverts all of the additional text [138]
  • Haldraper reverts Xandar [139] with an edit summary asking Xandar to justify removal on talk
  • Xandar removes text without talk page discussion [140]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Edit-warring is an ongoing problem at this page, and numerous warnings have been give. The latest was a few days ago. [141]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: has not happened.

Comments:

The edit-warring on this article must stop. Xandar may have a valid point in his removal of the text, but repeated reversions of cited information are not appropriate if no attempt has been made to discuss on the talk page. Karanacs (talk) 23:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Article protected for one week. Editor warned to exercise due diligence and seek consensus on talk. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

User:71.22.227.188 reported by User:Jiujitsuguy (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page: 2006 Lebanon War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User Being Reported: 71.22.227.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: here


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [146]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [147]

Comments:

The reverting party has no user ID just an IP address. I suspect he is socking using the IP address of 99.157.98.136 as the barrage of reverts by 71.22.227.188 was accompanied by similar reverts from 99.157.98.136. I asked 71.22.227.188 to take the issue to the discussion page but he did not take heed. The paragraph that 71.22.227.188 is reverting has been there since the summer after reaching consensus.--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 17:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment Both of those addresses show signs of being experienced editors, but they geolocate a few thousand miles from each other. There is no technical vio here, but I am going to leave this open in case someone thinks semi would be worthwhile, wants to open an SPI, or thinks discretionary sanctions are necessary at that article. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
The second, third and fourth reverts all occurred within 24hrs. This by itself warrants a sanction. In any event, Semi protection limiting edits exclusively to users with accounts is warranted here--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Result - Semi. The IP 71.22.227.188 is repeatedly taking out a quote from Michael Totten. Its value can only be determined on the Talk page, but neither this IP nor his colleague 99.157.98.136 is participating on Talk. Due the Israel/Palestine sanctions we expect to see better than usual editor behavior on this set of articles. EdJohnston (talk) 05:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Chhora reported by User:Sikh-history (Result: advised)[edit]

Page: Gujjar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Chhora (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [148]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [153]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [154]

Comments:

I have tried to reason with this editor and tried to convince him not to delete references bu tag them.He either does not wish to or does not understand. I am very reluctant to ask for this action but I cannot see any other way.--Sikh-History 18:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined New editor advised in wikijargon - I cannot find where anyone mentions 3RR. They have had plenty of warnings, but those can come across as just one user warring with another. Recommend escalating short blocks if warring continues. Page protection looks unnecessary at the moment, but remains an option. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Darrenhusted reported by 67.223.237.90 (talk) 18:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC) (Result: user reminded)[edit]

This editor has been repeatedly reverting article changes for A Serious Man over the course of several weeks. He also makes changes to articles copying and pasting previous versions to hide revision behavior.

  1. (cur) (prev) 18:42, 30 November 2009 67.223.237.90 (talk) (21,157 bytes) (Undid revision 328848061 by Darrenhusted (talk) Please stop reverting this edit.) (undo)
  2. (cur) (prev) 18:40, 30 November 2009 Darrenhusted (talk | contribs) (17,636 bytes) (Slowly for you, one last time. The Manual of Style for fiction.) (undo)
  3. (cur) (prev) 18:39, 30 November 2009 67.223.237.90 (talk) (21,157 bytes) (Undid revision 328847285 by Darrenhusted (talk) Darren: You've reverted this three times and have not provided a reason.) (undo)
  4. (cur) (prev) 18:36, 30 November 2009 Darrenhusted (talk | contribs) m (17,636 bytes) (Reverted edits by 67.223.237.90 (talk) to last version by Darrenhusted) (undo)
  5. (cur) (prev) 18:35, 30 November 2009 67.223.237.90 (talk) (21,157 bytes) (Undid revision 328846576 by Darrenhusted (talk) Unless you provide a substantive reason, I see no reason to revert this.) (undo)
  6. (cur) (prev) 18:33, 30 November 2009 Darrenhusted (talk | contribs) (17,636 bytes) (Funny thing was I rollbacked you, then did a null edit to explain.) (undo)
  7. (cur) (prev) 18:31, 30 November 2009 Darrenhusted (talk | contribs) (21,157 bytes) (There is no "Wikilawyering" going on here, but rather sticking to the MOS. The plot needs to stay short, the article not all about the plot. Stop bloating it up.) (undo)
  8. (cur) (prev) 18:29, 30 November 2009 67.223.237.90 (talk) (21,158 bytes) (Undid revision 328845591 by Darrenhusted (talk) Undoing a reversion done without merit or explanation) (undo)
  9. (cur) (prev) 18:28, 30 November 2009 Darrenhusted (talk | contribs) m (17,636 bytes) (Reverted edits by 67.223.237.90 (talk) to last version by Horkana) (undo)
  10. (cur) (prev) 18:16, 30 November 2009 67.223.237.90 (talk) (21,158 bytes) (m: heading) (undo)
  11. (cur) (prev) 18:11, 30 November 2009 67.223.237.90 (talk) (21,147 bytes) (→Plot: This amount of information is appropriate for this movie. Wikipedia cautions against "Wikilawyering". The previous plot treatment was terse to the point of being unhelpful to the reader.) (undo)
  12. (cur) (prev) 18:01, 30 November 2009 Horkana (talk | contribs) (17,636 bytes) (→Reception: currently is nonsense in an encyclopedia, say exactly when or avoid the pointless time reference entirely, as it will only look dated when it is no longer currently now or recent) (undo)
  13. (cur) (prev) 17:56, 30 November 2009 Horkana (talk | contribs) (17,620 bytes) (infobox. minutes not min. avoid unnecessary abbreviations, clarity is more important in an encyclopedia. needs an WP:ALT description) (undo)
  14. (cur) (prev) 17:49, 30 November 2009 Mike R (talk | contribs) (17,553 bytes) (→Cast and characters) (undo)
  15. (cur) (prev) 17:07, 30 November 2009 Darrenhusted (talk | contribs) (17,526 bytes) (Plots should be kept to a reasonable length and not be a scene by scene recounting. And the section is called "plot", not "plot summary".) (undo)
  16. (cur) (prev) 16:06, 30 November 2009 97.116.145.197 (talk) (21,374 bytes) (Undid revision 328761369 by Geoff B (talk)) (undo)
  17. (cur) (prev) 08:24, 30 November 2009 Geoff B (talk | contribs) (17,526 bytes) (rv bloat) (undo)
  18. (cur) (prev) 07:39, 30 November 2009 97.116.148.134 (talk) (21,374 bytes) (→Plot: Adding some needed context to help the reader get a fuller sense of the plot.) (undo)
  19. (cur) (prev) 03:26, 30 November 2009 Branfeld (talk | contribs) (17,526 bytes) (Added external link to Fred Melamed interview) (undo)
  20. (cur) (prev) 21:17, 29 November 2009 SmackBot (talk | contribs) m (17,409 bytes) (→Cast and characters: Date maintenance tags and general fixes) (undo)
  21. (cur) (prev) 18:54, 29 November 2009 65.30.187.45 (talk) (17,379 bytes) (→Plot) (undo)
  22. (cur) (prev) 05:15, 29 November 2009 Coolhound (talk | contribs) (17,379 bytes) (Removed repeat of Rotten Tomatoes ranking, changed to correct rank (86-->87), changed to correct number of reviews counted) (undo)
  23. (cur) (prev) 01:12, 29 November 2009 Ajcl7693 (talk | contribs) (17,443 bytes) (Corrected Rotten Tomatoes rating.) (undo)
  24. (cur) (prev) 01:09, 29 November 2009 98.169.0.223 (talk) (17,443 bytes) (→Plot) (undo)
  25. (cur) (prev) 09:28, 27 November 2009 Darrenhusted (talk | contribs) m (17,443 bytes) (Reverted edits by 98.169.0.223 (talk) to last version by Darrenhusted) (undo)
  26. (cur) (prev) 04:19, 27 November 2009 98.169.0.223 (talk) (17,443 bytes) (→Plot) (undo)
  27. (cur) (prev) 23:53, 26 November 2009 Darrenhusted (talk | contribs) (17,443 bytes) (second Job reference) (undo)
  28. (cur) (prev) 21:02, 25 November 2009 Luckas-bot (talk | contribs) m (17,220 bytes) (robot Adding: fi:A Serious Man) (undo)
  29. (cur) (prev) 05:39, 25 November 2009 Anders.Warga (talk | contribs) (17,199 bytes) (wklk NIPP (red) & other terms, reform citation now archived) (undo)
  30. (cur) (prev) 04:44, 25 November 2009 Anders.Warga (talk | contribs) m (17,175 bytes) (→Plot: add wklks, fix typo) (undo)
  31. (cur) (prev) 22:21, 24 November 2009 64.60.55.20 (talk) (17,084 bytes) (→Plot) (undo)
  32. (cur) (prev) 22:19, 24 November 2009 64.60.55.20 (talk) (17,067 bytes) (→Plot) (undo)
  33. (cur) (prev) 11:57, 24 November 2009 Darrenhusted (talk | contribs) (17,052 bytes) (Actually I have heard several critics reference Job. And that has a reference.) (undo)
  34. (cur) (prev) 09:27, 24 November 2009 Bww23 (talk | contribs) (16,622 bytes) (Took out inaccurate claim that movie is a retelling of the story of Job (one reviewer compared the movie to the story of Job but there's no other reason to believe that it is)) (undo) (Tag: references removed)
  35. (cur) (prev) 19:00, 23 November 2009 Darrenhusted (talk | contribs) (17,068 bytes) (→Plot: the prologue is superfluous, the letters are a gag and have no impact on the plot. Go to the article talk page before bloating this back up again.) (undo)
  36. (cur) (prev) 18:37, 23 November 2009 97.116.142.212 (talk) (18,925 bytes) (undo)
  37. (cur) (prev) 18:36, 23 November 2009 97.116.142.212 (talk) (18,915 bytes) (Undid revision 327494334 by Darrenhusted (talk) See Talk page, Darrenhusted. Good editors are collaborative editors.) (undo)
  38. (cur) (prev) 16:55, 23 November 2009 Gourneau (talk | contribs) m (16,973 bytes) (updated film gross) (undo)
  39. (cur) (prev) 16:33, 23 November 2009 Darrenhusted (talk | contribs) (16,973 bytes) (Plot guidelines say that the summary should be between 400-700 words, and should not be the focus of the article. The prologue has no outcome to the rest of the plot.) (undo)
  40. (cur) (prev) 16:14, 23 November 2009 97.116.148.118 (talk) (18,915 bytes) (→Plot: You better start providing a substantive reason for so zealously trying to remove crucial plot information, other than your personal concept of 'bloat'.) (undo)
  41. (cur) (prev) 14:59, 23 November 2009 Darrenhusted (talk | contribs) (16,973 bytes) (→Plot: trim the bloat) (undo)
  42. (cur) (prev) 14:57, 23 November 200