Page: Kingdom of Hungary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 15:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Revert comparison ("compare"): this revision (diff from previous).

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

1. 13:53, 12 February 2014 (compare) (edit summary: "Rephrasing to eliminate the redundancy, while including the multi-ethnicity in the first sentence")
2. 13:58, 12 February 2014 (compare) (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Norden1990 (talk): Multilinugal != multiethnic. (TW)")
3. 14:03, 12 February 2014 (compare) (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Norden1990 (talk): It very well was multiethnic before 16th century (see e.g. privilegium pro slavis). (TW)")

• 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. John (talk) 18:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Kingdom of Hungary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Norden1990 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 14:21, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

• Revert comparison ("compare"): this revision (diff from previous).

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

1. 13:47, 12 February 2014 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 595137495 by Wladthemlat (talk) already included")
2. 13:56, 12 February 2014 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 595140389 by Wladthemlat (talk) not true; KoH was not multi-lingual after 1920 and before the 16th century")
3. 14:00, 12 February 2014 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 595140916 by Wladthemlat (talk) back to stable version; so: KoH was not multiethnic after 1920 and before the 16th century")
4. 14:07, 12 February 2014 (compare) (edit summary: "80% are Hungarians... so today's Slovakia is also multiethnic country. First paragraph: short history, second: ethnicity, borders, third: feast, legacy")

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours John (talk) 18:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [1]
2. [2]
3. [3]
4. [4]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [5]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [6]

Comments:

• Already blocked John (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page: The English Patient (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SharpQuillPen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [7]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [8]
2. [9]
3. [10]
4. [11]
5. [12]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [14] [15] [16]

Comments:

I have tried to work with this editor. Some of his arguments have been accepted just today. (See [17]). The particular difficulty has to do with content that no editor has questioned since its inclusion in 2010. When I warned about too much reverting, he responded, "Good!" --Ring Cinema (talk) 06:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to lodge a concern here as well. Are you not the same contributor that has issued 3 revert warning endlessly to all the participants that have been involved lately. except one, I believe and that has been since you contacted that person to say that you were having trouble. This was after you lodged a dispute resolution claim, was preliminarily suggested that your contribution could be replaced and then you never responded to the request for rebuttal. Then you had the whole article, or at least the plot, reverted to a version that did not reflect all the corrections that had been made after that time. This revert caused some non-plot content to be distorted and thus no longer correct as it was before. You have been rude to people actually insulting in the edit summaries and on the TALK page. You even questioned someone's primary language, called someone arrogant as to think that only Europeans could study and map an ancient site and that exploration since Columbus has been nothing but genocide.

The article as it now stands is remarkably far different than what it was three months ago including numerous attributions, some quoted, that after an issue about the suitability of "gasoline" being included in the plot, were found to be erroneous and possibly transfers that existed in that version two months ago. A transcript of the dialogue in the movie was found to determine those facts. You came to a speculative conclusion about gasoline being in the movie by using with out due diligence a draft copy that lacked most of the dialogue and ended with Katherine in the cave. You then announced to the group that gasoline did not appear in the movie. And as if that were not enough then went on to speculate that "airplane fuel" should be used totally based on speculation when you yourself would [not] let stay in the article speculation, interpretation and assumption. There have been great efforts to portray the plot with that information in which can be verified by the content of the movie. All that needs to be done is some incorrect characterization which then down the line people start using as a source when it can be found that in such things as movie review[s and] [removed comma] book content has been included making some people think the movie has far more explanation than it does.

The issue in question is that was Almasy's 3 day walk to El Tag in scorching weather. The answer is, according to the content of that part of the movie, no. There is not indication that the weather was unpleasant despite it being desert. Now mind you, the area of concern includes where the cave is located a mountainous plateau. El Tag is also on an uplift in the area albeit 3 days walk. You assert that by scenes elsewhere depicting heat is enough to interpret/speculate/assume that it was hot when he walked. A desert is marked by extreme temps and being arid. Not necessarily hot all the time. Palm Springs, California is a perfect example that follows much the same temperature pattern as that part of the Sahara. It can be assumed that if it is arid, drinking water is scarce. He is in the sun for an extend period of time. Anyone can get heat exhaustion from merely exerting themselves without proper supplies. It does not need to be hot. That is why when people think that when it is overcast and they do not mind having been exposed for a prolonged period of time that they find they have sunburned and possibly get heat stroke. That is regardless of heat. To speculate based on other scenes in the movie is not for what Wiki strives. The sequence of the film cannot be used as a timeline because it is non-linear. It was edited that way. It did not follow the final script. So to say that someone is being difficult is insincere and a wrong characterization. This has been the situation with every contribution to the group.SharpQuillPen (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I have had a chance to review "the evidence", you can insist on something all you want but if it did not happen it is not fact. It is never mentioned in the dialogue when it clearly could have been. Also, since the film was not edited according to the final script, what reference there may have been to describe any anticipated difficulties with the walk could have made the cutting room floor. "Lured"? That was a conclusion of Almasy during his explanation of what happened for the period to which Caravaggio sought answers. It is absent from any scene previously. The intent of picking up Almasy at the camp was to bring him back to Cairo. If Katherine knew that she had been lured she does not say. She does not even speculate. So to say that Geoffrey lured her is speculation, well assumed, but just speculation based on Almasy's after the fact interpretation. So if the issue of scorching and lured are to be included in the plot then they should appropriately be characterized as speculation, interpretation or assumption. But the fact remains that in both situations they are not portrayed in the film as such.SharpQuillPen (talk) 00:37, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

CLARIFICATIONS MARKED BY []SharpQuillPen (talk) 01:50, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, before this goes any further, the TALK page will document well the amount of discussion and justification for these particular changes. A discussion was open for the entire plot which would have been useful to go through the text from beginning to end in one swop to avoid never ending changes. Ring Cinema responded that we will discuss these issues and then opened new additional discussions on the same text without presenting to the group that maybe these issues should be treated individually. That is the pattern of Ring Cinema, unilateral action regarding the text of the plot. If Ring Cinema did not take possession of everything that is in the content then there would not be so many reverts of what makes it to the plot.SharpQuillPen (talk) 02:03, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This complaint has nothing to do with the "gasoline" issue, however it is instructive. When the evidence was presented, I agreed that it was correct to use the word 'gasoline'. That is good editing. There has been no further dispute on this content issue since the evidence was presented on the Talk page. That is not a problem.

Secondly, have I issued other 3RR warnings? Yes, it is true that I have issued such warnings when editors revert enough to receive a warning. There is nothing suspicious about that; neither is it germane to this complaint, as far as I know.

Regarding the matter of the heat in the desert, I would simply mention that the word 'scorching' has been used continuously in this article since May 2010. It was included in one of the first expansions of the plot summary beyond a stub. No other editor seems to have found it objectionable. I am open to an argument that the desert heat was not scorching as depicted in the film, but I don't see anything persuasive on offer there and it seems to be a longstanding consensus for more than three years. Absent a good reason, it seems more accurate to say it was "scorching" than not to say it, particularly since the heat has a disastrous effect on the main character. --Ring Cinema (talk) 06:00, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

--The gasoline issue just illustrate that YOU will not allow ANY to insert language in specifically the plot until they provide you with absolute evidence. Yet there are countless times of when others have suggested language and you reverted it. With the gasoline issue it was said to you countless times and since no one had provided any "evidence" you would continually change it. Then in an attempt to prove your assertion which by the way was total speculation since the item to be fueled was a plane that obviously it had to be airplane fuel. You got trumped when the source you used turned out to be reviewed without due diligence. So, it was permissible for you to include speculation but not others. So you continue to fail to recognize that you have such a dominate presence in the plot that everything is connected to you regardless as to who suggested it. You even have the audacity in the edit summaries to say such terms as what was suggested was acceptable to you, not a consensus of the group. And by the way, when you were commenting on the transcript that was provided of the dialogue [you] seem to have the impression, for what reason I do not know, that it was written by the person who submitted[,] commenting that the person submitting it had misspelled gasoline when in fact it was clearly presented as being directly from the source.

As for scorching, how long did "Afrika Corps" appear instead of Germans, which the former never was dialogue in the film. How long was "north to Benghazi" included and never justified by quote in the film according to the dialogue transcript. This just goes to show that the article has contained various inaccuracies that with a review of the dialogue transcript shows how fallacious transfers from the book, that sometimes made it into reviews and stories about the movie, made it into the plot. And then if in plot, although based on speculation, is used by countless people to give a proper characterization of that instance in the film. But it does not exit in the released version. Even when it is pointed out that a statement made by you in the plot, was not an accurate characterization, the pattern repeats about continual reverts, reverts, reverts. And that is the situation with scorching. You assume and speculate that because there are scenes of a hot desert that it is hot all the time. That is just not true. The Palm Springs, California example has been already been brought up and still you refuse to accept, despite no evidence during those portions of the film (the plane crashing; Katherine being in the cave and Almasy getting to El Tag) to think other than that the desert was hot (24/7/365). Since there is no direct dialogue or visual representation in those scenes then to state so is total speculation. It very well may have been included in the script used for the filming and it very well may have been filmed. But it did not make it into the released version, if it existed. But, remember that we are talking about the content of the movie; not the final script. And the dialogue transcript clearly points out that no representation of any heat had an affect on Almasy on his 3 day walk. His exhausted presence when he gets to El Tag is totally explainable by the exertion of a three day walk with out proper supplies. Did the sun affect him? Probably. But then it would affect anyone in an arid environment without supplies and exposed to the sun although the temperature may be in the 60sF and 70sF if so at the time (which we do not know). At least in Lawrence of Arabia we see them tenting themselves in their garb during the day to protect themselves from the sun (as well as the heat when they crossed that particular desert during a very disagreeable time with the waves of heat rolling across the horizon. We do not see that in the released version of The English Patient.

Reverts. Not germane to this issue? Previously, you filed for a dispute resolution mediation. Everyone that was asked to participate did so except for you. And when closing that matter the mediator said that a decision could not be made because all the parties were not willing to participate. You lodged a concern and then felt, for whatever reason, that either you did not have to defend your position or did not defend it in or to thwart a decision that was already made against your original imbedded sentence. The mediator attempt to bring about a consensus by suggesting language and in fact some of that language had previously been suggested in the TALK page but you disregarded it and then lodged the dispute. That's cooperation? It seems that there is a pattern of threatening people, that you will lodge a 3 revert policy complaint for those that changed YOUR characterizations, and then when you were challenged to do so, do not follow through. That happened to me several times from you and each time I welcomed a review and no follow through came about. This last time, again, you issued a threat and instead of lodging a 3 revert complaint came to this board. Just as I said at the beginning of my statement that I was just about to lodge one myself after I had asked for advice about it and was directed to this process. So, yes. I did say "Good" because I had intended to do it myself. But it is not who did it first but who is characterizing the content of the film accurately. Holding firm on the truth is not being a tendentious contributor, so do not attempt to throw that out into this issue because it goes no where. Well, when it comes to the truth, the characterization is just as important as the facts. That is how you avoid characterizing people, events or issues with out a POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SharpQuillPen (talk • contribs) 07:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changes in [].SharpQuillPen (talk) 07:38, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of this has anything to do with the edit warring. SQP lacks a consensus for the change he is proposing and has only offered OR as an argument. His participation in the discussion has been accusatory and not accepted by other editors. --Ring Cinema (talk) 08:05, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Three accounts (User:LimeyCinema1960, User:WordWrightUSA, User:SharpQuillPen) all registered within three days of each other and all have spent an unholy amount of time editing/commenting at The English Patient (film). Here is the interaction between all three: [18]. This activity looks deeply suspicous to me and any admin who takes on this case should be aware of it. Betty Logan (talk) 08:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal

Registration is merely that--registration. It does not account for time spent on the site when not registered. I have been using the site for several years and decided to register so that when I wanted to contribute whatever format others contributors had available so the same would be available to me. If you wish to say that all three concentrated on TEP then how do you explain the other articles to which contributions were made. It would appear that the work on TEP was not only on the plot. As I saw new things added to TEP article I would look at the coding to see how things were done to see if I could do the same especially when there seem to have been some thing that changed a sortable table. Does that mean if we all worked on similar stuff of the article we are the same or just took a gander at seeing what was appearing on the page and then working through it to see if it was possible. There was always the cancel button and the review button. Work was done on the other aspects of the article as well as other articles as can be seen with the following taken from the contribution pages of each:

WordWrightUSA

•18:30, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,534)‎ . . Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard ‎ (→‎Summary of dispute by WordWrightUSA: Is Wikipedia Obligated To The Sentence?) •05:41, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+20)‎ . . m Hugh Henry Brackenridge ‎ (link) (current) •05:34, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-4)‎ . . m Mark Abley ‎ (→‎Selected bibliography: link) (current) •05:31, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . Mark Abley ‎ (link) •05:24, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+4)‎ . . Mark Abley ‎ (link) •05:22, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+4)‎ . . List of Canadian writers ‎ (→‎A: link) •05:19, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+45)‎ . . m List of Canadian writers ‎ (→‎A: link) •05:13, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-19)‎ . . The English Patient (film) ‎ (link) •05:08, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-9)‎ . . The English Patient (film) ‎ (link) •05:05, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+9)‎ . . The English Patient (film) ‎ (link) •05:03, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1)‎ . . The English Patient (film) ‎ (link) •04:25, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+4)‎ . . Sri Lanka ‎ (→‎Visual, literary and performing arts: link) •04:23, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+9)‎ . . Sri Lanka ‎ (→‎Visual, literary and performing arts: link) •04:21, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+2)‎ . . Sri Lanka ‎ (→‎Visual, literary and performing arts: link) •04:16, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-9)‎ . . Sri Lanka ‎ (→‎Visual, literary and performing arts: link) •04:14, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+7)‎ . . Sri Lanka ‎ (→‎Visual, literary and performing arts: link) •04:11, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+30)‎ . . Sri Lanka ‎ (→‎Visual, literary and performing arts: link) •04:07, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-8)‎ . . Michael Ondaatje ‎ (link) (current) •04:05, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+27)‎ . . Michael Ondaatje ‎ (link) •01:41, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+27)‎ . . Michael Ondaatje ‎ (links) •01:31, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+42)‎ . . The English Patient (film) ‎ (link) •17:15, 27 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-4)‎ . . m László Almásy ‎ (→‎Interwar period: correct link)

LimeyCinema1960

•08:30, 26 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+259)‎ . . Talk:Ralph Fiennes ‎ (→‎Fiennes USE: new section) (current) •08:25, 26 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . m Ralph Fiennes ‎ •08:19, 26 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-3)‎ . . m Ralph Fiennes ‎ (starred is a misused word.) •02:44, 26 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,448)‎ . . Talk:The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎the dashing Hungarian: definition and repetition) •02:05, 26 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-22)‎ . . m The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Plot: the types of plane(s) is irrelevant to the plot and unnecessary detail that removing from the article has been the objective identified long ago to make it proper quality.) •02:00, 26 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-5)‎ . . m The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Plot: In one of the reminiscences clearly it is said that it is gasoline that is traded not airplane fuel.) •01:47, 26 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+40)‎ . . The English Patient (film) ‎ (insert sortable table) •01:37, 26 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+210)‎ . . The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Awards And Honors) •01:05, 26 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-11)‎ . . m The English Patient (film) ‎ (redundant and repetitive phrase often used in high school papers for alliterative puffery) •01:02, 26 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,551)‎ . . Talk:The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Not Cairo: possible time limits.) •23:10, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1)‎ . . m The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Cast: fix {}) •23:10, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+212)‎ . . m The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Cast: insert sortable table) •22:48, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-12)‎ . . m The English Patient (film) ‎ (superfluous and redundant phrase often used in gratuitously since the "he had been" is already establishes an end with "spell the end to" ; common superlative that just adds antiquity to the composition of the sentence.) •22:42, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+18)‎ . . m Ralph Fiennes ‎ (Fixing typo raised by BracketBot) •22:38, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1)‎ . . m Ralph Fiennes ‎ (Fixing typo raised by BracketBot) •20:07, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-38)‎ . . m Ralph Fiennes ‎ (rid confusion) •17:52, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-91)‎ . . Saul Zaentz ‎ (→‎Film career: establish links) •16:54, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-87)‎ . . 48th Academy Awards ‎ (reduce confusion) •15:57, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-48)‎ . . m Saul Zaentz ‎ (→‎Early life: eliminate redundancy; too many "Zaentz" in such a small paragraph.) •15:43, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+2,032)‎ . . Talk:The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Unrealised cultural judgments and statements in Articles: new section) •14:57, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-12)‎ . . m The English Patient (film) ‎ (superfluous and redundant statement of fact;) •06:46, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1)‎ . . m Michael Ondaatje ‎ (→‎Personal life: correct link) •06:44, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-136)‎ . . m Michael Ondaatje ‎ (update links) •06:09, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-4)‎ . . Michael Tolkin ‎ (update links) (current) •06:00, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-198)‎ . . Anthony Minghella ‎ (→‎Career: update links) •05:15, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-18)‎ . . m Anthony Minghella ‎ (→‎Early life: provide reference) •05:06, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+7)‎ . . m The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Awards And Honors: links) •04:52, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-28)‎ . . m The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Production: link) •04:46, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-21)‎ . . m The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Production: correct link) •04:45, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+17)‎ . . The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Aeorplanes: increase references) •04:33, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,033)‎ . . The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Production: enhance with references production notes; update references) •03:44, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+7)‎ . . m The English Patient (film) ‎ (correct ()) •03:41, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+2)‎ . . m The English Patient (film) ‎ (correct bracket) •03:31, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-23)‎ . . m Leo Frobenius ‎ (provide sources) •03:22, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+408)‎ . . m Talk:Anthony Minghella ‎ (→‎Education: redundant phrases) (current) •03:15, 25 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,944)‎ . . The English Patient (film) ‎ (rid redundant statements of fact; insert table; include new info and upgrade sources) •19:37, 24 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-1)‎ . . m British Academy of Film and Television Arts ‎

SharpQuillPen

•08:53, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+275)‎ . . Talk:The Godfather (novel) ‎ (→‎Link to no mention of godfather or puzo: new section) •08:42, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+4)‎ . . The Godfather ‎ (link) •08:41, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+51)‎ . . The Godfather ‎ (link) •08:03, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-1)‎ . . The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Awards And Honors: fix sortable table) •07:59, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1)‎ . . The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Awards And Honors: fix sortable table) •07:58, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Awards And Honors: fix sortable table) •07:56, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (0)‎ . . The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Awards And Honors: fix sortable table) •07:51, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+8)‎ . . The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Awards And Honors: fix sortable table) •07:47, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-8)‎ . . The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Awards And Honors: fix sortable table) •07:43, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+15)‎ . . The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Awards And Honors: fix sortable table) •07:41, 28 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+46)‎ . . The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Awards And Honors: fix sortable table) •07:01, 27 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+1,499)‎ . . Talk:The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Unrealised cultural judgments and statements in Articles) •06:35, 27 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-88)‎ . . The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Plot: points of clarification) •06:17, 27 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+152)‎ . . Talk:The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎the dashing Hungarian: SharpQuillPen (talk) 09:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)) •06:15, 27 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (-327)‎ . . Talk:The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎the dashing Hungarian: I forgot the SharpQuillPen (talk) 09:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)) •06:14, 27 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+2,431)‎ . . Talk:The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎the dashing Hungarian: What the hell is going on?) •05:39, 27 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+6)‎ . . m The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Plot: Almasy's use of the cave) •05:32, 27 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+16)‎ . . The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Archaeology: link) •05:23, 27 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+30)‎ . . m László Almásy ‎ (systemize citation) •05:07, 27 January 2014 (diff | hist) . . (+17)‎ . . m The English Patient (film) ‎ (→‎Aeorplanes: correct reference)[reply]

Seems like there has been a variety of other activities with TEP article plot and other Wiki articles. So if you want to characterize something then look at the whole record content instead of merely the statistics.SharpQuillPen (talk) 09:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would also note that none of these accounts use indentation on their posts, which is something most editors learn how to do early in their career. For a style comparison, let's try these examples: [19] --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Stale. If you want to open an investigation as to the three accounts (see Betty's comment), WP:SPI is the place to go. BTW, Limey is the oldest of the three.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Delayed choice quantum eraser (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User-multi error: "Stigmatella aurantiaca" is not a valid project or language code (help).

<https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser&oldid=594078989>

Previous version reverted to: [20]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [21]
2. [22]
3. [23]
4. makes clear that he will revert again and it concerns numerous edits over 2 months

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [24]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: fresh start

Stigmatella aurantiaca has reverted 2 months of editing without referring to a Wiki deletion rule and without discussion this revert on the talk page. The revert has been supported by Patrick0Moran and 129.217.159.124 (which declared that he has no plans to edit himself). None of them has questioned the edits during the last 2 months. Also at the moments of revert none of them has given arguments what was wrong in all those edits to justice a complete revert in stead of editing. There is only one small part which has caused an extended discussion, but that does involve all other edits. Therefore reverting so many edits without referring to Wiki deletion rules is not acceptable

DParlevliet (talk) 11:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Page protected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:06, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response by Stigmatella aurantiaca

First of all, thanks for protecting the page.

DParlevliet has made three reverts in the last 24 hours against consensus, two reverts of my edits, and one of Patrick0Moran's edits, as expressed in the following diffs:

Diffs of DParlevliet's reverts:

• 18:15, 5 February 2014‎
• 19:28, 5 February 2014
• 08:25, 6 February 2014

DParlevliet's entire history of contributions since 07:41, 1 October 2013‎ has been of adding material expressing his POV against the consensus of (1) Patrick0Moran, (2) an anonymous IP who has actual experience in the field (who argued extensively with DParlevliet on the talk page but refrained from actually editing the article himself), and (3) myself.

The anonymous IP (who has recently opened up an account as Cthugha82) summarized the situation in the following talk page diff. In this diff, he recommended that we revert to the 1 Oct 2013 revision of the article. Patrick0Moran and I were in agreement on this issue.

• 16:57, Talk page: 5 February 2014

DParlevliet claims that "None of them has questioned the edits during the last 2 months." This is a completely false claim, as can be seen from even a cursory perusal of the talk page. (I'm a relatively recent addition to the debate so was not involved in most of these debates.) The pattern, repeated over and over, was that Patrick0Moran and 129.217.159.124 would argue with DParlevliet, but DParlevliet would completely ignore our recommendations and would proceed to edit the article the way he wanted. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 13:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I support what Stigmatella aurantiaca has reported immediately above. I have been editing Wikipedia articles for several years and have rarely seen contributors who fail to give responsive answers to my questions about their edits or understandings the way he does. The difficulty is compounded because his native language appears to be Dutch (see his talk page) and his English is so poor that it is often difficult to determine even what he is trying to communicate. His main point appears to be that the several authors of "A double-slit quantum eraser," all university professors, have argued according to quantum mechanics and reached one conclusion (that is at the heart of their experiment design if not at the heart of their mathematics) but that he can correctly support an opposite conclusion by the use of what he calls the "rules" of classical physics. The paper is available at http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/quant-ph/0106078%E2%80%8E. On many basic points (such as how and when quantum interference is manifested) he appears to be uninformed. I have endeavored to remain polite, question only the validity of his assertions, and provide him missing information (such has how BBO crystals can be used to produce entangled photons, a crucial part of the experiment design). However, he is extremely resistant to giving responsive replies to objections, always insisting that others argue from his premises. It is not just that he maintains his edits in opposition to the critiques of others, but that it quickly becomes impossible even to explore what he is trying to say. The IP editor, who must deal with real-world quantum-mechanical issues in optics as part of his work and therefore cannot have maintained any misconceptions for long, has tried to explain to him why his classical approach is inapplicable. He has been very patient, but he finally left the discussion in disgust.

While we have been trying to get a major issue that lies at the heart of problems I have with his edits on several related articles, many less central issues have been put in abeyance. It is difficult to fix a vague English formulation while not clear on what the writer was trying to communicate, and I believe that the IP and I have both attempted to prioritize the fundamental issues. P0M (talk) 15:28, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response by DParlevliet

All comments above concerns the one disputed paragraph as I mentioned in my report. I have agreed to edit and improve this paragraph. A quick look into the article history [[25]] shows that until 2 February no edit was disputed nor reverted. Also after the blockage none of the editors above gave an accepted reason for deletion according Wiki rules. Therefore I propose to go back to the last not disputed version [[26]] and start editing from there. I have no problem in deleting the disputed paragraph until I have improved it DParlevliet (talk) 14:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page

People's Liberation Army Navy Surface Force (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

211.20.73.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC) "tidy-up and minor restructure"
2. 12:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC) "tidy-up and minor restructure"
3. 14:13, 11 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 594979949 by NeilN (talk)"
4. 14:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 594980453 by NeilN (talk)"
5. 14:19, 11 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 594980665 by Dan653 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:16, 11 February 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on People's Liberation Army Navy Surface Force. using TW"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 21:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Undid non consensus edits Feb 10 */"

Comments:

Likely sock of [27] who has been harassing Antiochus the Great for days. NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of 3 days JohnCD (talk) 14:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page: United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MaxxFordham (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [28]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [29]
2. [30]
3. [31]
4. [32]
5. [33]
6. [34]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [35] (previously blocked for edit warring )

Comments:
Editor previously blocked on 2 May 2010 for 48 hrs for edit warring.
Vsmith (talk) 14:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editor first added the parenthetical comments on 16:22 10 Feb. [36] Vsmith (talk) 14:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page

United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

MaxxFordham (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC) "What alerted *you* to come along and act like anything parenthetical I add is supposedly "inappropriate"? Why is this on *your* radar too? Are you some kind of "boss" here?"
2. 13:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC) "Since when is the fact that nations and CONTINENTS *aren't* the same thing, and that some other nations have STATES too, which is common knowledge, supposedly "original research"?"
3. Consecutive edits made from 13:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC) to 13:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
   1. 13:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC) "THERE. Is *that* okay?"
   2. 13:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC) ""
   3. 13:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC) "THERE. Is *that* okay?"
4. 13:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 594971758 by Vsmith (talk) Reinserting important parenthetical phrases, because parenthetical phrases *are* legal in encyclopedias, AND because that's important for people to know."
5. 12:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 594962458 by TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) But if it's only in the talk page, then--duh--the general public won't typically see it!"
6. 10:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 594858319 by Cadiomals (talk) No, they ARE relevant because it's important for people to know that even though something's common doesn't mean it's correct."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on United Stated. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Users summaries are also getting fairly WP:POINTy --Mdann52talk to me! 14:47, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Same as previous report. This one is more informative though, Vsmith (talk) 14:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Bioresonance therapy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Enigma9035 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [37]
2. [38]
3. [39]
4. [40]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [41]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [42] (opening the discussion)

Comments:
This case is a bit more complicated than usual. Enigma9035 (talk · contribs) tried to add information about scientific papers published in reputable journals supporting the use of bioresonance therapy in various applications. That edit was reverted, by WikiDan61 (talk · contribs) (me), based on the fact that the edit appeared to be an effort to advocate for bioresonance therapy. At the time, I did not take the time to inform Enigma of my reasons for reverting, and I'll take the 40 lashes for that. However, since the edit was reverted, it should not have been reintroduced without discussion (per WP:BRD). When it was reintroduced (by Cbagdatli (talk · contribs)), it was once again reverted, this time by Alexbrn (talk · contribs), after which the edit war ensued. I warned Cbagdatli about the edit warring concern, and no further edits came from this user. I then opened a discussion about the controversial edit, and invited all parties ([43], [44] and [45]) to join. Enigma responded with a series of reversions (listed above) to reintroduce the controversial material, with very antagonistic edit summaries indicating a general lack of interest in any discussion. So, here we are. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:46, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• As this notice was being created, Enigma9035 (talk · contribs) finally opted to join the discussion. Antagonistically, but it's a start. No further edits to the article as of this writing, so perhaps the issue has resolved itself. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:03, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Since this is in the area of fringe theories, be aware that discretionary sanctions are also in place, 23:40, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
• Page protected - fully protected by Mark Arsten. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Albania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Malbin210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [46] (just take a look at the history page for the edit warring)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [47]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Albania#NPOV and article

Comments:

This is a report of edit warring on a Balkans-related article, not necessarily a 3RR violation (btw, are Balkans-related articles still subject to ArbComm discretionary sanctions? I haven't followed that case for a long time just noticed on the article talk page that the article is indeed under ArbComm probation). I first noticed [this yesterday and thinking it was a simple case of restoring a deleted, properly sourced, fact and left a message on User:Malbin210's page about claiming to revert "vandalism" in an edit summary that clearly wasn't vandalism. Today, after seeing the fact was removed once again I checked the page history and noticed that it was just a small piece of a larger on-going edit war. User:Malbin210 seems to be a SPA and, quite suspiciously, other SPA, single-edit IPs have jumped in.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 00:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This clearly is a very hypocritical act . I have already contacted an administrator ( JamesBwatson) , presenting the case way before you opening this . I have also given more than enough arguments in the talk page . Please do follow this link , to see the already opened case

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JamesBWatson ( it is imperative that you do , because you will get a more clear picture and the reason for this whole situation )

Furthemore i need to point out that this user opened this case , after the implicated user ( Astarti34 ) asked for help from WilliamThweatt , as demonstrated here > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWilliamThweatt&diff=595062326&oldid=595040989 , in the talk page with the title \Help for Albania article/ , where he was asking from him to open a dispute on his behalf for me ! .

Clearly biased and unnecesary act , when an administrator has been already contacted , and users notified (Malbin210 (talk) 00:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC))[reply]

This is a report of edit warring on an article subject to ArbComm sanctions which I noticed while doing vandalism patrol, all users involved have been notified, not only Malbin210. (btw, leaving a rambling message on another editor's talk page is not "opening a case" and nobody else was made aware of it)--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 01:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are again lying , my last edit in the article about albania is saying > please do not edit , administrator has been contacted . Let us continue the discussion there , link > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albania&action=history

Furthemore , i did mention the name of the implicated user , and he got a message !

What i need to stress out that , you and astari know very well each other , as demonstrated by the fact that he asked help from you , after i did open a case with a an administrator .

Here is the proof where he asks help from you , to open a case against me , after he got the notice , fearing that he would loose his account because in fact he is the one vandalizing the article about albania ! Link > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWilliamThweatt&diff=595062326&oldid=594256153

Here is another link showing that you have participated mutliple times in war editing , supporting user Astarti34 . > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albania&diff=594910468&oldid=594886667

Here is another link showing you reverting exactly the same thing , support user Astari and his sockpuppet account with the ip 77.49.58.129 >https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Albania&diff=595031369&oldid=595021278

It gives very clearly the connection that you , astari , and the sockuppet account with an ip of 77.49.58.129 , have together .

To get a more clear picture please do visit the article about Albania , and the talk page about Albania . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malbin210 (talk • contribs) 01:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update > WilliamThweatt , has commented on the opened case , trying to persuade the administrator not to follow the matter any further by claiming ArbComm general sanctions. Clearly demonstrating his biased implication in this matter ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malbin210 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh* Honestly, can we do something about the personal attacks and accusations? I simply notified JBW that I had brought the edit warring up for discussion here. FWIW, I really don't have an opinion regarding the content dispute, in general I just plain don't like nationalist motivated edit warring in WP, it's a distraction and highly detrimental to the project which, if I remember correctly, was part of the rationale for the ArbComm decision(s) regarding all Balkans related articles.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 02:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad then , because we share the same value . I have never made a single edit for nationalistic purposes as demonstrated by my contributions history . I am only editing economical facts which are accurate and properly sourced . Having a degree and masters in economics i tend to focus to those matters . Best regards , John — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malbin210 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• There is clearly a serious problem here. As a first step, I have fully protected the article for 36 hours. I am still investigating, to see what other steps are needed. The protection of the article is not an endorsement of the current version. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• There have been several unsubstantiated accusations. The most absurd one of those has been the suggestion that an editor who opens an edit warring case on this page and then informs an administrator of the existence of the case is doing so in order to discourage investigation of the case.

I express no opinion on the merits of the two sides in the dispute on gdp, but I urge all parties to try to reach agreement, by discussion in a friendly and cooperative manner, without edit warring, and without taking a battleground approach to other editors. As for the dispute over "Albania remains one of the poorest countries in Europe", initially editors on one side were removing content which was to some extent supported by a source, and those on the other side were repeatedly restoring a version which did not entirely agree with the source. Both sides were at fault here, as the only proper way to deal with thsi was to check what tthe source said, and make the version in the article agree with the source. Eventually, however, this edit established a version that agreed with what the source says. After that, reverting to a version that did not agree with the cited source was unacceptable.

Malbin210 has been blocked for 48 hours for sockpuppetry. It is certain that he or she edited while not logged in to avoid the appearance of continuiong to edit war, and virtually certain that he or she also created the sockpuppet account Allenbond. I see no evidence to support other allegations of sockpuppetry, but if anyone else thinks that he or she does sse such evidence, then the thing to do is to take it to a sockpuppet investigation, not to throw out unsubstantiated accusations in edit summaries and on talk pages.

I shall post warnings to various user talk pages, warning editors about edit warring and about discretionary sanctions. I shall also encourage all concerned to read this message. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Heart Attack (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 595125650 by Pavanjandhyala (talk) that other pages are not using proper sources is not a valid reason , no consensus to do so here on talk"
2. 14:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 594979834 by Pavanjandhyala (talk) WP:PROVEIT that they are professionally acceptable critics in reliably publsihed sources"
3. 13:59, 11 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 594978300 by Pavanjandhyala (talk) no they are not reliable sources or professional critics"
4. 13:54, 11 February 2014 (UTC) "unsourced"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC) "/* edit warring */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Even after message asking the user to end waring the users continue to revert each others edit . Jeffrd10 (talk) 13:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Page protected Looks like there is discussion on the talk page which User:TheRedPenOfDoom is involved with so I've protected the page to encourage further discussion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous version reverted to: [48]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [49]
2. [50]
3. [51]
4. [52]
5. [53]
6. [54]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [55]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [56]

Comments:
User Правичност behaves indecently and insults other editors who do not share her/his views as for example here and here. She/he keeps biased, overestimated data about the number of the Serbs worldwide, based on nationalist, unreliable sources. She/he also removed added by me tags, which impugned used by her/him sources here. She/he is edit-warring and does not respect the opinion of other editors and reliable references. Jingiby (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Jinglby came up with a new idea and new sources, pushing new reverts without agreeing with me or any other users on the talk page, this means he was pushing it and i was only reverting it to a previous stable version which was aprooved by me and a number of more users such as Adrian, Zoupan, Klačko, and others... who participated in previous discussions about the total figure of Serbs, coming up to a concensus about it. Total number of Serbs was also discussed in a special section in which Jinglby also hasnt participated (here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Serbs/Total_number)... Jinglby is claiming sources are nationalist and unreliable only because most of them are Serbian soruces, that ofcourse bothers him as same as user Sokac121 who is always supportive to any kind of actions which have to do with degrading figures of Serbs or dissagreeing to "anything Serbian" in the past 4-8 months. Jinglby is trying to change the total number of Serbs in the infobox using and pushing sources such as UCLA (a web-langauge learning page) and Ethnologue (another linguist source) for making estimations on how many people belong to a certain ethnic group or its descent, which is quite unproffesional (for example; nobody cannot denie ~18 million Italian Americans arent Italians by ethnicity or descent just because 90% of them dont speak italian - as only ~800,000 italian Americans speak Italian in the USA (these datas are according to latest U.S. census (ethnic group/race and language declaring datas, as they were available to U.S. people to declare on that census). Using linguist sources and "Online-language learning webpages" for counting/ estimating demographics for some ethnic group is two different worlds. I respect opinions of other editors as long as they are not "anti-Serbian aimed" like they are for user Sokac121 and as long as these opinions arent only POV opinions without any "real" reliable and construct accompying sources to support such opnions. A proof of latest unserious contributions by Jinglby on the article "Serbs" is also adding a tag called "(including Montenegrins)" next to a figure 11 million which was based on UCLA source. Though the "including Montenegrins" tag is his own POV opinion which he included - meaning; "If the number of Serbs on planet is 11 million, then this number probably includes Montenegrins and some others because otherwise it would be too high for him". it is much easier to recall Serbian Ministry for diaspora`s definitions and estimations; There is 8 million Serbs in the Balkans and between 2,5 and 4,5 million living in the diaspora. That is 10-12 million also using all of the soruces that were on the infobox before. Period. (Правичност (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC))[reply]

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. John (talk) 19:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page: SodaStream (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dlv999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [57]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [58]
2. [59]

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: [60] (warned by another user on Nov.6)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [61] (i'm not a party in the edit-warring, but it seems there are constant discussion on the talk page involving this user).

Comments:

This is a third party report on my behalf (i'm not involved), but i noticed an intended violation of 1RR rule (ARBPIA) on SodaStream, herewith reporting this user. This user claimed on Nov.6 that reverting ips "doesn't count" [62] in regard to 1RR, but later also reverted a registered user. It doesn't seem his last revert was against a banned IP.GreyShark (dibra) 19:00, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Clear violation of 1RR in furtherance of POV-pushing. Attempting to use the company article to COATRACK selected aspects if the Israel-Palestine disputes. 1RR limit applies even to reverts of lousy but nonvandalous contributions.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The second revert is of an anonymous IP. From the 1rr warning on the Sodastream talk page: "Reverts of edits made by anonymous IP editors that are not vandalism are exempt from 1RR"

So only one of the 2 reverts counts as a revert for the purposes of 1RR. One revert is not a violation of 1RR. Unlike Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, every single addition to the article I have made is supported by high quality RS directly related to the article topic. Regarding the content in question I am the one that opened the relevant talk page discussions. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has been reverting the content, but is yet to make an appearance on talk despite my request. Also I would not regard Greyshark as uninvolved. It is true he has not edited the page, but we have had many content disputes over the years. Dlv999 (talk) 00:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Kurds in Syria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Syria_kurdistan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [63]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [64]
2. [65]
3. [66]
4. [67]

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: [68]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (i'm a third party in this edit-warring)

Comments:

Seemingly, user:Syria kurdistan violated 1RR of WP:SCWGS, making no less than 4 reverts during Feb. 1-2, after he had already been warned on Jan.29.GreyShark (dibra) 19:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Chipmunkdavis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [69]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [70]
2. [71]
3. [72]
4. [73]
5. [74]
6. [75]

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: (no warning yet)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: no attempts have been made by either party (i'm a third party)

Comments:

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant article is under WP:SCWGS sanctions and is restricted to 1RR, which have consequently been violated by CMD no less than 5 times over past week. CMD was most edit-warred by user Soffredo (talk · contribs), (who also violated 1RR, but only once).GreyShark (dibra) 19:43, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I had no idea WP:SCWGS even existed (although I suppose I'm not surprised). My attention was drawn to this page because Soffredo had been justifying edits to other pages, such as Gallery of sovereign state flags [76], on the basis that the ISIS page showed it was a country. Upon examining the page, the ISIS page showed so because an IP added an infobox deep down in the page, and Soffredo subsequently added his own edits to make the position more prominent at the very beginning of the lead. This attempt to justify edits on other pages on the basis he'd made similar edits on this page were made despite the conversation at Talk:List of sovereign states#Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, where discussion in relation to this dispute has occurred. I'll take this as formal notification of SCWGS, in addition to whatever else happens. CMD (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Soffredo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [77]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [78]
2. [79]

Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning: (no warning yet)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: no attempts have been made by either party (i'm a third party)

Comments:

Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant article is under WP:SCWGS sanctions and is restricted to 1RR, which have consequently been violated by user CMD (see above). CMD was most edit-warred by user Soffredo (talk · contribs), who also violated 1RR, but only once.GreyShark (dibra) 19:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page: International Criminal Court
User being reported: Arkaad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [80]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [81] 16:11; first revert; 2nd time adding the info
2. [82] 16:26
3. [83] 1941
4. [84] 2018
5. [85] 2049

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [86] 2001

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [87], [88], [89]

See the talk page for why I object to the edit. But the point re this noticeboard is that the user keeps reverting, even after finding the takl page, being reverted by 3 different users, and being warned
L.tak (talk) 20:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Christian Science (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Simplywater (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Simplywater is repeatedly adding over 200 words of religious text, either to a quote box or to the infobox. It's not only inappropriate/undue, but the text is misleading out of context.

• 1st edit (and version reverted to) 03:54, 5 February, added to quotebox: "As adherents of Truth, we take the inspired Word of the Bible as our sufficient guide to eternal Life," etc.

• 1st revert: 18:07, 12 February, added to infobox: "As adherents of Truth, we take the inspired Word of the Bible as our sufficient guide to eternal Life," etc.
• 2nd revert: 18:27, 12 February, added to infobox: "As adherents of Truth, we take the inspired Word of the Bible as our sufficient guide to eternal Life," etc.
• 3rd revert: 18:53, 12 February, added to infobox: "As adherents of Truth, we take the inspired Word of the Bible as our sufficient guide to eternal Life," etc.
• 4th revert: 19:38, 12 February, added to infobox: "As adherents of Truth, we take the inspired Word of the Bible as our sufficient guide to eternal Life," etc.

Comment

Simplywater followed the above by removing the first sentence, [90] which she has removed before, then removed most of the article [91] except for the infobox, I assume by mistake.

The context is her extended disruption of the article and talk page since she began editing it on 25 January to add a strong religious POV, especially the talk page, which has now become hard to use. She was blocked for 3RR at the same article on 25 January. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked to prevent further edit warring. -- John Reaves 05:34, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Mount Damavand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Farhoudk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [92]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [93]
2. [94]
3. [95]
4. [96]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [97]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [98] and several subsequent edits

Comments:
Farhoudk is making unsourced and incorrect statements in his edit summary and relying on an old, outdated and non-primary source.

I have blocked Viewfinder for 48 hours. It is clear that he/she was aware that he/she was participating in an edit war, as he/she reported the edit war here. On the other hand, I can find no evidence that Farhoudk had ever been informed of the edit warring policy before Viewfinder filed a report here. (The so-called "Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning" linked above is nothing of the sort. It is merely a message informing the editor of a report here, it was posted after a report was filed, and Farhoudk has not edited the article since receiving the message.) The present two edit-warriors have arrived on the scene recently, but the issue in question has been argued over since 2007,and an edit war in January 2014 led to the article being protected for a short while. Initially, I protected it again for a longer time (10 days), but on reflection I have decided to keep that in reserve, if the edit war resumes again, and I hope it will not be necessary. I hope that all concerned will either try to reach agreement, or, perhaps better still, reflect on whether there might be more useful ways of spending there time than quarreling over a discrepancy of a little over 1% in the height of a mountain. JamesBWatson (talk)

Page

Candy Crush Saga (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

64.134.237.191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC) "elaboration"
2. 22:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 595206663 by Zachverb (talk)"
3. 22:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC) "Restored content regarding King's intellectual property theft. Please do not edit-war. Take concerns to the talk page."
4. 22:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC) "Restoring info on King's intellectual property theft, which was removed through user NeilN's bad-fath edit-warring"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Candy Crush Saga. using TW"
2. 22:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Candy Crush Saga. using TW"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 22:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Obvious is obvious */ new section"

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Acroterion (talk) 22:48, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Headbomb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [various]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [99]
2. [100]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [101], [102]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Mixing_fonts_within_numbers, [103]

Comments:

I don't want to participate in an edit-war on the MOS, but Headbomb is restoring reverted material rather than leaving it to Talk. At issue is a template that we are arguing about, which is supposed to conform to the MOS but doesn't. Headbomb is now modifying the MOS to conform to the template. He has expanded that section of the MOS, formatting it with the disputed template so that it supports his argument; when I used a version of the template which abided by the consensus version of the MOS, he reverted me, so I reverted both of our recent edits back to the version of the MOS last edited by Jimp and others. He then reverted again, restoring his challenged changes to the MOS, claiming the previous was my "preferred" version. (It was not, though I wouldn't object if he or someone else reverted even further.) This isn't 3RR territory, but it's the MOS – we shouldn't be edit warring at all, and he certainly shouldn't be modifying the MOS to win an argument elsewhere. — kwami (talk) 23:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Options: a.) I block both of you as you should really know better. b.) You go to the talk page. c.) WP:RFPP for full protection. Pick one. -- John Reaves 05:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I *have* gone to the talk page, and all comments have been supportive of my position. Nonetheless, I haven't been insisting on my way on the MOS: It's Headbomb who is edit-warring by restoring his additions after being reverted. That's the idea, right? BOLD: You make an edit, someone objects and reverts it, you go to the talk page. Headbomb's violated that, and I came here rather than escalate. Explain to me how I've done anything wrong. — kwami (talk) 07:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've warned both users of the discretionary sanctions active for the page. Kwamikagami BRD is bold edit Y, revert Y, discuss (ie don't edit it again) N. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Resveratrol (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Local4554 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC) "Revised my own edit."
2. 18:53, 12 February 2014 (UTC) "Read the citations before you want them. They are cheap pharmaceutical companies promoting their products."
3. 18:11, 12 February 2014 (UTC) "Removed content because the research was insufficient."
4. 17:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 595162500 by I am One of Many (talk)"
5. 17:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC) "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on Resveratrol. (TW)"
2. 01:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Resveratral */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 01:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC) "/* Reverting without Reading the Article */ comment"
2. 20:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC) on User talk:Local4554 "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on Resveratrol. (TW)"

Comments:

A new user engaged in edit warring, but what is particularly disturbing is that the user has attempted to mislead regarding why they are massively deleting material [104]. The material removed is, in fact, critical of the benefits of resveratrol. I think they are not here to construct an encyclopedia. I am One of Many (talk) 02:06, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I did not know of the 3 Revert Rule. Please accept my apology! Local4554 (talk) 02:35, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment)On the contrary, each time you were warned to stop you removed the warning from your talk page which is proof you read the warnings and carried on despite a final warning. Flat Out let's discuss it 02:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I did not want the material on my talk page. That is why I removed it. If I were to spam your talk page, you would not like it either. In his warnings, he was acting as if he were an admin which is why I did not take him serious.

Local4554 (talk) 03:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - It seems this account's only purpose is promotion of resveratrol. Also, the previous comment is nonsensical. You clearly knew of 3RR, since you couldn't have possibly removed the final warning that told you about it without seeing it in the process. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The account is not for the sole purpose of resveratrol. The first edit was attacked by users who wish they were admins. I am One of Many did not mention the 3RR until it was reported. The Editor 04:20, 13 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Local4554 (talk • contribs) [reply]

(Non-administrator comment)this final warning is pretty clear. Flat Out let's discuss it 04:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - (Non-administrator comment)Acting like an administrator This is a good example of where user:I am One of Many was trying to pretend to be an administrator. He did not mention the 3RR. The Editor 04:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• User blocked. -- John Reaves 05:08, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Mufaddal Saifuddin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mufaddalqn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[105]
[106]
[107]

1. [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mufaddal_Saifuddin&oldid=595276958

Comments:

•  Comment: - The page is currently semi-protected. The subject is part of a high-profile dispute regarding the succession to Da'i al-Mutlaq, the leader of the Dawoodi Bohra, which has been called "one of the most challenging weeks in the 1,400-year history of the Dawoodi Bohra faith". I have been unable to ascertain any indication that the succession conflict is over, and as this seems to be an ongoing problem I request that the page be fully protected. I am far too involved to protect. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverted, again, mistakenly citing WP:BLP. I am at 3RR so I will not revert, but attention from another admin would be most welcome. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Page protected To encourage discussion, since the semi protection didn't stop the edit warring. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:22, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:38, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Psionics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

• 216.126.81.5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 99.229.246.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 14:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC) to 14:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
   1. 14:25, 12 February 2014 (UTC) ""
   2. 14:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 14:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC) "Must remain neutral stance, no consensus achieved on pseudoscience, an "alleged" practicioner is a fraud, not a psychic by definition"
3. Consecutive edits on February 11
   1. 08:52, February 11, 2014‎ (UTC) ""
   2. 08:52, February 11, 2014 (UTC) ""
4. Edits by User:99.229.246.140
   1. February 2, edit summary: "Wikipedia is supposed to maintain a neutral stance when it comes to things like this, so my edit stands. Reread the guidelines."
   2. February 2, edit summary: ""
   3. February 2, edit summary: "Adding facts"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Psionics. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 14:38, February 2, 2014‎ (UTC) "/* "Considered pseudoscience" */ New section"
2. 15:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC) "/* "Considered pseudoscience" */ Reply"
3. Discussion of page protection or blocks followed

Comments:

User is hopping ips every couple days to remove sourced information from the article critical of the topic. He refuses to participate on the talk page. I've considered page protection, but another ip has contributed positively recently. I'd prefer to try a short block on this ip, followed by page protection later (if necessary).   — Jess· Δ♥ 16:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page:  Page-multi error: no page detected.
User being reported: User-multi error: no username detected (help).

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [108]
2. [109]
3. [110]
4. [111]

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

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

Comments:

The case is discussed thoroughly on the articles talk page, and Jeffro77 are asked several time for adding sources for the claim he insists of keeping. Jeffro77's behaves reminds about ownership to JW-related artiicles. Anyway, it looks like a 3RR-violation to me. Grrahnbahr (talk) 18:44, 13 February 2014 (UTC) -->[reply]