Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive143

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Crolladder reported by CharlieEchoTango (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Oasis (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Crolladder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Dispute on article talk page: talk

Note that I am not directly involved in this in any way, but some users tried to reach consensus on talk page, and the user reported here continued reverting w/o trying to reach consensus.

CETTALK 18:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned — Looks like a new user; hasn't reverted since you informed him of this report. I tacked on an extra warning just to be sure. Feel free to update if he continues. --slakrtalk / 21:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Will do, thanks. CETTALK 21:06, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, as I noted here, Crolladder is making some rather false, inflammatory claims. WesleyDodds (talk) 23:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: With this latest revert after being warned, I have blocked Crolladder for 24 hours. Elockid (Talk) 15:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/76.173.247.200 reported by User:V7-sport (Result:12 hours )[edit]

Page: List_of_Navy_SEALs
User being reported: 76.173.247.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [1]

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


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7] Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [8]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [9] Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[10]

Comments: I have made every effort to communicate with this individual and persuade them that the WIKI standard is verifiability yet they insist on putting Jesse Ventura on the List of Navy Seals in spite of the fact that I have documented that he was not with reliable sources. It would be great to get this page semi-protected for a period of time. Thank you for your consideration. V7-sport (talk) 07:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)V7-Sport

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 12 hours Courcelles 10:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks- V7-sport (talk) 21:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)V7-Sport

User:Nezzdude reported by Eastcote (talk) (Result: 4 days)[edit]

Page: Southern United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Nezzdude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 12:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

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

  1. 17:52, 23 October 2010 (edit summary: "")
  2. 22:14, 23 October 2010 (edit summary: "why promote nationalism? it's dangerous. especially with the neo confederates")
  3. 22:39, 23 October 2010 (edit summary: "why promote nationalism? it's dangerous. especially with the neo confederates")
  4. 10:18, 24 October 2010 (edit summary: "fascism")
  • Diff of warning: here
  • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [11]

This is the second user blanking this same section of the article in two days. Possibly the same person. No explanation given for the deletions except "Why promote nationalism?" or "Fascism". Section is well-cited. Multiple editors have reverted the deletions and provided warnings.

Eastcote (talk) 12:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

User should be blocked for 24 hours, while the first edit might not seem like a revert, the IP before that was removing the same content, so I consider it a revert and a 3rr. Secret account 17:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 4 days The same length as 71.114.188.40 (talk · contribs). Normally this would be 24 hours. Given however that an inactive account suddenly became active again after a year of inactivity and reinstate the same edits as the IP is a bit too much of a coincidence for me. Elockid (Talk) 19:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
No autoblock given. What a surprise there. (Autoblock doesn't block already blocked IP addresses from what I know). Elockid (Talk) 19:04, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

User:RepublicanJacobite in Deadwood (TV series) (Result: protected)[edit]

We've got a slight edit war in Deadwood (TV series)#Themes. Here's the relevant talk section: Talk:Deadwood_(TV_series)#No_way_to_contribute_to_this_article. Common sense and democracy failed. User:RepublicanJacobite won't let go. We need your help. 109.186.62.61 (talk) 01:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. On the article talk page, I quoted WP:RSN opinions on the use of YouTube as a source, and I was ignored. "Common sense and democracy," so-called, do not trump policy. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 01:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

User:DinDraithou (Result: both warned)[edit]

Would someone please have a word with this editor? S/he is mass-removing images from five articles, out of some support for [[[User:Xanderliptak]]. I reverted the removals as unnecessary and inappropriate, and have attempted [12][13] discussion on the user's talkpage, as well as a warning for editwarring[14]. All comments have been summarily removed from the talkpage, followed by further reverts.

This user appears to be under the belief that they somehow have some ownership of these pages do to their ancestry and having 'commissioned' these images. [15]

This user further seems to be trying to turn this into a battle. [16] The words 'send the enemy scattering' are telling.

This user doesn't appear to understand WP:BRD (despite attempts on both their talkpage and in edit summaries to educate them), nro WP:OWN. If someone uninvolved could have a word, that would be great.

Yes, I reverted as well. Will do no further. → ROUX  23:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should mention the ulterior motives to your revert. You have never edited the O'Donovan page before, and the only reason you have any interest here is because an image I painted appears on that page, you having some personal agenda against me. You attempt to find and cause issues surrounding me any chance you get, even threatening editors and suggesting to editors that they undo edits so you can better have cause against me, [17] and here. It has almost been a month since our content dispute, let it go. [talk] XANDERLIPTAK 23:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Sigh. Do I have to go through this fucking bullshit--because that is what this nonsense is--again? I honestly cannot be bothered once again to have to correct the blatant misrepresentations of reality that appear to spill forth every time your fingers touch a keyboard. I am sick and tired of this. Learn how to tell the truth. → ROUX  01:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Please remain CIVIL. I know you have had edit disputes with me in the past, but no need to say someone is a liar when you disagree, I don't accuse you of being a liar when I disagree with you, and there is no reason to swear. You have been blocked for civility issues in the past, please don't make the same mistake. [talk] XANDERLIPTAK 01:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The basic difference between us, Xanderliptak, is that my statements accurately reflect reality. yours do not. I find it interesting that you claim I follow you.. it was you who followed me here. Begone, shade. → ROUX  01:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I hate to disappoint you, but I followed you nowhere, I was pointed to this direction. I don't have as much interest as you do with me. [talk] XANDERLIPTAK 01:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
A growing number of editors have an interest, not in you as such, but in your behavior, which is why you're the subject of this: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Xanderliptak. And when I see flippant comments such as "bye bye" when issued warnings, as this DinDraithou did, it raises further suspicions. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
And based on this gross comment,[18] Xander is in no position to be criticizing anyone else's civility. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
DinDraithou has been getting advice from User:FisherQueen. Din's behavior may lead to a block if it continues, but I see no further reverts after 00:00 on 25 October. I suggest that admins should keep this report open for a while to see if the war has stopped. DinDraithou's removal of some images from articles seems to have been intended as support of Xanderliptak, judging from the discussion at User talk:Xanderliptak#O'Donovan arms. Din seemed unaware that this 'help' constituted edit warring. An RFC/U has been opened at WP:Requests for comment/Xanderliptak where some of the image issues have been mentioned. EdJohnston (talk) 02:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I advised Din of the hornet's nest he might be getting into, but also advised him of the RFC/U link, all of which he deleted without comment, but we'll see if he comes to Xander's defense. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned — Added warnings for both roux and DinDraithou, since this is obviously not vandalism and thus should not have been the subject of a revert war. --slakrtalk / 08:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
    ...and as a side note, in the future, please try to use something vaguely similar to the report template to make investigating these things less painful. --slakrtalk / 08:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

User: 99.54.141.126 , User: 99.155.147.214 , User: 99.155.152.253 and User:99.24.250.219; reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page: The Age of Stupid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

  1. 99.54.141.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
  2. 99.155.147.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
  3. 99.155.152.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
  4. 99.24.250.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: 18:11, October 18, 2010


IP's 1, 2, and 3 warned around 08:00, October 25, 2010

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [19] Comments:
I think the only solution to this edit warring is to semiprotect all climate change articles, at least all those about films. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected a chunk of the articles and blocked some recent ips. Also sent an abuse report to SBC/ATT, because they're obviously all the same user. I don't want to have to deal with this insanity again. In the meantime, if he keeps at it, feel free to report any ip used directly to WP:AIV or WP:ANI, and any page to WP:RFPP. --slakrtalk / 09:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

User:LovelieHeart User:YumeChaser reported by User:Lerdthenerd (Result: Both warned)[edit]

Page: Hiro Mizushima (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: LovelieHeart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) User being reported: YumeChaser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [20]

argument is over the pronouciation of the subjects name

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [25]

Comments:

--Lerdthenerd (talk) 09:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

This is one of those cases I hate to act on. There's no doubt that both YumeChaser and LovelieHeart are edit-warring. I would spell it "Saitou" myself, in alignment with LovelieHeart, but YumeChaser is right that our MOS indicates that we should use "Saitō". I can't see any argument for blocking YumeChaser without an equivalent sanction against LovelieHeart.—Kww(talk) 15:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Looking over User talk:LovelieHeart makes it clear to me that YumeChaser has been attempting to discuss this, pointing at our MOS and attempting to explain it. LovelieHeart hasn't made any effort to comprehend that I can detect. For people interested in the underlying content dispute, neither party is "wrong": rendering the Japanese long "o" sound in romaji is variable according to the system being used, and "Saito", "Saitoh", "Saitou", and "Saitō" can all be used. Generally, it's more important to be consistent as to which system is being used than which particular system is being used.—Kww(talk) 15:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me? I DID compromise with Yume. I left in parts of the format she edited. The only thing I did NOT budge on was the fact that his name is spelled SAITOU in English because it's not right. Unless otherwise specified, SAITOU is the native spelling (though it can be spelled SAITOH, SAITO, SAITOO, etc in English). Yume used inappropriate language on my page. If Yume would have just left the Hiro page alone long enough for me to finish it, there would have been no "war." I save my work on Wiki as I go so I don't lose it and everytime I go back to add more to it, Yume would edit it and I would get an "edit conflict" notice and have to go back and REDO everything I'd just wrote then so I could have it in the original style to know how to add to it, hence the numerous edits. I'm trying to update the page, which has sat idle for months, and everytime I go to fix something, Yume was too busy messing up my formatting and facts before I could properly source them and finish it. So frankly, if she had just given me a few hours free, the page would have been completed with no problem. And the ironic thing is, now I can't go back and finish the page with information because I'm too afraid I'll get suspended for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LovelieHeart (talkcontribs) 20:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

  • I find it weird that Lerdthenerd warned both of to stop edit warring but didn't even bother to notify either of us that they already filed a report. Anyway, I stopped editing the article when Lerdthenerd requested us too. It wasn't smart to edit war but nothing I can do about it now. 追人YumeChaser 20:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Result - Both parties warned. Any continuation of this edit war may lead to blocks, regardless of what WP:MOS says. (MOS is guidance but it is not a policy). Use the talk page to try to get support from other editors. The person who gives you a 3RR warning is under no obligation to tell you about the filing of a report; you're expected to do what is necessary regardless. If the issues you are disputing are truly important, you'll be able to find other editors who agree. EdJohnston (talk) 20:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Ryasweeney reported by User:Xeworlebi (Result:Warned )[edit]

Page: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Ryasweeney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 18:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

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

  1. 15:39, 24 October 2010 (edit summary: "")
  2. 23:16, 24 October 2010 (edit summary: "")
  3. 02:51, 25 October 2010 (edit summary: "")
  4. 11:50, 25 October 2010 (edit summary: "")
  5. 13:46, 25 October 2010 (edit summary: "")
  6. 18:34, 25 October 2010 (edit summary: "")
  • Diff of warning: here
  • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff

Comments: Source given states 150 minutes, user keeps changing it to 147 without a reason. Xeworlebi (talk) 18:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

He stopped revert warring after you warned him, recommend no block Secret account 21:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned As Secret said, no violation after warning. Looie496 (talk) 22:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Faustian reported by User:Jacurek (Result:Page protected )[edit]

Page: Massacre of Lviv professors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Faustian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [26]

  • 1st revert: [27]
  • 2nd revert: [28]
  • 3rd revert: [29]
  • 4th revert: [30] revert of another edit of different editor: [31]

Above is a continuation of an edit war conducted earlier: [32] [33] [34] [35]


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44]

Comments:
The user has introduced very exceptional claim to the article based on one questionable publication in Ukrainian language. User failed to provide additional sources as per policy: "exceptional claims require exceptional sources". Requests from various user for more sources are often met with personal attacks (see talk page) and edit war.--Jacurek (talk) 19:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)


This is part of a continuing edit war in which another user was just blocked a few days ago, and it's multiple users revert warring each other I recommend that the page be protected. Secret account 21:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

The previously blocked user has not been edit warring since his unblock request has been granted [45] and he is now actively participating in the discussion on the talk page [46]. Protection of the page may be not necessary ones reported above user is blocked or warned.--Jacurek (talk) 22:19, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I see five different users reverting in the past week two from one side and three from another side (one of whom got blocked), that doesn't indicate that the revert warring will stop. Blocking one editor won't help if the other editor is there to keep on revert warring. That's why it should be protected. Secret account 22:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

All other editors made single reverts. Reported above user reverted various editors multiple times ignoring pleads for additional sources to back up exceptional information that is being introduced by him. If the reviewing administrator finds protection of the page helpful, please apply it by all means. However, the behaviour of the reported edit warring user should be looked at also and addressed appropriately.--Jacurek (talk) 22:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. 3 days. Looie496 (talk) 22:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately the decision of only protecting the page has “awarded” edit warring user reported above with his version of the events since it was him who was reverting others and was last to make edits. Please warn the user on his talk page to avoid future edit warring. Your advice of seeking dispute resolution will be followed. Thanks for that.--Jacurek (talk) 22:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Faustian: I have already stated that I would not revert again until after this is resolved elswhere (diff here:[47]), if others decide to continue to remove the sourced information. I added information that was referenced (diff: [48]). This info was removed with the phrase "removed ridiculous accusation." I took this case to RFC with no response from nuetral parties. I asked an admin to intervene: (here:[49]). When the source itself was taken to the reliable sources noticeboard, both noninvolved comentators concluded that it was a reliable source: [50]. "In reply to Faustian from above, if the material isn't contained in the English language Marples, then there is no problem with sourcing it from the equally scholarly and reliable Patrylyak. Fifelfoo (talk) 16:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)" Looking at the edit history, we have three editors seeking to remove this statement based on a reliable source, four trying to keep it. Looking at those three trying to remove the sourced statement, two - including the one bringing this to ANI (see here for a taste: [51]) - have extensive histories of ethnic edit-warring and this seems to be an example of an ethnic edit war; trying to keep info that they deem bad of Poles, apparently, off wikipedia. I am trying to be reasonable with them: [52] but they do not seem to be interested and I would prefer not to simply censor the information. It looks like a minority is trying to censor information. Any solution proposed by you guys would be welcome by me.Faustian (talk) 22:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

With respect to the claims against me - I will also note that there is a 2 day gap between the 1st and 2nd reverts - while I waited for opinions from the reliable sources noticeboard and saw that there was no consensus building on keeping the information off - it was just those three vetoing it. The third revert (that is to say, putting referenced information back into the article that had been removed) was after yet another person on the reliable sources noticeboard supported the reliability of the source. The "fourth revert" attributed to me at the top of this section involved me removing an image placed into the article twice (I removed a duplicate) and me moving a phrase (not removing it) to another, more appropriate, place in the article (here is the diff showing how I moved it - [53] - it was obviously not a revert); the so-called fourth revert had nothing to do with the first three and involved totally different content in the article. His report of me is frivolous and probably tactical. Faustian (talk) 23:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

User:67.176.220.219 reported by User:SlimVirgin (Result: Blocked 48 Hours)[edit]

Page: Fred Singer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 67.176.220.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

  • Ist edit: 20:46, October 24, 2010, removes 10 sections, including a section called Funding, and criticism sourced to ABC News.
Comments

An anon IP has arrived at Fred Singer, one of the climate-change-skepticism BLPs, and is removing criticism from it. This is a BLP that has been written carefully to make sure it's BLP-compliant, and the material the anon is removing is well-sourced. I left a note for him on article talk at 20:37 Oct 25 asking him to explain his concerns, [54] and at 20:42 on his talk page explaining about 3RR, [55] but he continued to revert. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 21:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I just rollbacked his revert, I recommend a block or the page at least semi as removing sections is considered vandalism. Secret account 21:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Looie496 (talk) 22:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

User:SexyKick reported by User:DCEvoCE (Result: Declined/warned)[edit]

Page: Mega Drive (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: SexyKick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

  1. 19:22, 21 October 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 392077513 by DCEvoCE (talk) images show what add ons are capable of")
  2. 04:07, 26 October 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 392924807 by DCEvoCE (talk) You aren't an admin, and you are disruptive here.")
  3. 04:14, 26 October 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 392929108 by DCEvoCE (talk) It was here because of multiple NFC Logos, read the improper use section")
  • Diff of warning: here

The original report is collapsed, because it made my eyes hurt and my brain bleed. Haven't edited the diffs, checking now. --slakrtalk / 07:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Extended content

User:SexyKick

Hello there,

I would like to report User:SexyKick for initiating edit wars by continuously reverting valid edits made to the Mega Drive article, removing tags set by admins, and re-inserting non-free content.

My attempt to contact this person via his/her talk page (several times) remained fruitless. He kept reverting edits (even those by admins, removing the non-free & cleanup tag, repeatedly: August 10th A, August 10th B, August 8th, and did not stop until tonite).

Prior to that, this person contacted me accusing me of vandalism when I tried to reword a few sentences of a section of the article ("Console Wars") with the goal to eventually clean the entire article of bias, speculation and weasel words to focus on facts alone.

Here's the edit in question. I have observed that since I made that edit (made June 28th!), practically every single edit made to the article was reverted by this person.

I hope you can help. I really don't know what to do with this guy. DCEvoCE (talk) 04:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


From previous "discussions":

Just a quick glance at the edit history of Mega Drive, looks like Alphathon and SexyKick are in an edit war and both violated WP:3RR, WP:BOOMARANG? — raekyT 02:19, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh no, me and User:Alphathon aren't in an edit war (at least not IMHO) we're just building on top of each others edits (as well as updating per talk page changes.) We work pretty well together IMHO.--SexyKick 02:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
He changes, and you revert, you make some changes and he reverts then you revert his revert (and a change after that) without a reason given, then he reverts you again. You change a caption, and he reverts. Seems like something's going on here. — raekyT 02:34, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


A word by J Milburn (the admin who tagged the article for non-free content) as can be read on the article's talk page:

Alphathon, Miramare, and myself have already agreed that the screenshots have to go. Seems J Milburn agrees, despite your claims that he would be okay with the screenshots and that the logos would be the only issue.

@SexyKick: You reverted the changes made to the article again without having read what we discussed here. DCEvoCE (talk) 00:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I had discussed it with him before. He's only saying that because you went and told him you thought they should be removed, and he knows the less NFC the better. Right now I have no hope of the article going FA this year, and probably not GA either. The article has to be stable, and it was only stable until he came and complained about there being 3 logos, and then all hell broke loose.--SexyKick 00:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
Don't be ridiculous. An article like this will never pass GAC with a decent reviewer, and certainly not FAC, purely because of the ridiculous amount of non-free content. The fact that "all hell broke loose" "because" of me is nothing to do with the problems in this article. If you'll note, I haven't actually removed any of the logos- I pointed out the problem, and left you (collective you, "you" referring to "the regular editors") to deal with it, but you haven't even managed that. And do not put words into my mouth regarding the screenshots. I have pointed out issues with the screenshots, but when you try to wikilawyer your way out of having three separate logos in the infobox, what chance have I got of getting rid of superfluous screenshots that are going to be edit-warred over until the cows come home? J Milburn (talk) 10:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
God, I've just skim read some of the more recent posts, and been reminded of why I got on with other stuff. This is not controversial. The fact that you people all want your pet articles to have a bazillion non-free images does not mean we need some sort of "higher authority" (whatever that means) to tell us that whoops, yes, actually, we do have a policy on this. Just deal with it. Look at every non-free image, and think "right- do we need this image? Would the article be worse off without it?" In all the articles I list on my userpage put together, there are fewer non-free files than there are on this article- and yes, I've written about television, music and other topics that tend to attract non-free content. I'm not saying that all of the images need to go, and I'm not providing detailed arguments for/against each one, I'm just telling you how this works, and telling you what you're gonna have to do if you want this article to get anywhere. Not only do I have experience with regards to non-free content but I have experience with regards to writing decent articles. This is not some kind of ego-trip- common sense would tell you that listening to my thoughts may be beneficial. J Milburn (talk) 10:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


A warning handed out by admin KieferSkunk on SexyKick's talk page a few days ago:

[...] and KieferSkunk obviously don't mind them being there. SexyKick 23:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Please consider this a friendly warning to cool it on the revert war with User:DCEvoCE. Even if you're not doing three reverts in 24 hours, you can still be blocked for disruption if it continues. Work toward consensus in the talk page. (I realize this discussion has been going on for months, but getting into an edit war isn't going to help matters.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
One more point (I missed this earlier): Just because I haven't removed an image myself doesn't mean I necessarily think it should be there. I don't have the bandwidth right now to deal with the entire article or all the discussions surrounding it. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

DCEvoCE (talk) 05:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


DCE is a bold editor, and while I respect that, and find nothing wrong with it, he does not always act with consensus, nor wait for it to take form. JMilburn placed the NFC tag on the article because too many NFC logos were being used (3 NFC logos.) Currently one NFC logo is being used, which is what JMilburn said we were limited to. DCE constantly removes sourced statements from the article, and I add them back in. I did think it was vandalism at first, but his consistency clearly shows he means well by removing information, and that I must have been mistaken. I don't know what to do other than add the removed sourced statements back in however. In reference to the cleanup tag, the other editors and I addressed the issues which DCE pointed out that were in need of cleanup, and when I removed the tag, he re-added it and was angry with me.--SexyKick 04:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


Consensus was to remove the screenshots. The tag was for non-free content, not some logo. I am angry with you because it is impossible to edit the article because you keep reverting every single edit. - And no, your lies won't help you out of this this time. DCEvoCE (talk) 05:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I am not a liar. The reason the NFC tag was there, was because of the three logos, and was talked about extensively in the articles talk pages. You removed those screenshots before consensus, and more people have weighed in since you removed them.
I'm sorry you have an issue with me.--SexyKick 05:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Will the template on the Sonic CD image and Mega Drive article be removed for now then?--SexyKick 14:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

You are welcome to remove it. J Milburn (talk) 14:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The issue then moved on a couple weeks later to the 3 logos. Here's the edit in question. [56]--SexyKick 05:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I should also add for everyone's knowledge that I did add the Sonic The Hedgehog cover art into the article, as well as a picture of the Mega Drive box art. J Milburn removed both of these from the article, and helped me to realize that they were not proper uses of NFC. Both of the things shown by the pictures could easily have been written about, or already were.
I also deny reverting "every single" edit of DCE's, he's added the picture of the High Definition Graphics Genesis (currently under consideration for removal by another user, as questionable notability) and he also added the screen shot of Sonic 1, I did not revert either. Anytime DCE has something helpful to add I do not revert, however most of his contributions consist of removing sources, sourced statements, changing statements that already have sources, removing pictures, etc. I'm sure it seems frustrating to him, but when I try explaining myself to him, he says I "spam" his talk page, and he never accepts what I have to say about things anyway. I know he thinks he's helping in some way, but no matter how nice I am to him, he's always angry.--SexyKick 07:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined — As of this report it doesn't look like there's an actual violation of the three revert rule. Granted, three reverts isn't a privilege, and there's still some sort of minor edit warring going on, but it's borderline to the point that if it continues, 3RR or not, it will definitely be an edit war. What concerns me the most is this new account magically appearing (Uberdrivefan123 (talk · contribs)), which is almost certainly a sock or meatpuppet. Still, even though that's shady, the puppet's revert wouldn't put the puppetmaster over the revert limit, but using socks in an edit war, alone, puts you on the losing side due to the inherently abusive attempt to game the system. If any of you continue to use socks or edit while signed out in an attempt to try to "win," you will likely be blocked twice as long as the person with whom you're warring. Consider this the last warning for all parties involved: take it to the articles talk page --slakrtalk / 07:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Shimman reported by Bidgee (talk) (Result:no violation )[edit]

Page: Hyundai Elantra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Shimman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 09:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

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

  1. 15:39, 24 October 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "updated the default picture to the current model (2011) picture")
  2. 08:22, 26 October 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 392678777 by OSX (talk) reverted back to the better quality picture")
  3. 08:29, 26 October 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 392954678 by Bidgee (talk) 4th gen picture looks sharper with noticeably less post-processing artifacts than 2002 euro picture")
  4. 09:01, 26 October 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "5th gen picture would be better IMHO, but there are people who cannot relate 5th gen yet, so 4th gen with better quality than 2nd gen euro model picture which i don't think too many can relate")
  • Diff of warning: here

Bidgee (talk) 09:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems that both of you have expressed your reasoning for your reverts quite differently. I now know that Shimman wants a quality picture but Bidgee is reverting due to WP:CARPIX. Is protection in order? Minimac (talk) 11:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
There is no need for me to repeat on what WP:CARPIX states, I said in the edit summary to take it to the talk page and warned the editor (in regards to 3RR) but the editor just breached the 3RR by changing the image again. Protection is pointless when it is one editor in the wrong. Bidgee (talk) 14:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
You've both made three reverts today. Discuss this out, or I'm going to start issuing blocks. Neither of you is in the clear here, you are both edit warring, that some Wikiproject style guide may support one of you is no justification whatsoever for engaging in this edit war. Courcelles 14:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
In fact I did three but Shimman has breached the 3RR. Your threat is unjustified since two editors (OSX and myself) support the current image [and as does the consensus on the article's talk page from the past] and there is no need to insult me (especially with the edit summary of Time to quit, as I've not pasted the 3RR and could be seen as a comment to quit Wikipedia). It is no wonder why long time editors are getting sick of Admin's acting like you have done here. Bidgee (talk) 14:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
No, he has not broken the 3RR, as your own timestamp shows- the first edit you list is ~48 hours old. 3RR requires more than three reverts within a 24 hour period. However, you are both edit warring, which is block-worthy even in absence of a 3RR violation. I take a particularly dim view of people who revert 3 times and then run here to ANEW to report the other party- your third revert was at 0953, and this report was filed at 0957. If I'm going to block anyone for this, I'm going to block both of you. You need to take a very careful read of what constitutes edit warring and what does not- talk page consensus, or even WikiProject consensus is not in any way an exemption to the policy against edit warring. Yes, it is time to quit. Time to disengage and walk away from this dispute. Until someone makes another revert, this one is Pictogram voting x.svg 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.. Courcelles 15:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

User:MR90 reported by User:Xeworlebi (Result:Page protected)[edit]

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

  1. 19:34, 25 October 2010 (edit summary: "Removed section does not identify the person for their public notability. More appropriate that it be placed in separate section of "Life and Education."")
  2. 02:41, 26 October 2010 (edit summary: "Biographical information removed because two facts which occurred eleven years apart are linked in same sentence. This does not constitute a biography. It is senseless.")
  3. 13:11, 26 October 2010 (edit summary: "to construct a biography of a living person off of one interview is misleading and irresponsible. see rules on BLP. i shortened the biography to facts verified in sources. and, fixed grammar.")
  4. 14:27, 26 October 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 393000236 by Scjessey (talk)")
  5. 15:10, 26 October 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 393000821 by Scjessey (talk) Vandalism. Not significant information. Poor sourcing. {{db-a7}}, {{db-person}. {{db-")
  6. 15:22, 26 October 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 393008082 by Scjessey (talk) WP:VAN, WP:NPF, WP:BLP1E, {{db-a7}}, {{db-person}. {{db-)")
  7. 16:06, 26 October 2010 (edit summary: "WP:VAN, WP:NPF, WP:BLP1E, {{db-a7}}, {{db-person}. Non-professional information obtained from web interview not a source. Notable for one-event only. Historical info inappropriate.")
  • Diff of warning: here
  • Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: here

Comments: WP:SPA user who removes sourced information which he calls unencyclopedic and inaccurate. Some edits partly contained correct edits, bit all removed the same sourced information of her graduation. Edits from the last 24 hours, went on before that. Xeworlebi (talk) 17:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Page protected by SlimVirgin Secret account 20:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

User:DDF19483 reported by User:Attilios (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page: Teramo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This user (probably an Italian one from Teramo, as he edits only this article), is continuously reverting the article to this version, reverting all modifications made between this version and his first reverts.

I tried to warn him to stop revert the article to his rather crude version, but he did not reply and continued in his reverting actions. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 17:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned Both of you are at 3R, so this pretty much needs to stop, the next revert will draw a block. Courcelles 09:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
How can we be both at 3RR? My reverts are just the deletion of his ones! --'''Attilios''' (talk) 10:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
And his are just the deletion of yours. See how this goes both ways? - CETTALK 10:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Please notice that my version is a large-effort wikification of his previous version, to which he is endlessly reverting to. Give just a glance to the two version, and notice there's no comparison as for Wikipedicity. He is also reintroducing errors which have corrected in the meantime. Check this correction by another user, which is already implemented in my version. Notice also that the other user is now using different IPs to make his reverts. Let me know. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 10:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello, this user keeps on reverting the article to his very personal version deleting the long work of many. He constantly comes to my talk page insulting me in Italian. I'm tired of telling him wikipedia is cooperation and community. Please get things fixed asap. There is no doubt he has issues.

DDF19483 (talk) 19:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Result - Protected two weeks. The revert war continued after Courcelles' warning. If the editors will begin a good-faith discussion on the article talk page, that could be enough reason to lift the protection. It seems that this war has been going on since May. Editors are expected to be able to use the steps of WP:Dispute resolution, such as WP:3O. EdJohnston (talk) 00:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
as you could see from talk, I started with a polite comment on his talk page, which he deleted. I tried again with another, he again deleted it. So (also judging from the very poor quality of his article, including some major error i basic English) I considered him a wikijerk, and went on into deleting it. Further, his recent accuse in my talk page that I've numerous edit wars is totally false. I am not involved into an edit war since ages. You can easily see that all debates involving pages I am editing were solved nearly immediataly, with no edit war or 3RR violations at all. Let me know and good work. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 12:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

User:208.54.86.35/User:69.26.208.78 reported by User:Supreme Deliciousness (Result: Semiprotected)[edit]

Page: Palestinian freedom of movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 208.54.86.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)69.26.208.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [61]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [67]


Comments:


The two IPs above are obviously controlled by the same user, both go back to the exact same location, besides edit warring on Palestinian freedom of movement above, the user who controls these two IPs have been edit warring at Israeli salad:[68][69][70] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 21:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Purely for the record; I attempted to address this w/ a SPI. NickCT (talk) 02:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Result: Semiprotected due to probable sockpuppetry. Two IPs from Dallas show up out of nowhere to edit the same article. They are presumably the same person. WP:SOCK explains why this is a bad idea. EdJohnston (talk) 01:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

IP et al. reported by User:John J. Bulten (Result: Editors warned; article semiprotected)[edit]

Page: List of the verified oldest people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: IP et al.

Previous version reverted to: [71] Note that I initiated the debolding of the then-roman text in second graf first sentence "As of" per WP:MOSBOLD. Most edits by IP range familiar to NickOrnstein [72] [73].

  • 1st revert: [74] by 218.109.121.101
  • 2nd revert: [75] by 218.109.120.239
  • 3rd revert: [76] by Dhanson317
  • 4th revert: [77] by 218.109.117.5
  • 5th revert: [78] by DerbyCountyinNZ
  • 6th revert: [79] by Brendanology
  • 7th revert: [80] by Ryoung122
  • 8th revert: [81] by Brendanology
  • 9th revert: [82] by Brendanology
  • 10th revert: [83] by 218.109.115.156
  • 11th revert: [84] by 218.109.116.194
  • 12th revert: [85] by 218.109.115.102
  • 13th revert: [86] by Brendanology

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [87]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [88] last in long thread

Comments:
Both sides are engaged in long-time edit war (without true 3RR violations), but one side is citing what they see as an unambiguous WP:MOSBOLD rule, while the other is citing "common-sense exception", meaning local article tradition. In favor of bold are listed above (5 counting IPs as 1); in favor of roman or italic are myself, Itsmejudith, Griswaldo (the other side of the reverts, naturally); also on talk, Tcncv, Canada Jack, Frank (6). Advice requested. JJB 16:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Result - Semiprotected, due to the reverting of the article by anonymous editors who don't participate on the talk page. The guy from the 218.* range should register an account, or used a fixed IP, if he plans to continue reverting a disputed article. All editors are advised that WP:MOS is only a guideline. The continued removal or addition of bolding, before a consensus is reached on the talk page, could lead to blocks. Consider an WP:RFC or the other possible steps of WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 16:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Continue on the article Talk. This case is closed. EdJohnston (talk) 04:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks Ed, didn't think of semiprotection, good warning shot. JJB 16:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment: It should be noted that JJBulten began this self-proclaimed "bolding war" and that he CANVASSED to recruit Itsmejudith and Grismaldo as part of a WP:POINT (another violation) to demonstrate that editors of articles on supercentenarians tend to "work together." Duh. Of course they do. But aside from the larger issues, I think the discussion needs to separate out "bolding in text" versus "bolding in tables." The rules or guidelines for WP:MOSBOLD refer to article text in narrative format, not bolding in a table.

Aside from this, I see Brendanology's bolding being applied in a logical manner, such as "bolding" the "as of" date which changes every day. It's something that needs constant visual attention. As for italics, they often give the idea of special meaning or emphasis per what the sentence is trying to say. In this case, an exception should be considered because the "bolding" being employed is being used NOT to bring notice to the sentence itself, but to the date. In other words, the "article text" is little more than an explanation of what the information in the tables mean. Since the purpose of use is different, a different treatment than "italics" should considered.

Finally, I'm NOT going to employ JJBulten's stack-the-deck political machination to make it appear that one position or another has overwhelming/widespread support. The fact that the "bolding" on these tables and lists stayed the way they did for over a year, maybe two, speaks to the implicit consensus of the many editors who read them. A search of the talk page finds others in support. They can comment here if they so choose, no need for me to "name names."

The bottom line is that practical exceptions to Wikipedia "guidelines" regarding "style" should be employed, and that the edit history of JJBulten starting and causing trouble (not surprising, considering he is a right-wing conservative blogger, so he has perfected the art of online aggression off-wiki) should lead a neutral third-party person to consider what his motivations are, and more so whether his "changes" make the article worse, which I think they do.Ryoung122 17:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Robert, your characterization of my user-page disclosure and other characterizations are bordering on personal attack. The bolding of today's date is contrary to WP:RECENTISM and (indirectly) WP:DATED, and WP:CCC also applies. Your failure to interact at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-01-04/Longevity myths and defend the positions on which we agree is not helping. To build consensus about these topics, including the use of bolding and related styling in several other longevity articles, it is necessary for you to interact with the mediation you agreed to. I am unwatching this page. JJB 18:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment: I agree with Ryoung122 that JJB's "changes" make the article worse. I have already brought up WP:IAR to him, which he chose to ignore completely.

And JJB, your citation of the edit warring notice on my userpage is inappropriate. There was no such "edit warring" situation at the time you put up this notice, which makes it completely improper for you to cite it as one of the actions you have taken. Brendan (TalK|ContriB) 03:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Chartinael reported by User:Kaddoo (Result: warned)[edit]

Page: Pashto language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Chartinael (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [89]

Comment:--Kaddoo (talk) 17:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to cut in late, but I most obviously disagree about the warning. Lagoo reverted my well sourced clean up edits. The issue has already been taken to the discussion page. Relevant edits:

October 20th ethnologue references ethnic population of about 50 mio to actual speaker population as referenced on ucla language project, encyclopaedia iranica and whatever the third source is.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pashto_language&action=historysubmit&diff=391805854&oldid=391040132
October 26th, changed pashtun speakers again to ethnicity as source states (btw source says "possibly"), added references for the history as official language in Afghanistan all academically referenced
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pashto_language&action=historysubmit&diff=392961092&oldid=392882621
October 28th, Lagoo takes out referenced speaker numbers and replaces with ethnic population numbers. Some wording and formation changes. Nothing major, but takes out official language section with references and replaces with lengthy direct quote from ucla language project about national language.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pashto_language&action=historysubmit&diff=393363858&oldid=392961092
I then leave his highballing population numbers but add lower numbers as well. I readd the part about the official language and do some cleaning up in the infobox as in add language tree, take out unreferenced superlative about karachi and other encylopadic stuff like taking back the citation needed stuff, lagoo took out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pashto_language&action=historysubmit&diff=393385693&oldid=393363858
Then follow lagoo reverts:1, 2, 3
Lagoo cherry picks sources which is an utter no-go. There is an academic paper referencing speaker population of about 40 million. I have no issues with the numbers, but they must be properly referenced. Academic print wins out on websources.
I am thus claiming cause and exemption. Chartinael (talk) 20:43, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:3RR has no exception for "my edits are well sourced". This isn't a matter of discussion. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedic project however, to take out sourced material is unencyclopaedic at best, to replace with material not suportted by the sources violates a core policy as Verifiability as one of those core policies, this is sufficient cause. If a source does not support what the article states, such statement is to be removed. WP:BOP Reverting to enforce core policies is not to be considered edit warring. Chartinael (talk) 21:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I've read over the diffs, and your reverts were a content dispute, not of vandalism. There is no excuse for edit warring. If you disagree, please seek out dispute resolution. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

User:173.220.184.2 reported by User:Supertouch (Result:24h block )[edit]

Page: Times Square (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 173.220.184.2 (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: [link]

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

Comments:

  • Editor appears to be using IP User:96.242.217.91 as well, as a "good hand" account. Editor has been told that one reference is not sufficient to support the claims being made, and has acknowledged as such with the good hand account, [99] yet persists in inserting the unsupported statement with the bad hand account. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Looie496 (talk) 22:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Rarevogel / User:84.83.145.241 reported by User:Jayjg (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Berber people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rarevogel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) / 84.83.145.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [100]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [110]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [111]

Comments:

  • Note: This is a notice of edit-warring, not 3RR violation. Rarevogel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), who often simply edits as his IP, 84.83.145.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), has been removing various pictures from the infobox on Berber people and inserting others he prefers since September 21. The pictures themselves are not particularly appropriate for the infobox, and most of the images are already found elsewhere in the article, where the subjects are described. Nevertheless, he simply shows up two or three times a week, reverts, then disappears - so far he has reverted 3 different editors. He insists that the pictures he is removing are of "unknowns", despite the fact that all of them have English Wikipedia articles. He refuses to come to the Talk: page discussion, although he has been asked to do so many times in edit summaries and on the article talk page itself.[112] His User talk: page as an IP is a litany of warnings, and he was blocked for his disruptive editing on a different article just yesterday: see User talk:84.83.145.241. Jayjg (talk) 02:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
24 hours to Rarevogel. The IP is clearly him but is already blocked, so nothing to be done there. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:46, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

User:O Fenian reported by 92.229.22.236 (Result: Semiprotected)[edit]

Page: Zastava M21 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: O Fenian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: Before the contribution in question


The contribution in question is the addition of "Cameroon" into the list of countries that use the article's item.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I don't know how that is done.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk page, several of my entries have been deleted, one named "???" is still there..for now.

Comments:
The contribution in question is the addition of "Cameroon" into the list of countries that use the article's item. Proof for that are various pictures from a military parade in Cameroon where the item in question can be seen clearly. Since it is just logical that not every small sale is being reported on in the media, finding written sources is next to impossible. Pictures are proof enough that it is there as the members of the Cameroon Armed Forces can be clearly identified. I repeat: The source are the pictures itself, not the words or opinions posted by someone on the site where the pictures are taken from. Even after additional sources, which prove that a contract on the sale of weaponry to the country in question existed, have been added, the User still reverts the article saying that the sources don't specifically mention the weapon in question. They however do not mention any details on what specifically is being sold at all, which, as I already wrote, is common, as not everything small is reported in the media. Add to that that the other countries listed don't have any sources at all. And, except for two countries which have a source, the only sources that the item in question is being used are pictures, as well. So this restriction on my contribution doesn't make sense at all. I tried to explain the logic several times, but it seems that the User in question has some sort of bias or reason why he doesn't want my contribution to be there at all. 92.229.22.236 (talk) 01:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Please provide diffs of the questionable edits, not oldid's of pages. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Here are the diffs, as generated by the 3rr.php tool. They appear to be the same ones that the submitter intended.

  1. 17:59, 26 October 2010 (edit summary: "Revert. Forum posts are not reliable sources")
  2. 19:51, 27 October 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 393244418 by 92.230.221.54 (talk)")
  3. 18:46, 28 October 2010 (edit summary: "Revert. See Wikipedia:Verifiability, forum posts are not reliable sources")
  4. 00:37, 29 October 2010 (edit summary: "Revert. Forum posts are not reliable sources, other sources not mention the Zastava M21")

I'll let some other admin close this. —EdJohnston (talk) 04:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Article is already semiprotected due to the edit war, which seems to have stopped it. Don't see much need to block anyone, given that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Thomttran reported by User:Guoguo12 (Result: already blocked 31 hours)[edit]

Page: Jerry McNerney (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Thomttran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [113]