Page:Rotary engine (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Winged Brick (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Removal of the sourced statement, "[The late WWIBentley BR2] represented the peak of rotary engine development" Re-instated by multiple editors.

This is an almost literal quote (they use "pinnacle") from one of the best-known RS authors in the field. It is hard to contest that.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. " Really? That's an opinion." (tagging as "dubious")
2. "removing unsupportable statement. Since rotary engines are still being designed and built, one built during WWI seems unlikely to have been the 'peak' of anything."
3. "Since the article includes Wankel engines, no, I don't. You seem to fail to understand the unsupportable nature of the statement. Rotaries, by your narrow definition, were used well into the 30"
4. "That's an opinion from an encyclopedia. It's not what the article says and it is not supportable. Take it to talk and make your case for inclusion. You're just repeating it. You do a good job of stalking me, I'll give you that. Doesn't make you right"
5. "First, Wankels are Rotary engines by most definitions. That's not the issue. The issue is putting somebody's opinion that a certain British engine is the 'peak' where others from any other country might rightfully argue that's VERY Anglo-centric."
6. "The Wankel is a red herring. For the record, this was neither the last nor the best rotary engine, therefore the opinion expressed in this statement is unsupportable and false. It stays out. Please make the case in talk instead of re-adding."

They seem confused. Are they includingWankels or not? The article specifically and very clearly excludes them, as does the source. I don't believe they haveany point here, they just like arguing. I encountered this same editor atShotgun slug (Talk:Shotgun_slug#Spin,WP:ANEW (Blocked for 48 hours),Block log/User:Winged Brick ) and they are obdurate to say the least. They clearly havezero respect for other RS, only their personal opinion matters.

Others commenting atTalk:Rotary engine#Wankel revisited!. Lots of IDHT.

Comments:
I removed the content because it was not the last rotary engine and saying it was the 'best' is an opinion. Just because somebody says the opinion in a source does not make it a fact nor is it supportable. I used the Wankel as just one type of rotary that has come since the engine in mention. If you want to split hairs, then the Wankel isn't the same type of rotary, but the fact remains that there were engines after it, there were better rotary engines in my opinion, and saying that one was the 'peak' or 'pinnacle' does not make it so. The fact that you could not understand the content on "Shotgun Slug" and you don't seem to understand what 'peak' or 'pinnacle' mean or don't mean does not make you right. It was only AFTER you stopped edit warring that the Shotgun Slug editing came to a consensus that the word "rotate" was a reasonable substitute for "spin". Instead of discussing, you just slap reverts on my edits and don't address the language being used. --Winged Brick (talk)22:52, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• With that many reverts it doesn't even matter if you're right or wrong. When your block is over you may argue your point on the talk page.Drmies (talk)00:15, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
• I lengthened it a bit after seeing that the editor had been blocked before, fairly recently, for a similar offense.Drmies (talk)00:16, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

But you didn't?Andy Dingley (talk)17:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah,Drmies, you only blocked for24 hours... Not 31 or 168! 🏁 —fortunavelut luna21:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

HmmUser:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi, I obviously misclicked somewhere--happens sometimes on my laptop. Thanks--I added 130 hours, which is sort of right I think. Thanks,Drmies (talk)23:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Page:Is Genesis History? (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:1990'sguy (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff 20:03, 1 October 2017
2. diff 20:20, 1 October 2017
3. diff 20:33, 1 October 2017
4. diff 20:45, 1 October 2017

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:link for old notice; they consider templating offensive so I didn't template them again.

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

Comments:

1990'sguy iscreator of the article, and created it as a POV piece praising this creationist propaganda (see the reception section). 1990'sguy has dominated it since creating it -- seeediting stats for article. 1990'sguy is yet also yet another christian/creationist advocate and the edit warring to remove negative content is unsurprising.Jytdog (talk)21:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Jytdog's personal attacks against me, the article that I created isNOT "a POV piece praising this creationist propaganda." From the start, I included several negative reviews of the movie, and Istrongly support adding additional negative reviews of the movie. Of course, I did also find reviews from YEC and YEC-sympathetic organizations that liked the film, and I think I made clear that those organizations were such. It seems to me that Jytdog doesn't want the article to have anything that resembles positive reviews of a YEC movie (even though I included several negative ones).

Let me also note that Wikipedia editors overwhelmingly (a 4:1 ratio) supported keeping the article and thought that, evenif it had problems, that they were not serious enough to delete:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Is Genesis History?.

Regarding the substance of this dispute, while I agree that the Rotton Tomatoes's "consensus statement" and the included ratings from professional reviewers is fine to cite, I do have a problem with the audience scores, as anybody can vote for them. Voluntary polls and not scientific and are not reliable, and that is what the Rotton Tomato audience score is. I am strictly followingWP:MOSFILM#Audience response: "Do not include user ratings submitted to websites such as the Internet Movie Database or Rotten Tomatoes, as they are vulnerable to vote stacking and demographic skew."

Jytdog is blatantly going againstWP:MOSFILM and is throwing false attacks against me (I make no apology for my personal views, but I amnot "pov-pushing", and I make sure that I adhere to NPOV on WP. Believe me, if I were a pov-pusher, my edits and articles would looka lot different than what Jytdog is complaining about. --1990'sguy (talk)21:16, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

BTW, Jytdog's confirmation of his "attempt to resolve" the dispute on the talk page is, frankly, laughable, as he madethe commentafter he reverted on IGH for the last time andimmediately beforestarting the ANI discussion. --1990'sguy (talk)21:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

FYI, the substance of the info in dispute is being discussed here simultaneously:Talk:Is Genesis History?/Archive 1#Rotten tomatoes --1990'sguy (talk)21:59, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• PerWP:BRD, 1990's guy's first revert had some serious reasons and one would expect no more reverts, unfortunately this was pretty unnecessary. Knowing that 3 reverts have been made on both sides, I would recommendtemporary full protection.Capitals00 (talk)00:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

1990sguy went past 3 to 4 in order to "win". I restrained myself. I was the one who opened discussion on the talk page, not them. Their edit warring was purely about "winning".Jytdog (talk)00:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

"Winning" was never my intention, and I find it interesting how you use quotes, as if I used the term myself (I never have, and I don't intend to). Your reverts werein blatant violation of clear Wikipedia guidelines. If you added negative reviews from professional reviewers or scientific/reliable audience polls (as opposed to the voluntary response poll from R.T. that MOSFILMexplicitly tells us not to use), I would not have challenged it. I linked toWP:MOSFILM#Audience response when telling you my rationale for reverting. The only other people to blatantly disregard Wikipedia guidelines even after being shown them are vandals and pov-pushers. --1990'sguy (talk)00:49, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

And contrary toJytdog's edit, Inever removed negative reviews of the movie (and no, removing a non-scientific and unreliable voluntary response internet poll doesNOT equate to "removing negative content from the article" -- if you would have added a professional review or a scientific/reliable poll, I would have accepted it without question). And regarding the movie not getting too many reviews, just look at the AfD. --1990'sguy (talk)01:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Ahem:here. It was restored by someone else,here. Feel free to strike your bolded "never".Jytdog (talk)03:57, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Update: Due to the 3RR issues involved in my following Wikipedia guidelines, Iself-reverted. However, someone really should remove the paragraph, as its only purpose is to promote an unreliable/unscientific voluntary response internet poll from R.T., something whichWP:MOSFILM#Audience responseexplicitly tells usnot to do. --1990'sguy (talk)03:57, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Well done. I removed the bit you were actually objecting to.Jytdog (talk)03:58, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• I withdraw this case now.Jytdog (talk)03:59, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Result: Withdrawn by submitter.EdJohnston (talk)04:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Page

Patriot Prayer (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

User being reported

C. W. Gilmore (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC) "/* San Fransisco Bay area rallies */ fix problem with citation"
2. Consecutive edits made from 23:51, 1 October 2017 (UTC) to 23:51, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
   1. 23:51, 1 October 2017 (UTC) "/* San Fransisco Bay area rallies */ moved info out of Portland rally"
   2. 23:51, 1 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Free speech rallies, Portland */ moved San Fransico Bay area rally info out of Portland" This is actually a deletion of content I had just added.
3. 13:10, 1 October 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 803254606 byDarkness Shines (talk); there is no concesus for your POV in the Lede section, thanks"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 21:59, 1 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Chapman */"

Comments:

User has been blocked previously foe edit Waring on this article, user is avery focused account, he reached 3RR yesterday removing maintenance templates without addressing the actual issues, diffs available on request. I may have gotten the reverts wrong here BTW, this user does not mark his reverts clearly.Darkness Shines (talk)01:01, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

The user also persists with ORdiff and BLP violationsdiffdiff Which he did not remove, so I did. He has been warned of discretionary sanctionsdiffDarkness Shines (talk)01:22, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Comments:

-I was only trying to fix a mistake, only after I first posted to the talk page 'Free speech rallies, Portland- Problem'[1], but no one responded. The mistake was that someone had put information about an August 26,2017 rally into the section about the April 29, 2017 rally. After waiting for the person to correct it, I made the correction.-The changediff was based on the suggestion ofDarkness Shines in the TALK Page, section 'Organize the Rally section, comments'. It was his suggestion to organise the rallies by 'area' and so I did.-As for the BLP, I was only pointing out what reporters and journalist were saying and not my point of view. The source say this and much more:[2][3][4]C. W. Gilmore (talk)03:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

When you provide a source saying Gibson deliberately provokes violence I'll happily withdraw this.Darkness Shines (talk)02:41, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

So this is all about Patriot Prayer's provocative rallies and protests? This is well documented.[5][6][7] With so many 'different' and reliable sources saying it, why do you want this fact erased? What POV are you pushing Darkness?C. W. Gilmore (talk)02:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Yawn, read what I wrote, all you are doing here is showing you engage in OR, which leads to BLP violationsDarkness Shines (talk)02:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

There is a reason why David Neiwert states: "Patriot Prayer is an antigovernment “Patriot” group based originally in Vancouver, Washington, and now in Portland, Oregon, that has organized a series of protests in the Pacific Northwest that have all been held in places that are established centers of liberal/left politics, all with the clear intent of attempting to provoke a violent response from far-left antifascists."[8]C. W. Gilmore (talk)02:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Which is one person's opinion, pretty sure i explained this to you several times alreadyDarkness Shines (talk)02:57, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

That's a journalist from Southern Poverty Law Center.C. W. Gilmore (talk)03:02, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Who didn't say Gibson delibertly sets out to cause violence, there's your OR again.Darkness Shines (talk)03:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Research a little: "Joey admits he’s not some perfectly pure-of-heart missionary, that he’s also a bit of a provocateur."[9]C. W. Gilmore (talk)03:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

And this is not the place to take your issues that you don't like this or that well sourced fact. It is well documented.C. W. Gilmore (talk)03:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

You do realize those are not Gibsons words right? If they were they would be in quotation marks.Darkness Shines (talk)03:19, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

The journalistic record is solid, that Joey is a provocateur and you can report me all you like.C. W. Gilmore (talk)03:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

another BLP violation, David Neiwert name is not in that CNN source, hell it don't even mention the SPLCDarkness Shines (talk)05:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Of course not, that is the next sentence down from the David Neiwert quote, CNN News was the citation for anti-government. I put a citation in for David Neiwert as well as someone took out the Bibliography where it was listed earlier, so everything should now be well source.C. W. Gilmore (talk)05:35, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Another revert, this time reinserting the BLP vio I had just removedDarkness Shines (talk)05:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@User talk:Darkness Shines, you asked for citations and went through all the work looking them up, only to have you delete the entire section. Why, because that section said: Patriot Prayer rallies have been held with "the clear intent of attempting to provoke a violent response from far-left antifascists". Well it is what David Neiwert wrote and it is well documented.C. W. Gilmore (talk)05:31, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

another revert, same BLP issues I reckonDarkness Shines (talk)05:27, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

No it is the same revert, only I had to add the citation for David Neiwert's article so everthing is well sourced.C. W. Gilmore (talk)05:37, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Another revert, unless someone can find David Niewerts name in there it is also OR a continuation of the BLP vioDarkness Shines (talk)06:03, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

The line reads: 'It has also described it as an "anti-government" group.' -And the source says 'An anti-government "free speech" group called "Patriot Prayer"'[10] You keep looking for problems that are not there.C. W. Gilmore (talk)06:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Where in that CNN source is Niewert or the SPLC mentioned?Darkness Shines (talk)06:28, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Where is 'Niewert or the SPLC mentioned' in the sentence that CNN is used as the source? You keep looking for issues and problems that are not there.C. W. Gilmore (talk)06:45, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Sheesh, CIR, Where in the CNN source is Niewert or the SPLC mentioned?Darkness Shines (talk)06:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

You are getting confused with the sentence before this one that cites CNN. ThanksC. W. Gilmore (talk)07:09, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

No, "It has also described it as an "antigovernment" group' cited to CNN who is the "it" at the start of that sentence then?Darkness Shines (talk)07:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

That would be CNN, as CNN is the one listed on the source as the reference.[11] Remember, this paragraph starts with the BBC, then goes to the SPLC journalist David Niewert, then on to CNN, before finishing with a quote from Joey Gibson. You keep looking for problems that are not there.C. W. Gilmore (talk)10:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Considerdispute resolution. Article protected by Alex Shih.Minima© (talk)11:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Page:United States presidential election in New Jersey, 2016 (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Dennis Bratland (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:[12]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [13]
2. [14]
3. [15]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[16]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[17]

Comments:

A seemingly minor item on the coloring of counties based on the winner in a particular election. User claims neutrality concerns, but edits have been done one elections in which both the Republican and Democratic Parties have won every county in the state. Seems to me that if there is a real concern about this, county results sections and county maps should also be removed from pages. Also important to note that almost all (if not all) NJ election results pages that include county-level results have the counties colored based on winner in the table.74.102.98.6 (talk)03:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Considerdispute resolution. Article protected by Alex Shih.Minima© (talk)11:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Page:Gender differences in suicide (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:2a00:23c4:7177:3c00:d0a1:4157:726b:e7ad (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:diff 14:18, 26 September 2017 ("Tweak"

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff 19:22, 26 September 2017, restored their "Tweak" that was reverted
2. diff 12:32, 27 September 2017, major edit based on primary sources, with OR
3. diff 09:42, 28 September 2017 ; reverted to it after it was reverted
4. diff 18:15, 30 September 2017; major edit based on primary sources, with OR
5. diff 18:52, 30 September 2017; restored it after it was reverted
6. diff 11:58, 1 October 2017; broke a paragraph, separating content from its source

.... etc

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: This person was blocked for 24 hours for the same thing, on the same articles. Seehere.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Seehere and section below that.

Comments:

Much longer block needed this time.Jytdog (talk)18:06, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

2A00:23C4:7177:3C00::/64 is the range for this user. The disruptive editing is rather extensive from this range on the topic of suicide. –Nihlus (talk)18:12, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. We also need the article to have long-term semi-protection.Flyer22 Reborn (talk)19:05, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: Regarding the most recent reverts by Jytdog, if I hadn't been focusing on other things, I would have reverted the IP before he did.Flyer22 Reborn (talk)19:08, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – The /64 range is blocked one week.EdJohnston (talk)19:12, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
• Just fyi, the editor logged in today asSuperSucker and acknowledged being the IP editorhere at NPOVN. I have removed their edits per BLOCKEVASION and asked them to honor the week-long block,here.Jytdog (talk)16:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Page

2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:18, 2 October 2017 (UTC) "you're the one edit-warring by removing sourced information for NON WP valid reasons, and stupid suppression facts you don't like. IF YOU HAVE A HANG-UP ABOUT THE SOURCE, then find a better source. This is said by ALL news outlets basically.....see talk"
2. 20:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC) "so find a better source is WP policy, NOT wholesale removal of whole paragraph for "I DON'T LIKE" reasons."
3. 20:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC) "all sources are saying this, and that's not your real reason for your lefty suppression of sourced facts, YOU JUST DON'T LIKE THE INFORMATION. Again. it's referenced in reliable sources, so find a better one if that's the case...."
4. 20:08, 2 October 2017 (UTC) "suppression of fact that you don't like is not WP kosher or valid. Solidly and copiously sourced. Stop edit-warring and hiding referenced things for "I DON'T LIKE" reasons. WP is NOT a lefty blog... see talk"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:18, 2 October 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on2017 Las Vegas Strip shooting. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 20:11, 2 October 2017 (UTC) "/* ISIS */"

Comments:

User has repeatedly reverted a poorly-sourced insertion of ISIS propaganda and refuses to discuss or gain consensus for the material; instead throwing out personal-attack accusations of "lefty suppression" at those objecting.NorthBySouthBaranof (talk)20:20, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

This can be closed;MastCell blocked the user for a month based on prior edit history.NorthBySouthBaranof (talk)20:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Page:Jadwiga of Poland (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Surtsicna (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. [18]
2. [19]
3. [20]

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

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

Comments:

The user earlier removed sourced information from this article[21].Swetoniusz (talk)13:07, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

The user adds nonsense despite being told not to by two users. He even had the nerve to accuseBorsoka, who turned a mess into the brilliantly cited article, of destroying it. He is purposefully ignoring thediscussion I started on the talk page more than a week ago. Borsoka[22] and I both urged him to take part in it, but he is only reverting both of us. If anything deserves aboomerang, it's this.Surtsicna (talk)13:39, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Surtsicna, thank you for your kind words. I do not understand what is the important piece of information that Swetoniusz has been attempting to add. Actually, I was thinking of reporting Swetoniusz for edit warring, but I wanted to give him/her a chance to answer Surtsicna's message on the Talk page.Borsoka (talk)16:05, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Borsoka removed sourced information from the article. This is an act of vandalism, e.g.[23][24]. I am tired of rude behaviour of Surtsicna and Borsoka.Swetoniusz (talk)16:33, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

No, this is not an act of vandalism. This is a normal way of editing (please read the edit summaries). Instead of making baseless accusations, you should answer Surtsicna's message on the Talk page of the article.Borsoka (talk)17:01, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

User:Swetoniusz might still avoid a block for edit warring if they will agree to stop reverting and wait for consensus.EdJohnston (talk)01:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

• Result: The filer,User:Swetoniusz, is warned they may be blocked if they revert again atJadwiga of Poland without getting a talk page consensus first.EdJohnston (talk)21:00, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to:

1. Sources arising from Hearst Communications digital media strategy -

celebrity reality TV Wikipedia editing

1. Noticeboard#BLP issue at Kate Upton: leaked photos
2. Concerns on my Talk page

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Adam Conover
2. John Bradley West
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[25]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[26]

Comments:
This is part of a larger online harassment of edits I have made inspired by theWiki What? series. Unfortunately I engaged the last time this happened. This time I am going to ANI. The attacking behavior of this editor by filibustering and throwing Wiki:RULEZ is hurting the encyclopedia. I am not the first person to experience this. It needs to stop. I don't care how "valued" he is for his contributions.BrillLyle (talk)23:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

There is no edit warring. (the dif provided as mine for the Conover article above, as not mine, btw) There is:

• the OP adding refspam and an incorrect interpretation of BLPhere
• me removing the BLP violating advicehere and the spammed-in ref in my next, serial diffhere.
• The OP restored the BLP-violating advice here, and Iremoved it again, gave them an edit war warninghere, and opened a discussion on the talk page,here andhere for each of the two issues.

My concern is the refspamming of Wiki What. It is not important to me who is doing it. SeeCOIN discussion about the editor originally doing the REFSPAM andthis RSN discussion about the ref being spammed. There was also a BLP discussion about a previous celebrity on the show, discussed at BLPNhere.

The OP has appointed herself champion of the show. That is their decision. The conflict is not personal but about the ref and the spamming of it into WP.--Jytdog (talk)23:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• This is pretty clearhere. Jytdog is conducting a personal vendetta againstWiki What? based on one article from a fringe industry publication that he seems to think says thatEsquire magazine is not a notable source and that this is some sort of Machiavellian scheme with a harmful agenda to Wikipedia. It's not. It's actually just a funny comedic Wikipedia positive series. --BrillLyle (talk)23:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

"Thanks for your notes. We are already talking on the talk page. Your claims about harassment are dead wrong; I am following the additions of Wiki What to WP. If you are doing them, then I am going to see those edits and react to them. It is not about you. I already wrote that at the article talk page. Jytdog (talk) 23:08, 1 October 2017 (UTC)"

• No. You don't get the right to say that this is just isolated to the Talk page of one article. You are taking a personal agenda and conducting an online campaign againstWiki What? It's not okay. Do not try to manage my response or my concerns. It is patronizing behavior, and I know your pattern of filibustering edits and cowing them -- turning legitimate concerns over unconstructive editing so that it pushes back negatively on the person bringing up the violation of conduct which you display. This is unacceptable behavior.BrillLyle (talk)23:33, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
• Also, I know you must derive some sort of pleasure or satisfaction in doing this. It is harassment and your behavior is attacking, aggressive, and nasty. I am doing nothing wrong here. You are.BrillLyle (talk)23:33, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry you are taking this so personally and reading such negative things in. There is medical content I really wanted to get to today, and this refspam stuff is a distraction. Not joyful.Jytdog (talk)23:39, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• This is not personal. On any level. This is about your behavior, not you as a person.
• Ironically I am only the second person today to experience this unpleasant experience with Jytdog. See above
• Also there is a protracted history of this behavior. Fundamental question for the ANI -- why is he allowed to be an editor when he is in effect hurting the encyclopedia. If I was a newer editor or a casual editor, I would have abandoned editing altogether.
  • Jytdog: Protracted uncivility and harrassment
  • User:Jytdog reported by User:DrChrissy (Result: protected)
  • Jytdog's behavior
  • Strong-arm tactics by Jytdog --BrillLyle (talk)23:41, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

You missed a bunch of dirt in your digging -- which is behavior that makes you look really bad here, btw.

The thing I actually gave you the edit war warning about, was your again incorrect reading of BLP. Article subjects do not get to control their pages; and this is where I reverted you twice. Everyone at BLPN (here, linked again) said your description of BLP - that article subjects get to control their articles - was incorrect and I tried to open a discussion at your talk page with you about thathere and asked an admin to ring in, which they did.... which you didn't respond to. I was unhappy to see you write advice contra the BLP policy in the commenting-note. We don't dis-include a birthday because the subject doesn't want it.Jytdog (talk)23:46, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Anyway, there is no edit warring here yet, except by you restoring the bad BLP advice and that is not ripe for this board yet (and i hope it doesn't reach there)Jytdog (talk)23:50, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

There actually _IS_ edit warring here -- edit warring done by you to delete legit contributions to the page. I have stopped editing, which is what you want obviously. I took the dispute and concerns here because I am not willing to feed this madness further.

I did not respond to the comment you and the other editor made (at your prompt) because it is clear that engaging with you feeds the behavior you are exhibiting, and you always have to have the final word. I mean at this point I am just laughing because all of this is so absurd. It is actually quite sad that you have a larger list of transgressions that you happily reference. Again, ANI -- Why is this editor allowed to continue this agenda? --BrillLyle (talk)23:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

• Note to Administrators – Jytdog iswarning other users for edit warring when they'veonly reverted them once, and then this user will go and revert their edits... clearly violatingWP:BRD. Either Jytdog doesn't understand what "edit warring" or WP:BRD is, or they're just ignoring them. They are clearly engaging in other editing wars.Corky ^{Buzz by the Hornet's Nest}04:16, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

What is the deal with crazy people today? An IP made a RELTIME violating change, I reverted, a person I reckoned was the same did the same thing again, and I again reverted and warned the person. Crikey.Jytdog (talk)04:36, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

It's very strange to see how Jytdog brings up the issue of "crazy people" and then attempts to reframe his behavior into something that is rationally and/or reasonably explained. And then adding a "fun" British interjection to spread his hands as if he goes in peace and innocence. I'll say it -- it's a little "crazy." All of it.

I am more than a little concerned about the mental health issues displayed here. There's something very wrong with the intensity, duration, and consistency of this editor's behavior over time (which he points to as if a badge of honor). And now there is a backpedaling of innocence and a sudden attempt at collegiality when he is being called out for his behavior. Like he cares about his impact on others or on the encyclopedia as a whole. It's all smoke and mirrors. It's all bull-twaddle. Let's focus on the patterned behavior of aggressive destructive-to-the-community editing and filibustering.

If ANI doesn't do something about this, then the continuous loss of engagement by editors like me is blood on your hands. There are solutions here. Please implement them. --BrillLyle (talk)16:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

There's something very wrong with the intensity, duration, and consistency of this editor's behavior over time... Uh huh. And after reading the above, may I suggest you invest in a mirror? --Calton |Talk18:04, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh good. I see what you're doing here. Blame the victim. Another consistent methodology. Another way Wikipedia fails fellow editors just trying to add content. Well done (not). --BrillLyle (talk)20:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Page protected – TheAdam Conover article has been protected three days.EdJohnston (talk)21:40, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Page

Geoff Scott (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

User being reported

Geoff Scott (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 08:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC) "Only warning: Removal of content, blanking onGeoff Scott. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Also uses his IP to editwar. »ShadowowlMarcos Rodriguez |t |SPI |AIV |Sandbox |Helpdesk»08:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Page:Route 91 Harvest (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:80.41.160.13 (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:I don't know how to do this because I have never reported here before. See the article history.

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

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

Comments:
User has repeatedly reverted the page to his vandalism. I gave a less-than-welcoming warning on his talk page, of which inspired him to further revert his edits toRoute 91 Harvest. I also noticed his other edit toATM (2012 film) that was obviously just an opinion added to the end of a sentence. I posted on the talk page after he reverted this edit too. His/her edit toThe Shrine (film) was also unconstructive and resulted in a revert with another user.Andrew Z. Colvin •Talk03:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – 1 week for vandalism.EdJohnston (talk)14:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Page:Jaylen Johnson (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Janetta johnson (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. [27]
2. [28]
3. [diff]
4. [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[29]

Comments:
All my edits have been reverted or edited without adding reliable sources.

• ’’’Comment’’’ Looks like there could be aWP:COI issue with this editor and this subject.Rikster2 (talk)00:42, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Page protected – 1 week. There is a BLP issue about an expunged conviction for marijuana possession which I hope people will discuss on the talk page before restoring again. If it turns out that Jaylen Johnson does not become a player on a fully professional team thenWP:Notability (sports) might not justify having an article on him, and aWP:AFD might be considered.EdJohnston (talk)21:30, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Page:Sinn Féin (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:109.185.139.177 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:[30]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [31]
2. [32]
3. [33]
4. [34]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[35]

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

Comments:TheSinn Féin article is subject toWP:1RR underThe Troubles arbcom case: "All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related. Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Reverts of edits made by anonymous IP editors that are not vandalism are exempt from 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring.Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence."

Also fairly hard to believe that a genuinely new editor would be familiar with concepts like"stable version" a few hours after registering.Valenciano (talk)21:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Blocked – 4 months as an open proxy. Edit warrring and personal attacks. Previously blocked byUser:ProcseeBot for 2 months.EdJohnston (talk)02:59, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Page:Random-access memory (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Ammarpad (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)Previous version reverted to:[36]Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [37]
2. [38]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[39]Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[40]Comments:

To admins: Please consider your action carefully. The writer of this report against a registered user is an IP-based editor. So the proper protective action would not be to protect the article from IP-based users (which would only hinder improvements from the IP editor) and allow registered (at least auto-confirmed) to continue adding inaccurate statements, but to block theregistered user being reported for edit-warring (even if the warrior hasn't yet reached 3RR, because as you may remember, edit-warring can be happening before 3RR). Thanks.2600:100E:B141:AE59:1B4D:9EA7:5CC5:82E1 (talk)17:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

No violation - Nobody broke 3RR, but none of the disputing parties is citing any sources. Please bring sources, and try to work out the right answer on the talk page.EdJohnston (talk)02:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

EdJohnston, Wikipedia has a rule that sources aren't needed forevery single statement that can ever be made in an article—things that have been common knowledge for a long time. While old big computers had used some form of RAM long ago, even with the advent of common desktop personal computers 40 years ago, that's plenty long for RAM's main function to have become common knowledge (with the exception of a few dull editors, etc.)

As for supposedly "no violation": Why is it that when an IP such as I reports an account holder for edit-warring that doesn't break 3RR, you admins just ignore the rule that's stated evenright in here that people can still be found guilty of iteven without breaking 3RR, but when it comes to an account holder reportingme for edit-warring even without breaking the 3RR part of it, you'll still block me (somewhere in this range) or protect the article for a time? Or in other words, why can't you admins be consistent and make up your minds on enforcing against sub-3RR warrring regardless of if the reporter is an account holder or just an IP?2600:100E:B131:2DD4:E04D:72FE:96AF:B5B7 (talk)12:41, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

IP user has beenreported blocked as a sock of BANNED editorUser:Stylized as "stylized" currently; formerly "stylizeD". Regards,  Aloha27 talk 13:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Page

Albert Cashier (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 03:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC) to 03:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
   1. 03:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Enlistment */"
   2. 03:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC) "/* During the war */"
3. 03:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Early life */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule onAlbert Cashier. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

There was previous consensus about which gender pronoun to use in the article.PiGuy3 (talk)03:35, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@PiGuy3: Why did no one provide a link to the RfC discussion for the edit warring user? Most users aren't going to know how to find archived discussions or know what "RfC" means without context. Not that this is an excuse for the user to edit war, but providing this information could have mitigated some of the damage.Nihlus04:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I didn’t consider adding a link to the discussion. I will make sure to do that next time I come across a similar incident.PiGuy3 (talk)04:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of72 hoursSwarm♠17:33, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Page:South Korea national football team (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Soccerfootballwiki (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:Diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Reverted 1st user
2. Reverted 2nd user
3. Reverted 3rd user
4. Reverted 4th user

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. Here, he made 13 reverts in 8 hours
2. Here, he constantly reverted me and Kante4, who is an experienced WP:Football user

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:Soccerfootballwiki simply deleted all messages by 4 different users without any replying, so the communication is impossible

Comments:

The user is "owning" theSouth Korea national football team article, will not listen to anyone, is not following manual of style rules and consensus set byWP:Football, and is not willing to communicate with users either, he will simply forcing his own way even if several users have problems with his editing. For example, he was presented with the widely used consensus aboutnaming of German football clubs, which is used all over the Wikipedia, yet he is still forcing his own naming.Snowflake91 (talk)09:33, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@Snowflake91 I tried to fix your erroneous editing. But you just edited the part on the Korean soccer team.Soccerfootballwiki (talk)10:14, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

The only "erroneous" editor is you, go and ask atWP:Football talk page about your edits (naming of the German clubs, putting flags in the prose text (seeWP:MOSFLAG) any many other things), if there are many editors who accepted the general manual of style consensus and you are the only one which is still stubborn and is trying to continuously force your own way, this is vandalism and needs to be prevented.Snowflake91 (talk)11:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@Snowflake91 Your team edited it at will.Soccerfootballwiki (talk)11:23, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

What kind of "my team"? Just like in your previous post, I again dont know what are you trying to say, you are obviously using some kind of translation tools,competence is required and if you do not understand / are not willing to understand Wikipedia manual of style rules, this does not give you any benefits, you need to either accept the community consensus which were agreed by many users and are used for years, stop editing the Wikipedia, or get blocked.Snowflake91 (talk)11:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of72 hoursSwarm♠21:26, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Page

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

User being reported

Seraphim System (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 10:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC) to 10:39, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
   1. 10:30, 5 October 2017 (UTC) "moved history content to history section"
   2. 10:34, 5 October 2017 (UTC) "Rework lede based on article content (copy paste) after RfC"
   3. 10:39, 5 October 2017 (UTC) "more summarizing article content per WP:LEDE (and also the content of the main articles in each of the sections like Politics)"
2. 07:40, 5 October 2017 (UTC) "this is not what the RfC was about, you can not just randomly decide that the RfC was about whatever YOU want it to be about Undid revision 803879494 byDr.K. (talk)"
3. Consecutive edits made from 06:52, 5 October 2017 (UTC) to 06:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
   1. 06:52, 5 October 2017 (UTC) "moving list of ethnic groups to infobox (where it belongs) - ec"
   2. 06:56, 5 October 2017 (UTC) "this was JUST moved to the infobox - instead of edit warring and hitting revert try discussing, reverting in the middle of a series of edits is toxic and rude"
4. Consecutive edits made from 06:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC) to 06:38, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
   1. 06:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC) "This would be more appropriate elsewhere - it overemphasizes one ethnic group over others in the lede, not acceptable."
   2. 06:38, 5 October 2017 (UTC) "Replace unsourced with sourced"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 07:50, 5 October 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule onTurkey. (TW★TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Upon his/her recent return, reported user wages a one-person edit-war to overturn the results of an RfC which conclusively decided that Turkey should not be described as a democracy at the lead. First, s/he goesto the RfC closer's talkpage to announce that s/he does not agree with his closing. Then the reported user starts the edit-war on Turkey to restore the description of Turkey as a democracy despite the clear results of the recent RfC. S/he also removed mention of the 20% Kurdish minority from the lead at least twice. Please also note the attacking edit-summaries, including the use of capitals (as in "YOU") indicatingWP:BATTLE mentality. Check also nuisance messages on my talkpage:diff 1,diff 2.Dr.K.15:08, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Um there were at MOST three reverts and then other regular edits that we're not reverts and are not covered under 3RR (and we're even in different SECTIONS of the article). Further that RfC was discussed with the closer and if this ABUSE continues will likely have to at least be reviewed at AN/I before the CONTENT DISPUTES can be resolved at appropriate notice boards. (At least THREE editors raosed seriously and strongly worded objections to the fact that the RfC was not based onWP:RS including the editor who helped bring the article to GA so there is more then enough here for a broader community discussion despite attempts to HARASS me, I am overall keeping my distance from WP anyway - this isn't actually a "return" and a block would be pretty pointless since I am not actively editing. I would offer to self revert (due to a mistake in my count) but the edits have been reverted anyway, and currently a discussion is open - so this pretty much feels like a lot of unwanted attention and harassment and I am pretty fed up with toxic editing patterns, ignoringWP:RS, admins supervoting RfC discussions, etc. Pending the talk discussion, it will be some days/weeks before I restore content or file for review at AN/I (pending approval to take it to dispute resolution). So this complaint all in all Petty and rather untimely (as the last reverts have been standing for 5 hours while the issue is being discussed on talk)Seraphim System^(talk)18:33, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, there is nothing more destructive to Wikipedia's mission of free and collaborative information then the rampant RACISM and BIAS evident in the majority of our articles related to TURKEY. Trolling and sockpuppetry in this topic area are rampant and the only reason it isn't under ARBCOM is because that to behavior is entirely one-sided. Instead of push back Turkey has instead banned Wikipedia and that is SAD for all the valuable resource that are lost over toxic behavior that would be policed in most topic areas. I have personally had my nationality referred to and been subject to race and religion based sockpuppetry vandalism on my talk page more then once. It is disgusting and the DOUBLE STANDARD that it is tolerated is disgusting. No one cares, and it is a joke. I don't know why I am even bothering to complain about this as if it will be taken seriously that this undermines the integrity of the entire project on a country/international level.Seraphim System^(talk)18:52, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

For the record in the past I have had edits reverted with the edit summary stating my nationality as justification for the revert, and I have been called a "musrat whore" by IP vandals on my talk page. Given the suspicious circumstances of the RfC and its close of a controversial/Red Flag edit over the objections of THREE established editors, it is not only going to be posted to ANI but I am also going to write to Jimmy Wales and notify editors who are involved with WikiProject Turkey. In NO WAY should Wikipedia capitulate to Erdogan's demands on content, but the quality of articles and rampant abuse in the area and also of myself as a Turkish editor being subject to sockpuppet abuse and racial slurs is UNACCEPTABLE. It seems like there are some toxic editors who really are just sitting around and waiting for me to return because they enjoy this kind of drama. It's pathetic, but I will certainly pen off a letter about the experience I have had as a Turkish editor, and also this latest RfC which was a blatant and over the line abuse and disrespect to the editors who objected.Seraphim System^(talk)20:34, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• @Seraphim System: this isn't the place to hash out your grievances. If you're being subjected to racist personal attacks, obviously we will take action if you report it. Regarding the RfC, you have every right tochallenge the closure, based on the allegation that it ignored overarching consensus. It seems you could put forth a strong argument, at least, that the local consensus dismissed reliable sources as being out of touch with reality, in violation ofWP:V, which clearly holds that content is included based on "verifiability, not truth", and that the closer ignored the wanton dismissal of reliable sources in favor of "the truth". You're simply going about this the wrong way. Challenge the close at AN if you feel so strongly, but, for better or worse, the consensus has been formalized, for now.Swarm♠21:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Page:College GameDay (football) (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Heejalen30990 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Continues to add info atCollege GameDay (football) fromLee Corso's page.--Biografer (talk)22:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

• diff 1
• diff 2
• diff 3--Biografer (talk)22:01, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@Sbb618: I decided to notify you since you partially involved in the situation. Feel free to comment here.@Heejalen30990: fails to respond.--Biografer (talk)22:08, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

• Result:User:Heejalen30990 iswarned they may be blocked if they revert again atCollege GameDay (football) without first getting consensus on the talk page.EdJohnston (talk)23:10, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Page

Albanian language (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:53, 5 October 2017 (UTC) "No one has still placed which book from Fine it is, only Fine and a page number. He wauthoroed many schoalrly works. Couresty by editors on referencing in important to prevent POV."
2. 14:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 803769633 byAlexikoua (talk) i went to the link in the article ad it does not connet to Fine. Add that before making this kind of change so others can double check your edit."
3. 03:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC) "adding inline and resotring sentence. Euromosaic notes that Albanian speakers "occupent la majeure partie du département" which is more then just a few villages. Consult EU source"
4. 12:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC) "No, becuase its subsumes it. The varitiey spoken in north western Grreece is Shqip, like i\ Macedonia, Kosovo, Albania. Arberisht is Arvanitika and Thrace are newer communties oof the modern era."
5. 09:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 803568281 byAlexikoua (talk)It is not the same info. Arvanitika is spoken in southern Greece etc. North west Greece is Epirus etc. See euromosaic source"
6. Consecutive edits made from 00:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC) to 01:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
   1. 00:36, 3 October 2017 (UTC) "wiki linking"
   2. 00:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC) "We can add a more contracted from. Albanian spoken in Greek Epirus and the Florina area belong to the varient of Shqip and not Arberisht of the Arvanites. Important to this article as it is still spoken in those tradition areas by Orthodox Chrisians."
   3. 00:43, 3 October 2017 (UTC) "wiki linking"
   4. 01:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Asia */ adding "and Oceania" to subtitle section. Section can also have info on Albanian language in Australia and New Zealand which has diaspora communites"
   5. 01:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Asia and Oceania */ Adding sentence on Australia and New Zealand."
   6. 01:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Europe */ sentence shift in section"
7. Consecutive edits made from 00:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC) to 00:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
   1. 00:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC) "Since the word primarily was the issue, a seperate sentence has been written, based on the Euromosaic, EU source."
   2. 00:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC) "adding back deleted source content to infobox"
   3. 00:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC) "wiki linking"
   4. 00:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC) "wiki linking"
   5. 00:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC) "adding additional info, as per Euromosaic EU source"
8. 00:01, 3 October 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 803445324 byAlexikoua (talk) undoing unexplained removal of cited content"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 05:26, 4 October 2017 (UTC) "/* Albanian speakers in Greece */ Please do not change posts of others"

Comments:

Keeps edit-warring for days like there is no tomorrow. Blocked before for the same behaviour.Dr.K.03:08, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Apart from the character assassination, those cited examples have been taken outside their context. Three examples given by the filing editor on Wiki linking are just that with no one contesting it[41],[42],[43] and remain in the article[44]. Another example is a sentence shift i did in a section which no one contested and it remains[45]. An addition about Asia/Oceania and Albanian speech in the diaspora was added to the article,[46] as its about the Albanian language. Albanians exist in those areas[47] etc and speak the language so i wrote a sentence for that. All these edits went uncontested and remain in the page[48]. I find it odd that i cannot even edit the article in other areas. About the lede i did make the following edits[49],[50],[51],[52],[53], this issue after detailed discussion was resolved in the talkpage with other editors[54],[55] and i agreed to recommendations, while the filing editor and other editor making these edits did not bother to participate and discuss matters. This edit by the filing editor cited as resolving the dispute[56] was nothing of the sort and had to do with what the talkpage title was about. Even the editor with whom i was discussing the issue recognised my points as valid[57]. On the Fine reference, these were two edits done by me. Balkan topics are known for POV issues. I restored the previous edit due to no sufficient reason being given apart from "scientific conclusions" of sourced content[58] being removed. The editor had placed a sentence making a serious claim, while not providing the full reference, only placing Fine and a page number (the selected work is not even mentioned in the article). The scholar Fine produced many works, and for an editor wanting to double check and make sure, how are they supposed to do that without knowing where to look and make sure its not POV? So yes, i made those edits and in the end removed it altogether[59], until there is the full reference. When editing i thought at the very least it is courtesy that a full reference is placed so other editors can be confident in that edit being precise and not source falsification. I have been an editor for nearly 10 years and the above mentioned block by the filing editor was only once for 24 hours over a trivial matter.Resnjari (talk)08:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

The editor regarding the Fine issue has only now placed a full reference[60] by adding details that were not present previously when the edit was made the first time[61] though at the same time claiming otherwise and then retracted their own edit[62]. All i ask for is a full reference so as to be precise and prevent source falsification.Resnjari (talk)12:12, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

There was already a full reference of thespecific book during the above reverts [[63]]. Since we have multiple inline citations further inlines for this book use the shortened form instead (author, year, page) & perHelp:Shortened_footnotes: a link to the full citation is not required and off course this doesn't warrant removal. By the way most inlines in this article do not link to their full reference.Alexikoua (talk)13:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Scholars such as John Fine published much in their lifetime and some academics publish in a given year a book, in addition to a journal article. On the limited details that you gave[64], it made other editors have to sort it out as to whether it is a particular source or not. Yet alone the difficulty for the reading public who might want to explore it further. As for the referencing in that article its not of standard in many aspects (i had to clean up that kind of referencing on theAlbanians article some time back and it was no walk in the park!) with many of those small citations when one clicks not leading to a source, making an editor have to go through more than 98 footnotes on the page and a bibliography of over more than a hundred sources leaving one kind of annoyed if its not there in the end as well.Resnjari (talk)14:00, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I find your removal of cited information to be just another indication of your edit-warring,WP:BATTLE behaviour.Removing the Fine reference as well as the whole sentence it supports is nothing short of disruptive and edit-warring for the sake of edit-warring. You could just as easily have added a "failed verification" tag and left it at that. But no, in the middle of a protracted edit-war on your part, you had to remove the whole sentence. This is classicWP:BATTLE/edit-warring behaviour.Dr.K.15:55, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Your claims above about other edits consistingedit warring were nothing of the sort when i did wiki linking and adding a sentence on the Albanian diaspora in Australia/New Zealand. No one contested this. Also agreements were made in the talkpage about the lede and infobox on my side[65] with other editors way before this case, those who continue with a battleground mentality do not reach agreements with others after discussion yet alone other things. The only outstanding matter was the Fine referencing. I outlined the referencing issue with it being not fully cited. That whole issue with Fine could have been avoided had full referencing been done. If what i was saying was not without merit, that editor would not have later readded the information and placed the full citation[66], while right after removing their whole edit altogether from the page[67].Resnjari (talk)01:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

This dispute belongs onTalk:Albanian language not here. Forgive me if I missed it, but I don't see a 3RR violation here, and the fact that Resnjari was alone and getting reverted by editors who acted, intentionally or not, like a tag-team complicates matters here. For anyone who isn't aware, theorigins of Albanians can be a quite heated topic for both Albanians and their Balkan neighbors(Greeks, Serbs, and also Romanians for complicated Romanian-Hungarian reasons). In linguistics the view is essentially "Albanian may have come from Illyrian, Thracian or Dacian and we don't have enough evidence to support some huge migration so we assume no huge migration, the null hypothesis, Albanian comes from Illyrian, but to be fair we cannot say this conclusively as we lack the evidence necessary for diachronic comparison". Albanian nationalists misinterpret this to mean "Albanian comes from Illyrian", their Greek counterparts routinely do the same thing, interpreting it to mean "it is a fringe view that Albanian comes from Illyrian". Resnjari's removal might have been brash but that doesn't warrant a block, imo. --Yalens (talk)19:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC)