Archives

March 2013 onward

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Superpower, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page French Empire (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that enforcement of reliable sourcing and neutral POV does not excuse edit-warring, and you're way past 3RR. Please use the talkpage to discuss: I've fully protected the article for twelve hours to stop the edit-warring. Acroterion (talk) 18:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Antiochus the Great has abused pages and pages of articles and seek to report article pushing by this editor.--27.121.111.201 (talk) 18:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@ 27.x.x.x, If you treat this as a personal grievance rather than as a matter for appropriate discussion I will change my approach to this issue. You were warned about personal attacks. Acroterion (talk) 18:23, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course, apologies for the edit warring. But it appears I am being branded as "anti-Russia" by the IP editors, because I insist on removing nationalistic EU/Russian POV from the article, re-writing it in a more neutral tone and then relocating it in a more suitable place within the article. The Superpower article has attracted a significant amount of POV (due to its subject matter) and if you were to review my contributions to the article you would see that I am trying to address those issues (as well as others). The IP editors only agenda is to retain the nationalistic Russian POV in the article, there is no reasoning to be had with such logic. Therefore any discussion I attempt to make with the IP would be rather pointless.

There was also an issue of undue weight being given to the nationalistic POV too. Before my edits, the bulk of it was contained in the articles lead paragraph (a prominent place) - this was simply unacceptable! Unacceptable because the Superpower article is intended to cover the subject matter of the terminology, origins and characteristics of a Superpower - and not a place for nationalistic chest beating!

I would really appreciate it if you to compare my revision (the revision currently protected) with the revision the IP wants to reinstate and please express your opinion. Thank you. Antiochus the Great (talk) 18:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The IP really isn't making much sense as I had thought would be the case. Antiochus the Great (talk) 19:52, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

27.121.111.201

Im not happy with some of the recent actions by 27.121.111.201, so I must protest. He has shown signs of starting to contest my edits on other articles, such as on Potential superpowers and he is also trying to incite others to do so too by slandering me as an editor (see here on this IPs talk page) where he says " It is abuse, please be advised on this user. We need to have this editor block for abusing the articles". An other area of concern is that 27.121.111.201 still refuses to discuss on topic issues at the Superpowers talk page.

Another administrator (Buckshot06) said at the Superpower talk page: "The lead should not debate controversial issues, just signpost the potential new trends. So it would mention with a reference that Europe has been called a potential superpower, and that would be about it. Long discussions over the merits of E & Russia's superpowerdom do not go there - they can be debated with references, but not in the lead. Personally I would not mention Russia in the lead at all; they're more a major power (as in the Congress of Vienna sense) than a superpower these days."

But you see, 27.121.111.201 completely disagrees with this, because this results in the removal of his precious Russian nationalist POV from the leading paragraphs of the article. He has no actual legitimate WP:Policy or content dispute, only a POV agenda to push. Antiochus the Great (talk) 11:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've warned them about extending the edit war into other articles and will block if it continues. In the future, please use AN3 when dealing with edit warriors rather than reverting them past 3 (or even 2) reverts. It may take a while, but it would have been the best course in this case, as all those reverts exposed you to being blocked as well. Acroterion (talk) 14:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All recent contributions of IP 62.73.7.84 have been a direct attack on all of my recent contributions on other articles. I issued four warnings but he refuses to adhere to any of them. It is clearly linked to recent events. I reported him Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, is that the correct course of action? Antiochus the Great (talk) 15:01, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm conversing with them. The IP is in Switzerland and yesterday's IP was from Indonesia, and I suspect they're using proxies. Acroterion (talk) 15:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm 90% certain it's the same editor. Acroterion (talk) 15:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The use and style of language is remarkably similar across all IPs used, as too is the behavior (If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck). I apologise I didn't notice you had been conversing with him. Antiochus the Great (talk) 15:12, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your help regarding this matter, Thank you! Apologies for bothering you so much. Antiochus the Great (talk) 15:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recent activity is as conclusive as these matters get: the legal threat on the IP's talkpages is not a typical action of a wounded newbie, but isn't unusual for determined POV pushers. I've just blocked a UK IP that reverted archiving on Talk:Superpower and will treat similar activity as block evasion and/or edi-warring. Acroterion (talk) 16:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if you see other activity. I'll be on and off today. In general, try not to be drawn into a quick revert pattern: it's far too easy to be baited into edit-warring or a 3RR violation, and most edits can wait a little while. Additionally, remember that there might be a good-faith contributor here and there who shouldn't be bitten. It's easy to see sockpuppets everywhere under these conditions. Acroterion (talk) 16:15, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]