| Revision as of 13:04, 3 August 2023 editDisconsolatePutz (talk | contribs)39 edits →August 2023: ReplyTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Reply← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 05:44, 27 August 2023 edit undoDaniel Case (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators224,362 edits →August 2023: decline unblock | ||
| (13 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| :Refer to the aforementioned note of mine on the maelstrom. This has nothing to do with intellectual disagreements, but rather, an established fact that pays no obeisance to any ideological leaning. Thanks. ] (]) 13:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC) | :Refer to the aforementioned note of mine on the maelstrom. This has nothing to do with intellectual disagreements, but rather, an established fact that pays no obeisance to any ideological leaning. Thanks. ] (]) 13:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC) | ||
| ::And youre welcome to think that, but that is not how it works on this site. See also ], ] and ]. ] (]) 15:02, 3 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ] Your recent editing history at ] shows that you are currently engaged in an ]; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about ]. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ]. | |||
| '''Being involved in an edit war can result in you being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—'''even if you do not violate the three-revert rule'''—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 07:07, 4 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ] Your recent editing history at ] shows that you are currently engaged in an ]; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about ]. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ]. | |||
| '''Being involved in an edit war can result in you being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—'''even if you do not violate the three-revert rule'''—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 09:07, 4 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :Can you please cease being obtuse and describing my legitimate attempts at reversing semantic obscurantism as an instance of "edit-warring"? Check the footnote describing the changes I made: the page has already been flagged for hosting self-promotional, self-aggrandizing content, owing to which it is incumbent that we address and remedy the concerns. | |||
| :Secondly, the usage of the term "regime" instead of "government" to describe the governments of the nations described therein constitutes a blatant contravention of the neutrality policy. All the changes I have been have been substantiated with cogent sources, whereas the previous edits were not merely unreferenced, but were brazenly espousing a partisan stance. | |||
| :Please refrain from engaging in the aforementioned or I shall be compelled to take this up further. ] (]) 10:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
| ::You're edit warring against multiple editors on multiple articles. When you're reverted the best course of action is to take it up at the talk page per ]. I've yet to see you do so. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 10:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
| :::Multiple? I only come across two editors collaborating with each in a concerted attempt to subvert changes: HistoryofIran and Mikecaymantrades. You can cease painting this maelstrom arising out of the concerns of "multiple" people. | |||
| :::As I stated earlier, the content previously hosted on the pages I edited were either unsubstantiated, unreferenced, self-promotional, or were blatantly pushing a distorted perspective. If you suggest reverting to the previous edition, cite the references. As an editor, I am well within my rights to suggest changes backed by credible references, which I did. Moreover, if the content infringes on Misplaced Pages's policy, then it shall be rectified and addressed for due compliance. This is the only concern I am willing to discuss and I hope you reserve your line of enquiries to this. ] (]) 10:25, 4 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion == | |||
| ] | |||
| Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at ] regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on ]. The thread is ]. <!--Template:An3-notice--> Thank you. — ''']''' <sup>''(])''</sup> 10:20, 4 August 2023 (UTC) | |||
| == August 2023 == | |||
| <div class="user-block uw-block" style="padding: 5px; margin-bottom: 0.5em; border: 1px solid #a9a9a9; background-color: #ffefd5; min-height: 40px">]<div style="margin-left:45px">You have been ''']''' ''']''' from editing for persistently making ]. </div><div style="margin-left:45px">If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Misplaced Pages's ], then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. --><code><nowiki>{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}</nowiki></code>. ] (]) 12:52, 4 August 2023 (UTC)</div></div><!-- Template:uw-disruptblock --> | |||
| {{unblock reviewed |1=Under no circumstances were any of my edits to the pages in contention in contravention of Misplaced Pages's policies. All I did was make specific edits and provided the necessary credible references. Moreover, the versions that existed prior to my edits were either highly partisan in nature or peddled a claim WITHOUT providing any references, owing to which it was incumbent to have these pages rectified for unbiased, structured content that pay obeisance to Misplaced Pages's policy. The two specific individuals who repeatedly undid my changes refused to provide any justification for their actions; moreover, their defence of unreferenced content implied something was amiss. They deliberately pushed me to seek "consensus" for removing content that had no sources to back them up. Furthermore, these versions are still hosted as current and fly in the face of Misplaced Pages's policy on providing appropriate references to justify an assertion. If abiding by Misplaced Pages's policy by providing highly substantiated references for assertions entails a block, then sure, I get the message: that removing contentious, subpar, and unreferenced content pushed by individuals with an ulterior motive will warrant an immediate block. ] (]) 10:01, 14 August 2023 (UTC) |decline = One open unblock request at a time, please. You were removing properly sourced content and engaging in edit-warring. As you see nothing wrong with your edits, there are no grounds for considering lifting your block. ] (]) 10:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{unblock reviewed|reason=That is inaccurate. I did not remove "properly sourced content". On the contrary, what I removed was not sourced at all: the content was either unreferenced or downright self-aggrandising, something I punctiliously noted during my observations. I added proper sources for every singular edit made by me. Furthermore, and this is something you can observe and verify for yourself, undoing edits that restored the previous "blemished" variants merely rehabilitated the sanctity of the pages in question. Check for yourself: none of the edits I made was unsourced. Everything was scrupulously sourced, whereas the previous versions were replete with unsubstantiated content. Case in point: the United Against Nuclear Iran page. The page describes it as a "bipartisan advocacy group", and yet, the "source" that substantiates this claim is a direct reference to the website of UANI itself! This is perhaps the most blatant and egregious instance of breach of Misplaced Pages's policy on references. I merely rephrased it to reflect it for what it stands, i.e. a neoconservative group, on the basis of an actual reference in the "criticism" section of the page. This in itself is something taken from a credible source, as opposed to nonchalantly publishing content sourced directly from the said group, thereby entailing a conflict of interest. I could go on, but I believe this merits a reconsideration.] (]) 01:21, 25 August 2023 (UTC)|decline=As you don't think you have done anything wrong, and it's clear that you are not interested in changing your ] attitude and adopting a more collaborative one, there are no grounds to remove the block. ] (]) 09:05, 25 August 2023 (UTC)}} | |||
| {{unblock reviewed |1=Funny how you've shifted the raison d'être behind the block yet again: the maiden decline cited my purported removal of "sourced content", whereas you are prattling on a tangential note: that I espoused a hawkish, belligerent disposition. I ask you yet again (since it is absolutely evident that you did not bother to check the edit history of the contentious pages in question) to check the extant variant of the said pages to arrive at a determination. This has nothing to do with an "edit-warring" stance, but rather, the removal of unsourced content that brazenly peddled an agenda, something I have substantiated on multiple occasions. To adopt a more conciliatory approach, I asked the individuals with whom I had a disagreement to cite apposite sources that are in tandem with Misplaced Pages's policy on references before undoing the edits, something they never bothered responding to. Take a guess to determine why that did not occur. ] (]) 23:54, 26 August 2023 (UTC) |decline = The two reasons for the block you cited are not as incompatible as you would have them (and I really like that "maiden" decline ... are you positing that someone smashed a bottle of champagne across its bow before posting it? {{smiley}})<p>In any event being in the right about sourcing, ], is ''never'' a reason to revert over and over. — ] (]) 05:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)}} | |||
Latest revision as of 05:44, 27 August 2023
Hello, I'm Moriwen. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, United Against Nuclear Iran, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Moriwen (talk) 15:32, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
August 2023
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Masih Alinejad, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. HistoryofIran (talk) 11:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- Be advised that I am bound by the editorial strictures of Misplaced Pages, and consequently, I do not believe I am in breach of any terms governing edits to pages. Apropos the content I modified, be advised that none of it constitutes my personal opinion, for such developments are already clarified and established. She works as a presenter for a US Government-funded broadcaster, something I punctiliously lodged on that page considering the fact that her views/opinions might be colored or distorted owing to the jingoistic aspirations of the US State Department. Refrain from undoing my edits, thanks. DisconsolatePutz (talk) 07:32, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi DisconsolatePutz! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of an article several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.
All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. HistoryofIran (talk) 09:53, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
- Refer to the aforementioned note of mine on the maelstrom. This has nothing to do with intellectual disagreements, but rather, an established fact that pays no obeisance to any ideological leaning. Thanks. DisconsolatePutz (talk) 13:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
- And youre welcome to think that, but that is not how it works on this site. See also WP:POV, WP:BLP and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. HistoryofIran (talk) 15:02, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at United Against Nuclear Iran shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Czello 07:07, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Mark Wallace shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Czello 09:07, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
- Can you please cease being obtuse and describing my legitimate attempts at reversing semantic obscurantism as an instance of "edit-warring"? Check the footnote describing the changes I made: the page has already been flagged for hosting self-promotional, self-aggrandizing content, owing to which it is incumbent that we address and remedy the concerns.
- Secondly, the usage of the term "regime" instead of "government" to describe the governments of the nations described therein constitutes a blatant contravention of the neutrality policy. All the changes I have been have been substantiated with cogent sources, whereas the previous edits were not merely unreferenced, but were brazenly espousing a partisan stance.
- Please refrain from engaging in the aforementioned or I shall be compelled to take this up further. DisconsolatePutz (talk) 10:08, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
- You're edit warring against multiple editors on multiple articles. When you're reverted the best course of action is to take it up at the talk page per WP:BRD. I've yet to see you do so. — Czello 10:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
- Multiple? I only come across two editors collaborating with each in a concerted attempt to subvert changes: HistoryofIran and Mikecaymantrades. You can cease painting this maelstrom arising out of the concerns of "multiple" people.
- As I stated earlier, the content previously hosted on the pages I edited were either unsubstantiated, unreferenced, self-promotional, or were blatantly pushing a distorted perspective. If you suggest reverting to the previous edition, cite the references. As an editor, I am well within my rights to suggest changes backed by credible references, which I did. Moreover, if the content infringes on Misplaced Pages's policy, then it shall be rectified and addressed for due compliance. This is the only concern I am willing to discuss and I hope you reserve your line of enquiries to this. DisconsolatePutz (talk) 10:25, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
- You're edit warring against multiple editors on multiple articles. When you're reverted the best course of action is to take it up at the talk page per WP:BRD. I've yet to see you do so. — Czello 10:16, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. The thread is Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:DisconsolatePutz reported by User:Czello (Result: ). Thank you. — Czello 10:20, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
August 2023
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 12:52, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
DisconsolatePutz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Under no circumstances were any of my edits to the pages in contention in contravention of Misplaced Pages's policies. All I did was make specific edits and provided the necessary credible references. Moreover, the versions that existed prior to my edits were either highly partisan in nature or peddled a claim WITHOUT providing any references, owing to which it was incumbent to have these pages rectified for unbiased, structured content that pay obeisance to Misplaced Pages's policy. The two specific individuals who repeatedly undid my changes refused to provide any justification for their actions; moreover, their defence of unreferenced content implied something was amiss. They deliberately pushed me to seek "consensus" for removing content that had no sources to back them up. Furthermore, these versions are still hosted as current and fly in the face of Misplaced Pages's policy on providing appropriate references to justify an assertion. If abiding by Misplaced Pages's policy by providing highly substantiated references for assertions entails a block, then sure, I get the message: that removing contentious, subpar, and unreferenced content pushed by individuals with an ulterior motive will warrant an immediate block. DisconsolatePutz (talk) 10:01, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
One open unblock request at a time, please. You were removing properly sourced content and engaging in edit-warring. As you see nothing wrong with your edits, there are no grounds for considering lifting your block. Yamla (talk) 10:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
DisconsolatePutz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
That is inaccurate. I did not remove "properly sourced content". On the contrary, what I removed was not sourced at all: the content was either unreferenced or downright self-aggrandising, something I punctiliously noted during my observations. I added proper sources for every singular edit made by me. Furthermore, and this is something you can observe and verify for yourself, undoing edits that restored the previous "blemished" variants merely rehabilitated the sanctity of the pages in question. Check for yourself: none of the edits I made was unsourced. Everything was scrupulously sourced, whereas the previous versions were replete with unsubstantiated content. Case in point: the United Against Nuclear Iran page. The page describes it as a "bipartisan advocacy group", and yet, the "source" that substantiates this claim is a direct reference to the website of UANI itself! This is perhaps the most blatant and egregious instance of breach of Misplaced Pages's policy on references. I merely rephrased it to reflect it for what it stands, i.e. a neoconservative group, on the basis of an actual reference in the "criticism" section of the page. This in itself is something taken from a credible source, as opposed to nonchalantly publishing content sourced directly from the said group, thereby entailing a conflict of interest. I could go on, but I believe this merits a reconsideration.DisconsolatePutz (talk) 01:21, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
As you don't think you have done anything wrong, and it's clear that you are not interested in changing your WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude and adopting a more collaborative one, there are no grounds to remove the block. 331dot (talk) 09:05, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
DisconsolatePutz (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Funny how you've shifted the raison d'être behind the block yet again: the maiden decline cited my purported removal of "sourced content", whereas you are prattling on a tangential note: that I espoused a hawkish, belligerent disposition. I ask you yet again (since it is absolutely evident that you did not bother to check the edit history of the contentious pages in question) to check the extant variant of the said pages to arrive at a determination. This has nothing to do with an "edit-warring" stance, but rather, the removal of unsourced content that brazenly peddled an agenda, something I have substantiated on multiple occasions. To adopt a more conciliatory approach, I asked the individuals with whom I had a disagreement to cite apposite sources that are in tandem with Misplaced Pages's policy on references before undoing the edits, something they never bothered responding to. Take a guess to determine why that did not occur. DisconsolatePutz (talk) 23:54, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Decline reason:
The two reasons for the block you cited are not as incompatible as you would have them (and I really like that "maiden" decline ... are you positing that someone smashed a bottle of champagne across its bow before posting it?
)In any event being in the right about sourcing, save for a dubious source being used for contentious information about a living person, is never a reason to revert over and over. — Daniel Case (talk) 05:44, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.