Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 00:52, 8 June 2013 editSlimVirgin (talk \| contribs)172,064 edits →Comments: moving comment into comment section← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 21:29, 4 January 2025 edit undoAndreJustAndre (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users40,484 edits →User:إيان reported by User:AndreJustAndre (Result: ): ReplyTag: Reply
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Short description\|Noticeboard for edit warring}}
	{{pp-move-indef\|small=yes}}<noinclude>{{offer help}}{{Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRHeader}}]{{User:MiszaBot/config
			<!--Adds protection template automatically if semi-protected--><noinclude>{{#if:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}\|{{pp\|small=yes}}}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__{{no admin backlog}}{{/Header}}] ]
	\|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
			{{pp-move\|small=yes}}
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
	\|maxarchivesize = 250K		\|maxarchivesize = 250K
	\|counter = ~~215~~		\|counter = 490
	\|algo = old(~~48h~~)		\|algo = old(2d)
			\|key = 0a3bba89e703569428f2aab1add75bd7d7d1583d2d1f397783aee23fda62b06f
	\|key = 053831e9b0c0497f371e8097fa948a81
	\|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d		\|archive = Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive%(counter)d
			}}</noinclude>
	}}</noinclude><!--<?xml version="1.0"?><api><query><pages><page pageid="3741656" ns="4" title="Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring"><revisions><rev>=Reports=>
			<!-- NOTE: THE BOTTOM IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->

			== ] reported by ] (Result: /23 blocked from both articles for a week) ==
	NOTE: THE BOTTOM IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|2024 United States presidential election in Kentucky}} {{pagelinks\|Letcher County, Kentucky}} <br />
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Warned) ==
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|174.196.104.11}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	'''Pages:''' {{pagelinks\|Suicide of Rehtaeh Parsons}} <br />
	{{pagelinks\|Suicide of Audrie Pott}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Tieff}}

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->
			# - Dec 31 "these are the correct results according to Dave Leips"
			# - Dec 31 "Per source of Dave Leips"
			# - Jan 1 "These are the correct results per Dave Leip’s. Don’t undo this edit again."
			# - Jan 1
			# - Jan 1 "these are the correct results per Dave Leip’s. Don’t undo this edit again."
			# - Jan 1 "per source of Dave Leip’s"
			# - Jan 1 "These are the correct results per source of Dave Leip’s"

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	User is edit warring on two articles to insert content sourced to an unreliable source listed at ]. Noticeboard thread: ].

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	Multiple warnings issued to user, who has not responded to any of the messages on his or her talk page or participated in the discussion at article talk.

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	Diffs of the user's repeated edits at ] (6 in <48 hrs.:
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />All the differences on both pages concern whether to use the numbers from a website called (which cites the Kentucky State Board of Elections as its data source) or the Official 2024 General Election Results provided by the . The number for "other" votes on the page before the edit warring was 126 for Letcher County (per election board), which the IP insists on changing to 146 (per Dave Leip).
	Talk page discussion is here:
	]

			I should also note that {{ping\|Mad Mismagius}} reverted all but one and the current IP edits on these pages without warning the user or attempting to engage in talk page discussion. I made one revert and left a warning on the user's talk page, who later reverted my revert.
	Diffs of the user's repeated edits at ] (4 in <48 hrs.):
	#
	#
	#
	#

			Also, there are two other IPs (now dormant) that made identical edits on these pages with similar edit summaries. One on "Correct Letcher County votes" and another on "these are the correct results according to Dave Leips". ] (]) 05:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	User warned about edit warring:
			:{{AN3\|b\|a week}} {{IPvandal\|174.196.104.0/23}} from articles. ] (]) 06:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			:I have had to deal with this IP address as well. The issue seems to be that they are conflating "third party candidates" with write-in votes. ] (]) 22:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: 1 week partial block for both parties) ==
	] (]) 06:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Salim Halali}}
	*'''Comment''' I have these articles on my watch list and have reverted Tieff's edits twice now, leaving warnings and comment. They are edits that appear trivial but are against consensus, against the spirit of ], and against multiple discussions. Date of birth is discussed specifically not only in the editor's talk page but on ], as is the so called source. I'm starting to see the initial stages of ], so far without the support squad. What we have so far is relentless editing against consensus. <font color="#880000">]</font> <font color="#007700">]</font> 07:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|174.93.89.27}}
	*'''Further comment by filing editor'''. Although the user appears to have made no edits since this report was filed, I believe that allowing it to go stale would be a mistake. Since the user has shown no sign of willingness to acknowledge being warned (even to refute the warning), let alone discuss the matter, it isn't improbable that they will resume edit warring and this will wind up at ANI. This is is really a rather clear-cut case of edit warring; on the first article listed above, 3RR was even exceeded. And it's not a run-of-the-mill content dispute at all; rather, it's at least three established editors trying their best to enforce ] in the face of a new editor who is completely disregarding policy. If something about the format of this report is causing difficulty or delay, I'd appreciate knowing so that I can fix it. ] (]) 05:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|w}}. I've left a formal warning on Tieff's talk page that if they revert again on either article, they may be blocked without notice.--] (]) 14:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: edit warring has ceased) ==

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|HTML element}} <br />
			# {{diff2\|1266895720\|18:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Source is about Bone."
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|PhunderMerwe}}
			# {{diff\|oldid=1266892993\|diff=1266895307\|label=Consecutive edits made from 18:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC) to 18:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			## {{diff2\|1266895244\|18:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Well, if the dispute is about sources, this peer-reviewed academic source should settle the matter."
			## {{diff2\|1266895307\|18:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
			# {{diff2\|1266892452\|18:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) - No need for the talk page. Just click on the link for Bône in this article."
			# {{diff2\|1266871456\|16:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) - Be that as it may, it is now known as Annaba."

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	This is mostly a content dispute, although a new editor is pushing the same incorrect change with such frequency that it has passed 3RR already. An already poor article is having an unreferenced block of incorrect information added to it. The latest block is still there (and still misleading), but I'm at 3RR.
			# {{diff2\|1266893024\|18:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]."
			# {{diff2\|1266895726\|18:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* January 2025 */"

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	#
	#
	#
	#

	Note first that this is ], not ]. HTML could be considered as an "introductory" article where some flexibility in terminology might be considered useful to make it more approachable to a wide audience. However this is HTML element: the narrow, specific topic that is of particular interest and of a need to be exact and precise in its description.

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	Specific problems:
			* I have partially blocked the IP for one week. {{u\|M.Bitton}} reminded not to edit war. ] (]) 18:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	* Elements are not tags. This is not merely a misnomer, they represent different objects. This is the article in which this difference has to be explained precisely and correctly.
			* Point well taken. The only thing I would add is that M.Bitton, who has been blocked before for edit warring, reverted four times, and passed the three-revert limit before I did. You might, therefore, consider blocking M.Bitton for one week as well. ] (]) 19:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	* Elements are not "text level elements". Some elements are related to text, others are not. This term is not merely a neologism, it's an invention, and an inaccurate one.
			*:{{re\|PhilKnight}} contrary to what the IP is claiming, I did not violate 3R. ] (]) 19:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	* (Most importantly) ''"element is a code declaration that contains instructions for formatting or rendering content online."'' is quite wrong for HTML in the last decade and a half: instead we carefully ''separate'' content (HTML) from its presentation (via CSS). This new statement completely contradicts this and so is grossly misleading. It is hard to over-emphasise the importance of this distinction within HTML.
			::: partially reverts the biography to a previous state. And anyway, I blocked you for edit warring, not 3RR. ] (]) 19:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	* %block; (vs. %inline;) is part of the HTML DTD and is relevant to HTML element. However the box model (as now added) is a purely presentational feature, belonging as part of CSS. The new additions persist in hopelessly confusing the two.
			::::Yes it does revert it to the stable and well sourced version (the one that actually makes sense, given that Annaba has been known as such for centuries). For the rest, no comment. ] (]) 19:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
			* Well argued. I have partially blocked M.Bitton for a week as well. ] (]) 19:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Protected) ==
	] (]) 23:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Eagle Rock, Los Angeles}}
	* Now they're still "improving" the article by changing titles and direct quotes from sources, including technical non-prose changes like renaming the <code>%inline;</code> entity from the HTML DTD to <code>%in-line;</code>. This is simply incorrect. ] (]) 01:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Horsechestnut}}
	*'''Result''' The edit warring has now ceased, and the other issues are a content dispute. I'd suggest starting a discussion on the talk page and inviting participation at relevant Wikiprojects as unfortunately this isn't an effective forum for resolving content issues. Regards, ] (]) 11:55, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: page protected for 36 hours) ==

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Captain America: The Winter Soldier}} <br />
			# {{diff2\|1266945204\|23:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Rusted AutoParts}}
			# {{diff2\|1266914884\|20:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] I am in the process of deleting unnecessary text so that what remains is referenced, cited information, but can't complete this process if you keep on deleting my work before I have finished editing. Please give me time to complete my edits. Horsechestnut. Please do not delete this User talk:CurryTime7-24

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	Previous version reverted to:
			# {{diff2\|1266922503\|21:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule on ]."

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	Diffs of the user's reverts:
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#

	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on <strike>article</strike> talk page: (User's Talk Page)

			User has also been using the account ] to pursue this edit war. They have been warned on both accounts. ] (]) 23:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
			:{{AN3\|p}} – One week by ] per a complaint at ]. ] (]) 03:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	User Rusted AutoParts has consistently reverted the order of the film's cast to one not represented on the film's press release without reason. The User has ignored any attempts to discuss this matter, so I am forced to bring it here.<br>] (]) 20:12, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
	:Plain and simple: I disagreed with placing the two most likely men to be credited towards the end of the cast above the primary players in the film (Evans, Johansson, Mackie, Stan). The first three reverts were 5 days ago, well out of the 3RR range. Assuming this is a legit report out of offence or the user wishes to be correct in the matter, the reverting has ceased and no furthur action will be taken in regards to LoveWaffle's pickiness of the location of the named actors. ] (]) 5:46 5 June 2013 (UTC)

			== ], IP 2a01:4b00:b90c:6700:* reported by ] (Result: Blocked from article for a week) ==
	*{{AN3\|pe}} You both seem to have conduced a similar amount edit warring over what is, to be frank, a pretty minor issue with no attempt to discuss this on the talk page, which is where dispute resolution is generally best handled. I've fully protected the article for 36 hours to allow for this dispute resolution to take place. RAP, please note that there's no 'entitlement' to three reverts in a day, and edit warring which lasts across several days is strongly discouraged. ] (]) 11:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|French mother sauces}} <br />
	== ] reported by ] (Result: No action) ==
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Hippo43}}, {{userlinks\|2A01:4B00:B90C:6700:6C91:81FE:34E1:80E0}}, also {{userlinks\|2A01:4B00:B90C:6700:A9B8:61A6:B4BA:3525}} and other IP's with the same prefix

			'''Previous version reverted to (Hippo43):''' ]
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|March Against Monsanto}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|Petrarchan47}}

	;Previous version reverted to:		'''Previous version reverted to (IP):''' ]

	;Diffs of ~~the user~~'s reverts:		'''Diffs of Hippo43's reverts:'''
			# ]
	Five in the last 24 hours:
			# ]
	* ;
			# ]
	* ;
			# ]
	* ;
	* ;
	*
	Plenty more before that.

	;Diffs of ~~edit~~ ~~warring / 3RR warning~~:		'''Diffs of IP's reverts:'''
			# ] (probably same IP)
	; Petrarchan47 has since removed that section from their talkpage.
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]

			There are a few more, just look at which is nothing but reverts.
	;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
	started by other editors (including ) but the reverts keep on coming. ] (]) 00:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
	:Oops - I missed a point. DGG also a talkpage thread (after having been by Petrarchan47) but, alas, after DGG's comment it went the same way as the other threads. Not that I'm implicating DGG of course ] just that various different editors have started talkpage threads. ] (]) 01:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
	;<u>Comments:</u>
	For anyone unfamiliar with this (new) topic, please look at the references section at ]. This article was being considered for deletion when I discovered it, and began doing research and filling up the article with references. When you glance at the refs, you'll see "2 million" or "millions marched". Now you can bobrayner quoting from a local newspaper (printed online while the protest was still ongoing) that the numbers "ranged from 200,000" to 2 million, and making a crack about RT, even though it is recognized as RS (CNN was also a source for the 2 million number and no major media has mentioned a "range from 200,000"). This change to the number happened at ] as well as ] today.

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' ] (IP), ] (Hippo43, the IP warned them)
	The main issue at hand, besides having my words misrepresented as a promise to edit war, is that I am not being allowed to tell what one of the protesters' main points is. It gets reverted every time. I think it is an incredibly NPOV handling of the issue and is sourced to the Guardian: "in the US the majority of the corn, soybean and cotton crops have been genetically modified, which anti-GMO advocates say can lead to "serious health conditions" and cause damage to the environment." This is all I have said about the GMO issue, besides adding some quotations from their protest signs. But this is an article about the protest, and what caused them to go out and marched HAS to be mentioned (this is not a promise to edit war, it's a simple fact).

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' ], discussion is still on talk at ]
	If any administrators are listening, Please, can we get a babysitter at that article just while it's written? I don't know the right way to tell this story, but I do know that the fact that people are wary of GMOs, ie, the reason the protest exists, has to be mentioned. Why is it so hard to tell this simple story?

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to Hippo43's talk page:''' ]
	Yes, I erased the messages from my talk page because frankly, it seems like harassment. I've been around, and I have never had as many comments on my talk page about what I'm doing wrong (in fact, none that I can think of) as in this past week working on this one article. I think the article needs supervision. I don't know what else to say. I've put in a lot of time and effort to get a neutral article that is factual. What I see is a well established group that works on GMO articles who don't seem to see that ] is not one. I have gone to two administrators to ask about this problem, and was pretty much told there is not much that can be done. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>''' 01:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|n}}. I don't have time to review this in-depth, but the five diffs listed are not all reverts. Two are out of order, but, more important, two pairs are consecutive edits and therefore count as one revert each.--] (]) 02:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
	:*Yes, you are right. Mea culpa; I lost track whilst up to my neck in tabbed browsing. Aggregating series of reverts, there's only 3 net reverts in the last 24h.
	:*It doesn't help that every single attempt to deal with the problem, ''including this report at AN3'', gets bogged down in arguments about how other editors are biased and about how the article must reflect the TRUTH &c; but that's not editwarring per se. Sorry. ] (]) 02:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
	::*A promise from one or more of the parties to wait for a talk page consensus before making further changes would be welcome. I did not detect much hint of compromise in Petrarchan47's statement above. His suggestion that the messages left on his talk are harassment looks to be incorrect. The most obvious reason for the complaints on his talk page is that some other people disagree with his changes. If he is interested in consensus, he could try negotiating with them instead of deleting their comments. ] (]) 02:44, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::I have no problem agreeing to wait for consensus on future contentious edits. I have been choosing to work with editors on the talk page of the article, rather than mine. I am not making a formal complaint, but it is true that after a few of those comments on my talk page, it did feel like harassment to me and actually ruined my weekend to be very honest. I am not at all happy that I stumbled upon a GMO-related article. This is a most unpleasant task. I do hope someone will help. '''<span style="text-shadow:7px 7px 8px #B8B8B8;">]]]</span>'''
	:::::What Petrarchan is alluding to here is that he thinks there is a large conspiracy to insert "Pro-GM" material on wikipedia: . Him, Gandydancer and Groupuscule appear to think they are fighting the good fight against US Corporations (they have been battling at the BP article for some time), e.g and have been relying on a mixture of favourable opinion pieces to insert highly polemic statements into the article, ] (]) 09:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::I think what Petra is alluding to is that this RfC has no basis. No edit warring occurred. BUT, now that Petra is "in the pillary" he (?) is fair game for other questionable attacks. Petra is doing a stand-up job to improve the articles of WP. Let us all get back to the pleasentness of WP editing. ```]<small>]</small> 13:57, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::::This is not an RfC. ] (]) 17:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::I haven't been involved in this article, but I noticed this discussion on Petrarchan's talk page. This appears to be a content dispute, since it appears to be agreed that no 3RR violation took place. Why not close this out and end the drama? ] (]) 15:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::::::::Note that Coretheapple and Buster are two editors piling in from ]. ] (]) 17:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
	::::::::::Coretheapple and I are two wiki-friends of Petrarchan47 that are concerned for HER health. Being brought in front of the Admin Noticeboard can be stressfull. Thankfully, with the result of 'No action', we can all move on. ```]<small>]</small> 20:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
	*'''Result:''' No action. It is hard to believe that Petrarchan47 is editing in a neutral manner on this article, but there is no 3RR violation. Issues of POV pushing are usually handled at other noticeboards. The ] article seems to have been since the person who opened the AfD was convinced to withdraw the nomination. A number of people seem to believe that the anti-GMO people are using Misplaced Pages for publicity, but that question can't be settled here. Petrarchan47 and his opponents disagree as to the extent that the article should uncritically quote whatever the protesters are saying about the bad effects of GMO. This is a matter for consensus and it is not up to admins to ensure that 'the story is told.' Reflecting what major news sources have said about the protest would be more defensible. ] (]) 17:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to IP's talk page:''' ], ]
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked) ==

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Invasion of Normandy}} and other related edit warring over the last few days <br />
			I made the table, so of course I would like to keep it in, but at this point neither the IP nor Hippo43 seems interested in a discussion at all. Please end this month-long edit war. :-( ] (]) 00:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Syngmung}}
			:{{AN3\|b\|one week}} Both editors, from the article. ] (]) 05:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked from moving pages for 2 weeks) ==
	<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Floorless Coaster}}
	Previous version reverted to:

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|EclipseExpress}}
	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
	Diffs of the user's reverts in the ] article (all 5 June)
	#
	#
	#

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	Diffs of the user's similar reverts in other Battle of Normandy related articles:
	* (4 June)
	* (2 June)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	Previous related edit warring in the ] article
			# {{diff2\|1266972528\|01:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}} "EclipseExpress moved page ] to ] over redirect: The title was "Floorleess Roller Coaster" before it was changed to "Floorless Coaster". "
	* (1 June)
	* (1 June)

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (1 June)

	<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Lengthy discussion of the problems with the content which is being edit warred all over the place at ] and ]. Syngmung has not been attempting to discuss why he wants to add this contested material into the other articles, and simply edit wars. ] (]) 11:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />

	This is a report of sustained edit warring to push a point of view rather than a 3RR violation. {{user\|Syngmung}} has created the ] article, and is trying to edit war material from it into other articles, despite serious concerns raised by myself and others about the neutrality of this article. ] (]) 11:21, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	{{comment}} I know Nick-D well, we have had conflict concerning ]. We should try to unthread emotional entanglements.--] (]) 11:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
	:? I haven't had any involvement in your edit warring in these articles other than in regards to the ] article. This is a report of your sustained edit warring, and not a discussion of content. ] (]) 11:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
	{{comment}} See . Nick-D lose his calm mind. He refuse conversation.--] (]) 11:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
	:Removing a new thread you started on my talk page after this report was lodged in which you accused me of "hidding outcasters acts" is not relevant to this report, except to illustrate your POV pushing. ] (]) 12:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
	{{comment}} I have been involved in trying to bring some sense to this article. ] refers to the initial day of invasion and not the Normandy Campaign. My reverts have been again changed without any adequate and understandable reason. I would add that there is only one source, and newspaper review of same, for any rape allegations, which have not been mentioned by any other reliable sources. I also have to say that this person seems to be pushing POV and also seems by their history, to have a unhealthy interest in rape. Thank you, ] (]) 12:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

			This is a new user who needs to be warned about moving pages without discussion. I need help restoring this. There seems to have been an intermediate move to a misspelled page, so I cannot restore it to the way it was. ] (]) 02:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	{{comment}} I came across Syngmung's somewhat obvious ] edits to ] and reverted him. Another user apparently thought based on a technical error in my revert that I was a vandal, so I figured creating an account might prevent this from happening again. This user is clearly attempting to promote a POV that American troops in South Korea are rampantly engaging in rape of local women, and so has been ]esizing sources to create links between this and other topics such as the Normandy landings and the . ] (]) 12:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
	:~~Read~~ ~~the~~ ~~source~~ ~~by ~~Katharine~~ ~~Moon~~.--] (]) 12:50, 5 ~~June~~ ~~2013~~ (UTC)~~		:Reverting a revert that explicitly pointed towards ] is a problem. ] (]) 08:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			*{{AN3\|b\|2 weeks}} from moving pages. ] (]) 08:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	::I already read it. You misrepresented it and I removed your misrepresentation . ] (]) 16:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Reporting editor blocked 48 hours) ==
	::{{comment}} The comment above by Synmung illustrates their bias and POV. There is only one source quoted! It really is time to stop this POV pushing and obsession with rape. ] (]) 15:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|b\|48 hours}}.--] (]) 16:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Crunchyroll}} <br />
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Declined) ==
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|GachaDog}}

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Ansaldo STS}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Mean as custard}}

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->
			# "We don’t need an owners field to put bigger companies as the owner"
			#
			#
			#
			# "Because you can’t use the owner field to indicate top-level ownership if it differs from the direct parent. Crunchy roll is a Joint venture of SPT and Aniplex"

	Previous version reverted to:

	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
	Diffs of the user's reverts:
	#
	#
	#
	#

	<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	This user appears to have a long history of trying to remove "promotional" content from articles without discussion. When I tried to resolve on his talk page I got this response:
	:For information, this was my latest response to this editor's complaint on my talk page:
	:::"My reversion applied solely to a large edit made by a user (who has made no other edits to Misplaced Pages) on 30.5.13. It was clearly intended to be promotional and it was impossible to separate out the flagrant advertising from the potentially useful (but uncited) material. ] has been known to apply to editors who threaten to have me blocked. . . ] (]) 10:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)"
	:] (]) 13:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	:: Having read ] I can see the intent of his actions, but deleting large sections of text, in my view, comes after (1) Tagging the article as such (2) Requesting on the talk page that the article be re-worded to reflect ] (3) As a last resort, wholesale deletion of large sections of text. It is one thing to be ], but another to not attempt to get the article toned down beforehand. This user appears to be very deliberate in his actions, to the extent of removing "self promotional" material from user pages, as evidenced by this diff . I can understand the basic reason for taking out advertising from articles, but from the page of a user?? ] (]) 14:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::Not sure if my edits to ] are the only subject of the complaint, as it appears my entire editing history is now under scrutiny. I am beginning to feel as though ] is ] me. . . ] (]) 16:49, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|d}}. Mean as custard has not violated ] as he has reverted only 3x (as has Bhtpbank). Regardless, the material he removed should have been removed, and the notion that it should have been tagged or "toned down" is meritless in this instance.--] (]) 17:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> Hello, here I have a user who still removing the infobox field from articles related to streaming services, media companies, conglomerates, etc., without reason, explicitly saying that it should not be used to indicate which top-level property if It is different from the parent company if all this is demonstrated with or without sources than if they actually own the same company. ] (]) 07:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked) ==

			:Because Crunchyroll is under Crunchyroll LLC. and is a “JOINT VENTURE” of both Sony Pictures Television and Aniplex. SPT is under Sony Pictures Entertainment which is under Sony Entertainment which is under Sony of America and the parent compamy Sony corporation. Aniplex is under Sony Music Japan which is under Sony Corporation. So yeah, Sony is not the direct owner of Crunchyroll. It’s owned through a joint venture, so that’s why i removed sony from owners field ] (]) 05:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Swahili language}} <br />
			::{{AN3\|nb\|48 hours}} First, Gacha's reported reverts are a) stale at this point and b) spread out over a period of several days so they would not have been a violation even if reported in a timely fashion. Second, in the interim, 64.32 has clearly violated 3RR in the last day or so. Since editing on ''all'' infoboxes is a ], I have blocked them for 48 hours and alerted them to CTOPS (I left a notice on the article's talk page a while back, also). ] (]) 05:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Adelmira}}

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 3 months) ==
	<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Khulna Division}}
	Previous version reverted to:

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|76.68.24.171}}
	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
	Diffs of the user's reverts:
	#
	#
	#
	#

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
	~~Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:~~		#
			#
			#
			#

	<u>Comments:</u> <br />

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	Editor isn't responding to warnings/requests for refs. Similar edit warring at ]. — ] (]) 16:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|b\|31 hours}}.--] (]) 19:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> This user keeps making disruptive edits in ]. Also, this IP address is violating ] by making personal attacks. Also violating ] as well. I warned the IP address to the ] but did not respond (see ]). Further information will be discussed on the ]. ] (]) 13:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Azerbaijani people}} <br />
			*Blocked 3 months for block evasion.--] (]) 14:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Qara xan}}
			*:@],
			*:what about their other ip addresses?
			*:They are using slang in edit summary.
			*:.
			*:@],
			*:check their contributions {{userlinks\|2607:FEA8:571B:8000:21F7:A044:CB68:F9D}} ''']]''' 16:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			*::@],
			*::User also uses these IPs to support their edits: {{smalldiv\|
			*::##{{userlinks\|2607:fea8:571e:ce00:d81a:9c9d:4833:65a4}}
			*::##{{userlinks\|2607:fea8:571e:ce00:d8c:6de5:ff66:5c6c}}
			*::##{{userlinks\|2605:8d80:6433:5419:acb6:e682:2454:6031}}<br>{{highlight\|After block expiration\|green}}
			*::##{{userlinks\|2607:fea8:571b:8000:91c9:e741:c1ee:5aa2}}
			*::##{{userlinks\|2607:fea8:571b:8000:9979:b44e:bfc2:f9e9}}
			*::##{{userlinks\|2607:fea8:571b:8000:b072:749e:a671:e7ad}}}}
			*::I think a range block is needed. ''']]''' 16:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			*I've blocked ] for one month and painfully/tediously reverted all their edits. The other IPs listed haven't edited since November.--] (]) 17:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:@]
			*:now check this
			*:] <br>{{vandal\| 2605:8D80:6432:8C67:E42E:8C4:6EAF:1E4}}
			''']]''' 17:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::I'm not going to block for one edit; what does it mean? A machine translation of the subject header works, but I tried the body and got nothing.--] (]) 17:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Wait I’m translating it. ''']]''' 17:26, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::{{highlight\|“Breed of a beggar, dog. Breed of Bengali medium. You know nothing about wiki edit(with slangs), why have you come here? Tell me Where do u live? Otherwise I’ll call army and peel your skin. Breed of roadside slum.”\|lightyellow}}
			:::::N.B chasa, baal has no English translation but a serious slangs in ], I’ve not added this in the translation.
			:::::It’s like this @] ''']]''' 17:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::@],
			::::::again with another IP
			::::::] ''']]''' 17:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::That's disgusting. Unfortunately, a range block that encompasses both IPs is too wide and has too much collateral damage. I've rev/deleted the posts and semi-protected your Talk page for one day.--] (]) 17:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::@],
			::::::::Thank you so much for your time.
			::::::::You gave me a lot of support, and it means a lot. 😊 ''']]''' 18:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Already blocked) ==
	<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Paul Pelosi}}
	Previous version reverted to:

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|138.88.222.231}}
	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
	Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Azerbaijani_people&oldid=558079451
	# http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Azerbaijani_people&oldid=558079773
	# http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Azerbaijani_people&oldid=558118054
	# http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Azerbaijani_people&oldid=558282348
	# http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Azerbaijani_people&oldid=558428541

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Qara_xan

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
			# {{diff2\|1267112015\|17:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Citation"
	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Azerbaijani_people
			# {{diff2\|1267110235\|17:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Link"
			# {{diff\|oldid=1267091158\|diff=1267095785\|label=Consecutive edits made from 15:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC) to 15:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			## {{diff2\|1267093244\|15:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
			## {{diff2\|1267093459\|15:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""
			## {{diff2\|1267093933\|15:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Links"
			## {{diff2\|1267094425\|15:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Vineyard"
			## {{diff2\|1267094621\|15:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit California"
			## {{diff2\|1267094854\|15:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Links"
			## {{diff2\|1267095785\|15:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Citation"
			# {{diff\|oldid=1267087059\|diff=1267090202\|label=Consecutive edits made from 15:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC) to 15:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			## {{diff2\|1267089646\|15:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1267090202\|15:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			# {{diff\|oldid=1266884965\|diff=1266991690\|label=Consecutive edits made from 18:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC) to 03:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			## {{diff2\|1266890042\|18:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266890246\|18:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266891715\|18:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266892097\|18:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266894041\|18:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266894509\|18:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266984350\|03:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266991690\|03:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			# {{diff\|oldid=1266222137\|diff=1266884722\|label=Consecutive edits made from 18:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC) to 17:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			## {{diff2\|1266666459\|18:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266666834\|18:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266668916\|18:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266669951\|18:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266670057\|18:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266680601\|19:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266680754\|19:27, 1 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266681012\|19:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266682107\|19:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266683528\|19:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266724322\|23:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266743335\|01:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266744071\|01:21, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266858445\|15:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266858776\|15:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266859007\|15:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266859305\|15:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266859607\|15:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266859917\|15:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266860078\|15:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266860307\|15:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266861030\|15:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266861342\|15:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266861793\|15:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266862475\|15:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266862620\|15:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266863695\|15:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266868888\|16:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266869441\|16:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266870020\|16:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266879559\|17:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266879723\|17:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266880902\|17:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266881725\|17:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266882540\|17:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266884192\|17:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"
			## {{diff2\|1266884722\|17:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Career"

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	<u>Comments:</u></br>
			# {{diff2\|1267091206\|15:26, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Caution: Unconstructive editing on ]."
	The person refused to use the talk page to cease our edit war and he does not go against my arguments on the history page either.
			# {{diff2\|1267110746\|17:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]."

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	History page: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Azerbaijani_people&action=history
			*See ]

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	] (]) 17:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

			EW with IDHT and copyvios. – ] (]) 17:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	:I again repeat that the reliable source, ] writes Turkic people. Please read ]. Your propaganda edits in ] ( ) was undoned by two users: Samaksasanian and Qara xan. You are not right. ] 19:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
	::Yes ] say : Azerbaijani, any member of a ] living chiefly in the Republic of ] and in the region of Azerbaijan in ]. but ] Does not accept ] is a ].--] (]) 19:42, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

			User uses disingenuous edit summaries ("Edit Citation") to reassert edits , as noted by the difference between successive attempts (addition of three do-nothing spaces to cite template). <small><sub>''signed'', </sub></small>] (]) 18:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	::with 'Turkic-speaking people' you know for certain that the ethnic group speaks a Turkic language which is the case. With 'Turkic people' it suggests that their origin is Turkic which isn't believed to be, explained in paragraph 'origins'. There was nothing wrong with the original 'Turkic-speaking people' so why change it? To propagate that their origin may be Turkic which again isn't the case? <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			*{{AN3\|ab}} ] (]) 03:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: ~~Protected~~) ==		== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==

	;Page: {{pagelinks\|~~Indian~~ ~~Ordnance~~ ~~Factories Service ‎~~}}		'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Wounded Knee Massacre}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|117.200.157.144}}

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|GreenMeansGo}}
	;Previous version reverted to:

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	;Diffs of the user's reverts:

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#

	~~;Diffs~~ of edit warring / 3RR warning:		'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''

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

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> I do not often use ANI, as I feel that it is far preferable to discuss and find a peaceful resolution, but in this case I feel my hand has been forced. I attempted to speak with the edit warring editor many times, and even asked them to self revert on many occassions, both on their own talk page as well as the article in question's talk page. They mockingly said "Have fun I guess." about coming to ANI, though I would have much rather we continued to discuss the subject and the sources in dispute on the talk page. At this point they are 5 edits in to a edit war and I politely stopped at 3 edits so as not to violate ]. I am a bit surprised it came to this and I apologize in advance to any admin who may now need to block the offending editor and revert to the prior consensus and stable lead on the article which had been present for many months before this editor aggressively became involved just today.<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) </small>
			* Well, the first edit is just a crappy source that I randomly found pop up in a change on my watchlist. The two edits are consecutive. I have attempted to discuss the issue on the talk page and offer a resolution. But since this seems to be a slow-motion edit war by OP going back , we may have some OWN issues to unpack. ]] 18:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

			:And again, I would just say that any points to be made should be made on the article talk page, but that reverting 5 times (or 4 depending on how you count them), still is in violation of the 3RR rule which is pretty clear and strict. ] (]) 18:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	;<u>Comments:</u>
			:I see three reverts, . , and . maybe could maybe be a revert, depending on how long that source has been sitting in the article and if you're squinting hard enough. Iljhgtn also has made three reverts. ] (]) 18:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:: counts as a partial revert not of the full text with all sources included but absolutely includes the primary material being discussed in the talk page. ] (]) 18:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::That was captured in my first diff. Consecutive edits are a single revert. ] (]) 18:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::The request currently stands out there for the editor to self-revert and for the discussion to resume on the article talk page. ] (]) 18:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::Oh good lord. You've been . ]] 18:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Where have you been in this discussion since you mentioned that this article is on your talk page? My first seeing you there was today, and you proceeded to force a new version of the lead and revert in rapid succession to your desired version. Again, I am happy to discuss this on the article talk page if you would self-revert and continue the discussion there. ] (]) 18:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::If you dispute a single source, I think that made sense for removal, due to the letter submission aspect of it, but in general I think it would have been best to discuss further on the talk page as well as maybe provide some reliable sources of your own or dispute the content of the other sources at the point of the talk page, and not simply to angrily enter into a series of reverts.
			:::::::Here were some of the other sources by the way, and I don't think you've disputed the reliability of these: , , .
			:::::::Though you've now removed all of these from the article. ] (]) 19:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::Cool. Go...like...''get consensus''. Just because you made a change and reverted it for a year and half doesn't mean you have consensus. ]] 19:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::::Consensus is not always clear, and does not always merely side with a majority. Consensus is also reflected at least in part by reflecting what the reliable sources say. All I have asked is that we have a discussion around the reliable sources, and you self-revert in the meantime. Your response has been only to be dismissive and to not engage with the point raised, which is that we must ]. ] (]) 19:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			::: is a partial revert of a . I would not consider this part of 3RR for today. ] ] 18:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			*{{AN3\|nv}} {{U\|Iljhgtn}} and {{U\|GreenMeansGo}}, take the discussion elsewhere. ] ] 19:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:Ok. Thanks for reviewing this. ] (]) 19:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==
	he/she is reverting my edits and then says he will warn me!think it is the same person accusing me of being a sock!

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Ponnunjal (film)}}
	I don't understand why IOFS officers would be sent to National Academy of Direct Taxes. They have nothing to do with taxation. LBSNAA is a general public administration academy set up by the Govt of India to train officers from all India serives and the Central services. It's mentioned in the citaion I've provided. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 18:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
	:'''Result:''' Article fully protected three days. Please use the talk page to reach consensus on the disputed points. ] (]) 16:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Tamilfilmsbuff}}
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked) ==

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Minorities in Pakistan}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|109.145.244.1}}

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	;Previous version reverted to:
			# {{diff\|oldid=1262246919\|diff=1267230449\|label=Consecutive edits made from 05:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC) to 05:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			## {{diff2\|1267230326\|05:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			## {{diff2\|1267230449\|05:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"

	;Diffs of ~~the~~ ~~user's~~ ~~reverts~~:		'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	# {{diff2\|558593021\|2013-06-06T12:04:07Z}} "Undid revision 558590936 by ] (]) vandalism by Mrt"
	# {{diff2\|558580558\|2013-06-06T10:05:27Z}} "article is basically a pov hell hole reads more like a transcript from a indian movie"
	# {{diff2\|558578255\|2013-06-06T09:41:19Z}} "Undid revision 558313895 by ] (])"

	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
	# {{diff2\|558592317\|2013-06-06T11:57:53Z}} "Reverted 1 edit by ] (]): It's not your talk don't revert my posts here. It was not tagging the page, but undiscussed, unexplained removal of well-sourced content."
	# {{diff2\|558589502\|2013-06-06T11:36:17Z}} "Final warning: Vandalism."

	;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:		'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''

	:Uncivility? thats rich coming from a guy who refers to some editors as "typical pakis" your hypocrisy in mind boggling your article is just a platform for you to express you anti-Pakistani pov which comes naturally to indian editors (not all but most) how about we create a few articles on indian minorities I can assure you that Mrt will send messages to canvass every indian editor to get the article AFD he is a hypocrite and a pov pusher ] (]) 12:51, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
	;<u>Comments:</u>

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	That IP wanted to ''unilaterally'' (without any discussion whatsoever) and edit-warred about it too. When I told him "Tags should be added as a last resort." he behaved utterly uncivilly with me on my talk based on personal attack and allegations. He was given a final warning by me but he reverted it and continued disruption ← do something about it. It's classic example of tag bombing. Take appropriate action ''please''. <br>he was also edit warring on . Admin {{UT\|Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington}} commented, "This is likely a sockpuppet account." <br>I don't know who the puppeteer might be. ]] <span class="plainlinks"></span> 12:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

	*'''Comments by ~~Faizan~~''': ~~MrT~~ ~~needs~~ to ~~differentiate~~ ~~between~~ ~~Vandalism~~, and ~~"removal~~ of ~~text"~~ or ~~"adding tags"~~. He ~~issued~~ ~~warnings on~~ the ~~talk~~ ~~page~~ of ~~the~~ IP ~~and named them~~ as ~~"unconstructive". That is not appropraite. Secondly four absoulte reverts are necessary for 4RR,resulting~~ in "'''~~no violation~~'~~''"~~. <span style="~~border~~:~~2px solid #000~~;~~background~~:~~#000~~">]]</span> 13:37, 6 ~~June~~ ~~2013~~ (UTC)		Also at '']''. His edits don't match the sources, and reverts good edits that do. Also biased towards the subject as he removes mixed/negative reviews, as seen in '']''. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family: Papyrus">] ] </span> 05:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	*{{~~AN3~~\|~~b\|two weeks~~}}. ~~The~~ ~~probable~~ ~~sock~~ ~~master~~ is ]. ~~@MrT,~~ ~~you~~ ~~should~~ ~~have~~ ~~looked~~ at ~~the~~ ~~IP's~~ ~~block~~ ~~log~~ ~~and~~ ~~the~~ ~~IP's~~ ~~user~~ ~~page;~~ ~~that~~ ~~would~~ ~~have~~ ~~pointed~~ ~~you~~ in ~~the~~ ~~right direction~~.--] (]) 14:16, 6 ~~June~~ ~~2013~~ (UTC)		:{{An3\|noex}} There's only ''two'', their first edits to the article in a couple of months. And, if there are issues at other articles, maybe this is properly handled at AN/I. ] (]) 05:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	::Thank you very much Sir. Yes, I ought to have checked the user's block log. ]] <span class="plainlinks"></span> 16:45, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: ~~Blocked~~) ==		== ] reported by ] (Result: Warned user(s)) ==

			'''Page:''' ]
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Near East University}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|Orhanozkilic}}

			'''User being reported:''' ]
	;Previous version reverted to:

	;Diffs of the user's reverts:		'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
			#
	# {{diff2\|558601894\|2013-06-06T13:27:10Z}} ""
			#
	# {{diff2\|558599893\|2013-06-06T13:08:23Z}} ""
			#
	# {{diff2\|558578612\|2013-06-06T09:45:08Z}} ""

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' , the whole section
	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
	# {{diff2\|558600440\|2013-06-06T13:13:34Z}} "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on ]. (])"

	~~;Diffs~~ of ~~attempt~~ to ~~resolve~~ ~~dispute on~~ ~~article~~ talk page:		'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	#

	;<u>Comments:</u>		<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />

			User insists on adding irrelevant material in the lede. Irrelevancy aside, he fails to get consensus to include the challenged material (by 2 users at least in the talk page) per ] and edit-wars instead to get it in.
	Note: Twinkle did not give me the option to add three correct examples, so I selected as third one a partial edit, a complete revert is .
	*{{AN3\|b\|36 hours}}.--] (]) 15:03, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

			I'd love to add also that he argued that the religion of the suspect in the lede is {{tq\|Absolutely relevant to the potential motive for the attack and therefore}} in this edit summary which can only imply that he believes that being a Muslim is enough of a motive to commit terrorist attacks.
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Manofwar0 Blocked) ==
			*{{AN3\|w}} No 3RR violation and user was warned of the 1RR restriction after their last edit. ] ] 07:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] ==
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Anjem Choudary}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|OrangesRyellow}}

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Talk:Subcompact crossover SUV}} <br/>
	reverted 5 times today in total ] (]) 19:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
			'''Previous version:''' <br/>
	Broke 3RR on Anjem Choudary alone ] (]) 19:24, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	*{{AN3\|b\|24 hours}} by ].--] (]) 14:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
			#
			'''Comments:'''
			This editor has reverted many useful edits, and most of my edits, other users' edits, without explaining their reverting of edits with citations .
			*{{AN3\|nv}} ] ] 07:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: ~~48 hours each for Archcaster and Beerest355~~) ==		== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==

	;Page: {{pagelinks\|~~Bob's Burgers (season 4)~~}}		'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Zionism}} <br />
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|~~Archcaster~~}}		'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|إيان}}

	;Previous version reverted to:		'''Previous version reverted to:'''

	;Diffs of the user's reverts:		'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
			*Note: ] is active on this page.
	# {{diff2\|558620492\|2013-06-06T15:52:39Z}} ""
			# (removes 1885 which I added)
	# {{diff2\|558609942\|2013-06-06T14:32:44Z}} ""
			# (removes 1885 and the quote "The man credited with coining the word ‘Zionism’ in 1885, Nathan Birnbaum," which I added)
	# {{diff2\|558486184\|2013-06-05T18:53:26Z}} "Undid revision 558484557 by ] (]) Yea, Hi. No one knows for sure if it's premiering on September. Misplaced Pages is not a "crystalball". Undo this edit, you'll be reported."

			See ,
	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
	# {{diff2\|558504457\|2013-06-05T21:08:22Z}} "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on ]. (])"
	# {{diff2\|558474497\|2013-06-05T17:25:02Z}} "/* User page */"
	# {{diff2\|558474470\|2013-06-05T17:24:50Z}} ""
	# {{diff2\|558471934\|2013-06-05T17:05:15Z}} "/* User page */"
	# {{diff2\|558471910\|2013-06-05T17:05:05Z}} ""

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	;<u>Comments:</u>

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	*First of all, I am not doing edit warring, the ] is, I have nothing to do with this. He started the edit war, I didn't. Honestly, I don't know why the ] was dumb enough to report me anyway over some reliable source that the user typed in as a blog and me undoing his edit is a problem. Also, what does the user page situation have to do with this, Nothing! --] (]) 13:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
	:*For someone who has been edit warring you have quite a mouth. Skip the uncivil comments. They only make matters worse for you.--] (]) 14:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
	::*This doesn't concern you ] and yes I have a mouth because I was born with it, thank you very much. --] (]) 14:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::*As an admin, this case does in fact concern Bbb23. Archcaster, even if you feel you're right, continous reverts are always edit warring unless they remove outright vandalism. Archcaster and Beerest355 have been blocked for 48 hours. ] (]) 14:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

			Note attempt to invite user to self-revert 1RR violation. Yes, consensus required is also active on this page, but 1RR is still being violated here. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 07:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked - see above) ==

			:@] but إيان is correct that the addition market no sense... This is not something to drag someone to ANEW over. ] ] 19:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Bob's Burgers (season 4)}}
			::So 1RR is waived when the edits don't appeal to someone? I thought 1RR was a bright line rule. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 21:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|Beerest355}}
			::And in my view the edits make sense and I thought edit warring is wrong, even if you're right? Are you weighing in on the content, or the behavior? ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 21:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Wow, this is so petty AndreJustAndre. ] vibes. When they brought this up on my talk page, they ] the tenuous nature of their grievance: {{tq\| While '''the two edits are slightly different''', in both cases you removed the addition of 1885, '''arguably, two reverts, '''violating the 1RR sanction on this article,}} emphasis my own. When they ] me to self-revert, I ] them to seek consensus on the talk page. Instead, they decided to waste everyone's time at ANEW.
			:I didn't go in and explain my edits because I didn't think it was worth it, but it appears the first time I 1885 was accidental as I was trying to manually manage an edit conflict. I thought the only addition was the source. (Pharos ] on the talk page that AndreJustAndre's information aobut 1885 information was erroneous; AndreJustAndre then felt it was to include 1885 and used wording that makes no sense. ] (]) 19:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::POINT is when you ''disrupt'' Misplaced Pages to prove a point. I invited you politely to revert yourself and reminded you of 1RR. Is 1RR waiveable? ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 21:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::Also it's not at all clear that the 1885 information is erroneous. That's in an active discussion on talk. ''']'''<span style="border:2px solid #073642;background:rgb(255,156,0);background:linear-gradient(90deg, rgba(255,156,0,1) 0%, rgba(147,0,255,1) 45%, rgba(4,123,134,1) 87%);">]</span> 21:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Warned; indefinitely blocked) ==
	;Previous version reverted to:

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Shahada}}
	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# {{diff2\|558641263\|2013-06-06T18:32:45Z}} "adding this back"
	# {{diff2\|558489739\|2013-06-05T19:21:31Z}} ""
	# {{diff2\|558486648\|2013-06-05T18:57:10Z}} "Undid revision 558486184 by ] (])

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Zyn225}}
	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
	# {{diff2\|558504408\|2013-06-05T21:08:04Z}} "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on ]. (])"

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
			# {{diff2\|1267343878\|18:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Corrected the true name of Allah. In the holy Quran; the holy revelation from the creator of the universe Allah is the name introduced to humanity. A name has no translation. Thus changing it to a translation in English does not provide the true information about Islam. More so it removes the whole integrity of the Shahada. The Shahada must be testified on the true name of Allah."
			# {{diff2\|1267343718\|18:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Corrected the true name of Allah. In the holy Quran; the holy revelation from the creator of the universe Allah is the name introduced to humanity. A name has no translation. Thus changing it to a translation in English does not provide the true information about Islam. More so it removes the whole integrity of the Shahada. The Shahada must be testified on the true name of Allah."
			# {{diff2\|1267343494\|18:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Corrected the true name of Allah. In the holy Quran; the holy revelation from the creator of the universe Allah is the name introduced to humanity. A name has no translation. Thus changing it to a translation in English does not provide the true information about Islam. More so it removes the whole integrity of the Shahada. The Shahada must be testified on the true name of Allah."
			# {{diff2\|1267342322\|18:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Corrected the true name of Allah. In the holy Quran; the holy revelation from the creator of the universe Allah is the name introduced to humanity. A name has no translation. Thus changing it to a translation in English does not provide the true information about Islam. More so it removes the whole integrity of the Shahada. The Shahada must be testified on the true name of Allah."

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	;<u>Comments:</u>
			# {{diff2\|1267343727\|18:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Disruptive editing."
	*I'm not sure if this has much to do with anything, but I'd like to point out that the first edit noted here is not a revert. ] <small>]</small> 01:11, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1267343865\|18:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Final warning notice on ]."
	:*Of course it is.--] (]) 01:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
	::*It isn't a revert. I added the link back after citing it at the ], and ], the user I was in a conflict with, seems to be OK with it. There are some disputes about the reliability of the source in question, so I'm intending to open a reliability discussion. ] <small>]</small> 01:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Warned) ==

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|List of Rainbow Codes}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|‎Holothurion}}

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	Trivial crap, but 4RR is still a bright-line, last time I looked.

			Single purpose account, does not grasp ] ]. ] 18:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)


			:I understand I should have discussed this but I can't seem to find the discussion page.
	Diffs of the user's reverts:
			:I think some people are talking a Misplaced Pages page personally. Especially the anti Islam users.
	#
			:A translation for the name chosen by Allah in his holy revelation to humanity sounds illogical to me. Do you use the translation of your name when you travel to a new country?
	#
			:It's very clear some people are deliberately ignorant because of their personal beliefs. I am surprised this is even allowed from a non Muslim to edit a page about Islam. Clearly you're doing what you like. This is a Misplaced Pages page where people come to learn. How would they even say the Shahada if you misguide them like this. The Shahada must be said with the True name Allah. ] (]) 18:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	#
			::{{re\|Zyn225}} The place to discuss your change is at ]. The reasons I'm not blocking you for edit-warring is because you are new and because you were not warned about edit-warring. I must also tell you, though, your idea of how Misplaced Pages works is wrong. We work by consensus, not by an editor's personal beliefs. Also, we do not restrict editors from voting on articles because of their religion, nationality, ethnicity, or even their "expertise" in the subject matter. You are '''warned''' that if you return to edit-warring, you risk being blocked without further notice.--] (]) 19:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	#
			:::@] the user was warned about disruptive editing, but not edit warring and 3RR specifically. ] ] 19:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::I know.--] (]) 19:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::New yes but if I knew this is how information is served to normal people I would have stopped coming to this site ages ago. So let's be logical about the Shahada; the Testimony. So basically according to editors and consensus if someone says "There's no God but God" and "Muhammad (peace be upon him) is the servant and messenger of God" -- th
			:::FYI Prophet Muhammad did not even know the word "GOD". This is not the message that the messenger delivered. The Holy revealation; The Holy Quran is very clear about the identity of Allah. If you make a translation of the name you literally misguide everyone including yourself. This needn't debating when you think of it. Basically if a non Muslim from Siberia would come to Shahada page they'd get a word that English speakers non Muslims use. No Muslim uses the word "God" not in the Adhan, not in the prayers. Somethings should be transliterated otherwise it's misinterpretation. Also some translators in hope of selling religion and making people believe have normalized using the word God. Because let's be honest there is some kind of fear in some non Muslims when used the word Allah.
			:::Well what can I say except that everything would be clear when our soul reaches the throat. When we become corpses decomposing to skeletons. Then would we believe. Then would we become mindful of our creator. Grateful for every creation of Allah we enjoy everyday and every breath we take without paying anything. Gratitude that is not within disbelievers. Misplaced Pages needs better management. This is not acceptable that you let whoever hav upe an opinion about things they don't know. What do you except from disbelivers when you put this to vote? Do you expect them to accept the name Allah? ] (]) 19:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::@] you can either learn to work with disbelievers or you can go elsewhere. ] ] 19:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::No disbelievers have the right or the knowledge to educate the world about their creator Allah, and about religion. It's mockery when you do that. I am working with disbelievers; the Shahada should be properly translated so they are properly educated. If you say the translation you made of the Shahada you are not a Muslim. Jibrail (as) brought the word "Allah" with the revelations as per the command of Allah. Its not from Arabic speaking people and their tradition as you've stated.
			:::::Listen wether you believe or not believe its your choice, wether you accept or not that too your choice but to put the wrong and misinterpreted knowledge to the mass that's a heinous crime. It seems to me all the fuss and debate about this issue because these editors just can't accept the word Allah. Muslim is someone who submits their will to Allah as every other creation have done. Because the will of Allah is what people call the law of physics but its the law and will of Allah. So a non Muslim disbeliever should go elsewhere and not try to edit an Islamic page. ] (]) 20:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::::Blocked indefinitely per ] ] ] 20:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::::::{{re\|EvergreenFir}} I don't think my warning worked. Thanks for taking care of it - I was eating lunch. :-) --] (]) 21:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			:::"There is no God but God" --- is that your translation of the Shahada? Do you realize how illiterate and illogical the translation sounds when you don't use the true name of Allah? Not to mention the above statement is not the Shahada anymore. One of the 3 questions asked in the grave is Who is your Creator/Lord/Ilah/God? The true answer is Allah, I suppose you would not answer them with the very question you would be asked. Majority of humans can not say the truth. Because they did not worship their creator and now we are here trying to debate the Name? Well guess what all these translations would do no help. You would be called a liar. So consider the information people taking from here; it's far from being right and the truth. I do not accept this as a Muslim. How is this even logical that non Muslims are creating and editing topics about Muslims. Like thanks but no thanks. Not like this; misinterpreted to the core. ] (]) 19:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24 hours) ==
	Wotan is one of the Norse gods, aka Odin. This name also appears as Wōden in some languages. In German though, at least mid-20th century German, it was "Wotan". This led to the military codename for the German WWII ] <s>radar</s>radio navigation device being "Wotan" (and not "Wōden"). The name is probably the best-known aspect of this <s>radar</s>radio navigation device, at least in the UK, owing to ]' book and TV series ], where this injudicious choice of codename let slip a significant military secret. I have no idea of the linguistic / historical preference for Odin/Wotan/Wōden and I make no comment on which should be the canonical WP article name, but ''for WWII German <s>radar</s>electronic warfare'' the name was clearly Wotan.

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|2017–2019 Saudi Arabian purge}}
	In the article ], itself about military codenames, the piped link "<code><nowiki>the one-eyed ]</nowiki></code>" was used, because Wotan already appeared earlier on the line.

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Jabust}}
	‎Holothurion is now changing this piped link <code><nowiki>]</nowiki></code>, not from any claimed virtue or for any content reason, but seemingly because "redirects are bad". I'm unaware of this. Are redirects to be switched off shortly? Is our regular call "redirects are cheap" no longer accurate? This is a minor point (as is almost everything at ANEW), but
	* This is a change, a change driven by one solitary editor, and in such cases it's our usual practice to want to see some improvement achieved, not merely editing for editing's sake.
	* Wotan is correct ''in this context'', Wōden is not correct. The link target is visible from the hover text and as the piped link isn't the most obvious link ever, readers are likely to look at that text.
	* 4RR is 4RR

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	The only comment from Holothurion is on the lines that its redirects that are simply the problem, not text itself (with a side-order of gratuitous vandalism accusation), ''"Redirectioning must be avoided as much as possible. Stop changing it back, or you will be reported as vandalizing"''

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	] (]) 12:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1267352536\|19:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) reverted vandalism by grudge-bearing stalker"
			# {{diff2\|1267352090\|19:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
			# {{diff2\|1266663622\|17:59, 1 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	:Andy Dingley's arguments would be correct and valid if the link pointed to an article named "Wotan" and I was changing it to the one pertaining to another deity, related or not (p.e. Jupiter and Zeus). But, since the link in the text in fact redirects to the ] article, I'm only changing it so it points to said article without any redirection involved which - being that there's not actual "Wotan" article nor is a case of it being renamed/moved - is in this event unnecessary and avoidable; I'm taking into full account the rules and guidelines described in ]. The content, purpose and meaning of the aforementioned text in ] remains completely intact.
			# {{diff2\|1267340515\|18:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Notice: Edit warring softer wording for newcomers ]"
	:Regarding the report warning (which I recognize was overdid on my part), it was given to Andy Dingley with the best of interests in mind pertaining both of us and the ], and also in the grounds that the user was about to start/started an edit war that could be avoided and resolved through discussion instead of continually resort to changing/reverting the ] article. With all that said, I should point out that neither of us violated the 3RR. — ] (]) 13:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1267350962\|18:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Notice: Edit warring stronger wording ]"
	:: Why (per ]) is this redirect "broken", so that you are having to repeatedly "fix" it?
			# {{diff2\|1267352206\|19:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} "ONLY Warning: Unexplained content removal ]"
	:: If it is ''not'' "broken", so that there is nothing to "fix", then why are you repeatedly changing it?
			# {{diff2\|1267352678\|19:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Final Warning: Unexplained content removal ]"
	:: ] (]) 14:24, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|n}}. I have left a message on Holothurion's talk page informing him that he has in fact breached 3RR and explaining what he must do to avoid a block.--] (]) 15:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
	:::Message answered on my talk page. - ] (]) 15:51, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|n}}. Based on Holothurion's self-revert, acknowledgment, and promise, I'm closing this report.--] (]) 16:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	* Unrelated issue, but I've now had yet another abusive and trolling email from "Reisio" (who I'm sure isn't {{user\|Reisio}}) claiming that because Wotan wasn't a radar then my point is invalid and I should be indef blocked for edit-warring and stupidity. I am getting just a little fed up with these (Four now). I know that WP can't/won't do anything about checkusering, but I have notified your ISP. ] (]) 16:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked) ==

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Yazdânism}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|46.239.60.21}}

			Repeated edit warring on multiple pages with multiple users. User has strange knowledge of Misplaced Pages policy for an account only 5 days old, I would request a ] on this individual also. ] (]) 19:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->
			:This is a bad faith report by a user who is seemingly just enraged that I can find guidelines in the manual of style and follow them. They reverted four times at ], where I had removed a redundant restatement of the article's title. Then they evidently decided they would like to bother me more, so reverted an edit I had made several days ago to ], for no reason whatsoever. I find their behaviour to be extremely unpleasant and very consciously harmful to Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 19:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
			::@] I've seen your frivolous edits in multiple pages of "List of people executed in the United States (Yearly)" and I blatantly disagree with your edits.
			::He isn't "enraged", @] is actually right about reporting you, you've made multiple frivolous edits on other pages such as ], in every article, you'd see a "talk" page, which you can discuss about what to edit, and you've blatantly ignore his messages and repeatedly purging his message in your profile talk page.
			::In your message, you've stated that his behavior is "extremely unpleasant", but apparently, you're the one that is purging his messages in your profile talk page as stated above, ignoring his verbal warning, therefore, you are being condescending by doing so.
			::You're currently blocked by @] for 24 hours, next time before proceeding to edit, please kindly used the "talk" page to discuss before proceeding to make frivolous edits. ] (]) 19:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

			{{re\|Jabust}} I am not the one continuing to revert edits. You found the guidelines on the manual of style only 4 days after creating a brand new account??? That is extremely suspicious. You also refused to even discuss the matter and just reverted all the edits. I undid my edit on the ] in good faith because I am not continuing to edit war unlike yourself. ] (]) 19:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	Previous version reverted to:
			*{{AN3\|b\|24 hours}} ] ] 19:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
	Diffs of the user's reverts:
	#
	#
	#
	#

	UPDATE: 5th revert:


	<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

	This article is only a sample of this IP's massive edit warring all over the place. The IP based in Bosnia (which apparently changes every 24 hours) is contentiously 3RR edit warring (with bias) against all users on multiple articles all over the place. Previously edit warred all the same articles as ] yesterday, ] the day before... ] /]/ 18:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

	:I've started disscusion of ] and i've informed three admins about the issue. Til Eulenspiegel and his fellow IP-POV-pushers didn't leave any constructive comments, just forcing their POV as in other cases. This editor is falsely accusing me of being sock also. --] (]) 19:13, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

	Note this IP is also the subject of an SPI now, for being the sock of ]. ] /]/ 19:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|b\|48 hours}} by another admin. This is playing out in other forums.--] (]) 20:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

	== ] and ] reported by ] (Result: Semi-protected) ==

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|London School of Business and Finance}} <br />
	'''Users being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Ystino19827}}, {{userlinks\|0987nervewracker}}

	<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

	Previous version reverted to:

	<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need 4 reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. -->
	Diffs of the user's reverts:

	#
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#

	<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

	<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too -->
	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

	<u>Comments:</u> <br />

	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	The edit warring is happening over a period of several days, with at least four registered users, as well as ] involved in the reversions. Several users, including ] ] and ] have been trying to un-revert these users' changes. I am not involved in the edit warring; I have simply reverted it back to the pre-edit war version. ]<sup>(] • ])</sup> 20:20, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|p}}. I've semi-protected the article for a week. The registered accounts are not auto-confirmed. However, the material is too inflammatory to leave in, and I've removed it as unreliably sourced (blogs and other similar websites, plus a YouTube video).--] (]) 20:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result:) ==
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Female genital mutilation}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Obiwankenobi}}

	This is not a 3RR report, but a report for edit warring over two days about terms used for, or comparable with, female genital mutilation (FGM). This is a contentious issue and the editor has been made aware of that . He is adding terms that are not equivalent to FGM, or are already discussed or linked in the article, and has reverted in whole or in part against three editors who have removed them.

	*His 1st edit to the article: , added two terms to See also
	:*1st revert: , restored one of the terms (partial revert)
	*2nd edit: , added a hatnote linking to three terms
	:*2nd revert: , restored hatnote (wholesale revert)
	*3rd edit: , added alternative terms to infobox
	:*3rd revert: , restored alternative terms to infobox (wholesale revert)
	:*4th revert: , restored alternative terms to infobox (wholesale revert)
	:*5th revert: , restored alternative terms to infobox (wholesale revert)

	] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 00:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

	===Comments===
	I'm reporting this because Obiwankenobi has been involved in other serial reverting recently, and seems to feel that he can revert up to 3RR. See his comment in this edit summary when removing a warning: .

	The other reason I'm reporting it is that I believe he followed me to ] after I opened an RfC to change the title of ]. He is strongly opposed to the Sarah Brown RfC, and shortly after I first commented on that talk page at , he appeared at on the FGM talk page to add links to page moves, his first-ever edit to the talk page or article. It's possible that it's a coincidence but it's unlikely; I had made FGM-related edits just before my first comment on the Sarah Brown page, so they were obvious in my contribs.

	Obiwankenobi's edits to FGM were accompanied by going to several redirects to FGM, or related articles, and changing them, apparently to match the edits he was making to FGM. Examples: It's not that's there necessarily a problem with all these edits, it's just that there was a sudden interest in edits about female genitalia. ] <small><sup>]</sup></small> 00:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

	:FWIW, I do not appreciate the attempt by SV to link these two sets of edits - they are quite different. One set of edits was around linking to existing wikipedia articles for ] and ], while the other set of edits was around adding terms widely used in the literature "Sunna circumcision" and "Pharaonic circumcision" to the infobox ; both of these terms are already mentioned in the body of the article - my change was to simply add it to the info box. --] (]) 00:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

	===Slim Virgin / Boomerang ===
	Slim Virgin has 4 reverts in the same exact time period.
	*
	*
	*
	*

	So WP:BOOMERANG should be considered here. But I'd rather not impose sanctions against anyone here, if possible. But if you look carefully, every single line of text I've tried to add to the article has been reverted by SV, so there is also an issue of WP:OWN here.

	I admit to being frustrated and doing 3 reverts above, which I shouldn't have, and I apologize for that - it's just the edit summaries said the names weren't backed up by sources, but the actual source linked backed up almost every single name, and other sources in the article back up the other names - so I was frustrated that people were reverting without reading any sources while claiming that the edits were not sourced. I was wrong to revert though.

	Anyway, I'm sorry about the reverts above, and it won't happen again, I will take it to talk earlier. As to SV's other allegations, I've added "old moves" to a number of articles, and FGM is one I'd been meaning to do for a while; seeing it mentioned on SVs and other people's talk pages reminded me to do so. That's it. I'd also rather SV not insinuate I'm up to something nefarious, when in fact I corrected some long-standing mistaken redirects per the edits above. I'm a gnome, so when I come across an article, I fix what I feel needs fixing.--] (]) 00:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|n}}. Most of Obiwankenobi's comments are misguided. However, based on their apology, I have left a message on their talk page that they may avoid a block if they agree not to edit the article for seven days.--] (]) 00:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 21:29, 4 January 2025

Noticeboard for edit warring

v t e Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard Shortcuts

Update this page

This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

You must notify any user you have reported.

You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Additional notes

When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.

Definition of edit warring

Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.

Click here to create a new report

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357
358	359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366	367
Incidents (archives, search)
1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164	1165
1166	1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173	1174	1175
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
471	472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480
481	482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336
337	338	339	340	341	342	343	344	345	346
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:174.196.104.11 reported by User:Wowzers122 (Result: /23 blocked from both articles for a week)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

- Dec 31 "these are the correct results according to Dave Leips"
- Dec 31 "Per source of Dave Leips"
- Jan 1 "These are the correct results per Dave Leip’s. Don’t undo this edit again."
- Jan 1
- Jan 1 "these are the correct results per Dave Leip’s. Don’t undo this edit again."
- Jan 1 "per source of Dave Leip’s"
- Jan 1 "These are the correct results per source of Dave Leip’s"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments:
All the differences on both pages concern whether to use the numbers from a website called Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections (which cites the Kentucky State Board of Elections as its data source) or the Official 2024 General Election Results provided by the Kentucky State Board of Elections. The number for "other" votes on the page before the edit warring was 126 for Letcher County (per election board), which the IP insists on changing to 146 (per Dave Leip).

I should also note that @Mad Mismagius: reverted all but one and the current IP edits on these pages without warning the user or attempting to engage in talk page discussion. I made one revert and left a warning on the user's talk page, who later reverted my revert.

Also, there are two other IPs (now dormant) that made identical edits on these pages with similar edit summaries. One on Dec 27 "Correct Letcher County votes" and another on Dec 29 "these are the correct results according to Dave Leips". Wowzers122 (talk) 05:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of a week 174.196.104.0/23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · block user · block log) from articles. Daniel Case (talk) 06:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I have had to deal with this IP address as well. The issue seems to be that they are conflating "third party candidates" with write-in votes. Chalandray (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

User:174.93.89.27 reported by User:M.Bitton (Result: 1 week partial block for both parties)

User being reported: 174.93.89.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

18:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Source is about Bone."
Consecutive edits made from 18:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC) to 18:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
1. 18:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Well, if the dispute is about sources, this peer-reviewed academic source should settle the matter."
2. 18:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC) ""
18:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1266885362 by M.Bitton (talk) - No need for the talk page. Just click on the link for Bône in this article."
16:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1266617369 by M.Bitton (talk) - Be that as it may, it is now known as Annaba."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

18:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Salim Halali."
18:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "/* January 2025 */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I have partially blocked the IP for one week. M.Bitton reminded not to edit war. PhilKnight (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Point well taken. The only thing I would add is that M.Bitton, who has been blocked before for edit warring, reverted four times, and passed the three-revert limit before I did. You might, therefore, consider blocking M.Bitton for one week as well. 174.93.89.27 (talk) 19:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
@PhilKnight: contrary to what the IP is claiming, I did not violate 3R. M.Bitton (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

This edit partially reverts the biography to a previous state. And anyway, I blocked you for edit warring, not 3RR. PhilKnight (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes it does revert it to the stable and well sourced version (the one that actually makes sense, given that Annaba has been known as such for centuries). For the rest, no comment. M.Bitton (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Well argued. I have partially blocked M.Bitton for a week as well. PhilKnight (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Horsechestnut reported by User:CurryTime7-24 (Result: Protected)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

23:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1266922310 by CurryTime7-24 (talk)"
20:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1266911668 by CurryTime7-24 I am in the process of deleting unnecessary text so that what remains is referenced, cited information, but can't complete this process if you keep on deleting my work before I have finished editing. Please give me time to complete my edits. Horsechestnut. Please do not delete this User talk:CurryTime7-24

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

21:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Eagle Rock, Los Angeles."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User has also been using the account Cjcooper to pursue this edit war. They have been warned on both accounts. CurryTime7-24 (talk) 23:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Page protected – One week by User:Daniel Quinlan per a complaint at WP:RFPP. EdJohnston (talk) 03:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Hippo43, IP 2a01:4b00:b90c:6700:* reported by User:Mathnerd314159 (Result: Blocked from article for a week)

Page: French mother sauces (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hippo43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 2A01:4B00:B90C:6700:6C91:81FE:34E1:80E0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), also 2A01:4B00:B90C:6700:A9B8:61A6:B4BA:3525 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and other IP's with the same prefix

Previous version reverted to (Hippo43): Special:Diff/1261641655

Previous version reverted to (IP): Special:Diff/1262083607

Diffs of Hippo43's reverts:

Diffs of IP's reverts:

Special:Diff/1266834913 (probably same IP)
Special:Diff/1263386233
Special:Diff/1262743746
Special:Diff/1262467272

There are a few more, just look at the recent history which is nothing but reverts.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/1262739350 (IP), Special:Diff/1237541954 (Hippo43, the IP warned them)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Special:Diff/1261449232, discussion is still on talk at Talk:French_mother_sauces#Table_of_sauces

Diff of ANEW notice posted to Hippo43's talk page: Special:Diff/1266963033

Diff of ANEW notice posted to IP's talk page: Special:Diff/1266962827, Special:Diff/1266962969

Comments:
I made the table, so of course I would like to keep it in, but at this point neither the IP nor Hippo43 seems interested in a discussion at all. Please end this month-long edit war. :-( Mathnerd314159 (talk) 00:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of one week Both editors, from the article. Daniel Case (talk) 05:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

User:EclipseExpress reported by User:JlACEer (Result: Blocked from moving pages for 2 weeks)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

01:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC) "EclipseExpress moved page Floorless Coaster to Floorless Roller Coaster over redirect: The title was "Floorleess Roller Coaster" before it was changed to "Floorless Coaster". "

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This is a new user who needs to be warned about moving pages without discussion. I need help restoring this. There seems to have been an intermediate move to a misspelled page, so I cannot restore it to the way it was. —JlACEer (talk) 02:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Reverting a revert that explicitly pointed towards WP:RMUM is a problem. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks from moving pages. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

User:GachaDog reported by User:64.32.125.197 (Result: Reporting editor blocked 48 hours)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

17:06, 15 December 2024 "We don’t need an owners field to put bigger companies as the owner"
15:03, 25 December 2024
03:01, 28 December 2024
06:43, 31 December 2024
03:36, 3 January 2025 "Because you can’t use the owner field to indicate top-level ownership if it differs from the direct parent. Crunchy roll is a Joint venture of SPT and Aniplex"

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: December 2024

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments: Hello, here I have a user who still removing the infobox field from articles related to streaming services, media companies, conglomerates, etc., without reason, explicitly saying that it should not be used to indicate which top-level property if It is different from the parent company if all this is demonstrated with or without sources than if they actually own the same company. 64.32.125.197 (talk) 07:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Because Crunchyroll is under Crunchyroll LLC. and is a “JOINT VENTURE” of both Sony Pictures Television and Aniplex. SPT is under Sony Pictures Entertainment which is under Sony Entertainment which is under Sony of America and the parent compamy Sony corporation. Aniplex is under Sony Music Japan which is under Sony Corporation. So yeah, Sony is not the direct owner of Crunchyroll. It’s owned through a joint venture, so that’s why i removed sony from owners field GachaDog (talk) 05:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 48 hours First, Gacha's reported reverts are a) stale at this point and b) spread out over a period of several days so they would not have been a violation even if reported in a timely fashion. Second, in the interim, 64.32 has clearly violated 3RR in the last day or so. Since editing on all infoboxes is a contentious topic, I have blocked them for 48 hours and alerted them to CTOPS (I left a notice on the article's talk page a while back, also). Daniel Case (talk) 05:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

User:76.68.24.171 reported by User:Migfab008 (Result: Blocked 3 months)

User being reported: 76.68.24.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments: This user keeps making disruptive edits in Khulna Division. Also, this IP address is violating WP:NPA by making personal attacks. Also violating block evasion as well. I warned the IP address to the talk page but did not respond (see WP:COMMUNICATION). Further information will be discussed on the ANI noticeboard. Migfab008 (talk) 13:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Blocked 3 months for block evasion.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
@Bbb23,

what about their other ip addresses?

They are using slang in edit summary.

check this.

@Bbb23,
check their contributions 2607:FEA8:571B:8000:21F7:A044:CB68:F9D (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) — Cerium4B —Talk? • 16:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
@Bbb23,
User also uses these IPs to support their edits:
2607:fea8:571e:ce00:d81a:9c9d:4833:65a4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2607:fea8:571e:ce00:d8c:6de5:ff66:5c6c (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2605:8d80:6433:5419:acb6:e682:2454:6031 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
After block expiration

2607:fea8:571b:8000:91c9:e741:c1ee:5aa2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2607:fea8:571b:8000:9979:b44e:bfc2:f9e9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

2607:fea8:571b:8000:b072:749e:a671:e7ad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I think a range block is needed. — Cerium4B —Talk? • 16:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I've blocked Special:contributions/2607:FEA8:571B:8000:0:0:0:0/64 for one month and painfully/tediously reverted all their edits. The other IPs listed haven't edited since November.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
@Bbb23

now check this

user talk:Cerium4B#Bari koi tor fokirnir jaat?
2605:8D80:6432:8C67:E42E:8C4:6EAF:1E4 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

— Cerium4B —Talk? • 17:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not going to block for one edit; what does it mean? A machine translation of the subject header works, but I tried the body and got nothing.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Wait I’m translating it. — Cerium4B —Talk? • 17:26, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

“Breed of a beggar, dog. Breed of Bengali medium. You know nothing about wiki edit(with slangs), why have you come here? Tell me Where do u live? Otherwise I’ll call army and peel your skin. Breed of roadside slum.”

N.B chasa, baal has no English translation but a serious slangs in Bengali language, I’ve not added this in the translation.

It’s like this @Bbb23 — Cerium4B —Talk? • 17:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@Bbb23,

again with another IP

user talk:Cerium4B#Bari koi tor fokirnir jaat? — Cerium4B —Talk? • 17:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

That's disgusting. Unfortunately, a range block that encompasses both IPs is too wide and has too much collateral damage. I've rev/deleted the posts and semi-protected your Talk page for one day.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@Bbb23,

Thank you so much for your time.

You gave me a lot of support, and it means a lot. 😊 — Cerium4B —Talk? • 18:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

User:138.88.222.231 reported by User:Muboshgu (Result: Already blocked)

User being reported: 138.88.222.231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

17:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Citation"
17:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Link"
Consecutive edits made from 15:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC) to 15:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
1. 15:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC) ""
2. 15:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC) ""
3. 15:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Links"
4. 15:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Vineyard"
5. 15:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit California"
6. 15:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Links"
7. 15:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Citation"
Consecutive edits made from 15:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC) to 15:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
1. 15:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
2. 15:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
Consecutive edits made from 18:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC) to 03:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
1. 18:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
2. 18:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
3. 18:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
4. 18:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
5. 18:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
6. 18:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
7. 03:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
8. 03:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
Consecutive edits made from 18:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC) to 17:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
1. 18:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
2. 18:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
3. 18:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
4. 18:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
5. 18:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
6. 19:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
7. 19:27, 1 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
8. 19:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
9. 19:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
10. 19:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
11. 23:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
12. 01:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
13. 01:21, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
14. 15:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
15. 15:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
16. 15:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
17. 15:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
18. 15:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
19. 15:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
20. 15:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
21. 15:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
22. 15:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
23. 15:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
24. 15:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
25. 15:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
26. 15:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
27. 15:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
28. 16:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
29. 16:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
30. 16:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
31. 17:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
32. 17:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
33. 17:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
34. 17:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
35. 17:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
36. 17:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"
37. 17:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC) "Edit Career"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

15:26, 3 January 2025 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Paul Pelosi."
17:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Paul Pelosi."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

See Talk:Paul Pelosi#Property portfolio

Comments:

EW with IDHT and copyvios. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

User uses disingenuous edit summaries ("Edit Citation") to reassert edits , as noted by the difference between successive attempts (addition of three do-nothing spaces to cite template). _signed,Willondon (talk) 18:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Already blocked ~ ToBeFree (talk) 03:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

User:GreenMeansGo reported by User:Iljhgtn (Result: No violation)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments: I do not often use ANI, as I feel that it is far preferable to discuss and find a peaceful resolution, but in this case I feel my hand has been forced. I attempted to speak with the edit warring editor many times, and even asked them to self revert on many occassions, both on their own talk page as well as the article in question's talk page. They mockingly said "Have fun I guess." about coming to ANI, though I would have much rather we continued to discuss the subject and the sources in dispute on the talk page. At this point they are 5 edits in to a edit war and I politely stopped at 3 edits so as not to violate WP:3RR. I am a bit surprised it came to this and I apologize in advance to any admin who may now need to block the offending editor and revert to the prior consensus and stable lead on the article which had been present for many months before this editor aggressively became involved just today.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Iljhgtn (talk • contribs)

Well, the first edit is just a crappy source that I randomly found pop up in a change on my watchlist. The two edits are consecutive. I have attempted to discuss the issue on the talk page and offer a resolution. But since this seems to be a slow-motion edit war by OP going back months, we may have some OWN issues to unpack. GMG 18:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

And again, I would just say that any points to be made should be made on the article talk page, but that reverting 5 times (or 4 depending on how you count them), still is in violation of the 3RR rule which is pretty clear and strict. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I see three reverts, 1. 2, and 3. This maybe could maybe be a revert, depending on how long that source has been sitting in the article and if you're squinting hard enough. Iljhgtn also has made three reverts. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

This edit counts as a partial revert not of the full text with all sources included but absolutely includes the primary material being discussed in the talk page. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

That was captured in my first diff. Consecutive edits are a single revert. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

The request currently stands out there for the editor to self-revert and for the discussion to resume on the article talk page. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh good lord. You've been warring on this since at least 2023. GMG 18:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Where have you been in this discussion since you mentioned that this article is on your talk page? My first seeing you there was today, and you proceeded to force a new version of the lead and revert in rapid succession to your desired version. Again, I am happy to discuss this on the article talk page if you would self-revert and continue the discussion there. Iljhgtn (talk) 18:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

If you dispute a single source, I think that made sense for removal, due to the letter submission aspect of it, but in general I think it would have been best to discuss further on the talk page as well as maybe provide some reliable sources of your own or dispute the content of the other sources at the point of the talk page, and not simply to angrily enter into a series of reverts.

Here were some of the other sources by the way, and I don't think you've disputed the reliability of these: LA Times, Rapid City Journal, The Oregonian.

Though you've now removed all of these from the article. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Cool. Go...like...get consensus. Just because you made a change and reverted it for a year and half doesn't mean you have consensus. GMG 19:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Consensus is not always clear, and does not always merely side with a majority. Consensus is also reflected at least in part by reflecting what the reliable sources say. All I have asked is that we have a discussion around the reliable sources, and you self-revert in the meantime. Your response has been only to be dismissive and to not engage with the point raised, which is that we must WP:STICKTOTHESOURCES. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

This is a partial revert of a November 30 edit. I would not consider this part of 3RR for today. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

No violation Iljhgtn and GreenMeansGo, take the discussion elsewhere. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks for reviewing this. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Tamilfilmsbuff reported by User:Kailash29792 (Result: No violation)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Consecutive edits made from 05:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC) to 05:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
1. 05:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1262246919 by Srivin (talk)"
2. 05:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1262236945 by Kailash29792 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Also at Dharmam Engey. His edits don't match the sources, and reverts good edits that do. Also biased towards the subject as he removes mixed/negative reviews, as seen in Kunkhumam. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. There's only two, their first edits to the article in a couple of months. And, if there are issues at other articles, maybe this is properly handled at AN/I. Daniel Case (talk) 05:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

User:justthefacts reported by User:The Cheesedealer (Result: Warned user(s))

Page: 2025 New Orleans truck attack

User being reported: User:justthefacts

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: , the whole section

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments:

User insists on adding irrelevant material in the lede. Irrelevancy aside, he fails to get consensus to include the challenged material (by 2 users at least in the talk page) per WP:ONUS and edit-wars instead to get it in.

I'd love to add also that he argued that the religion of the suspect in the lede is Absolutely relevant to the potential motive for the attack and therefore in this edit summary which can only imply that he believes that being a Muslim is enough of a motive to commit terrorist attacks.

Warned No 3RR violation and user was warned of the 1RR restriction after their last edit. EvergreenFir (talk) 07:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Andra Febrian reported by User:HiLux duck

Comments: This editor has reverted many useful edits, and most of my edits, other users' edits, without explaining their reverting of edits with citations .

No violation EvergreenFir (talk) 07:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

User:إيان reported by User:AndreJustAndre (Result: )

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Note: WP:1RR is active on this page.

(removes 1885 which I added)
(removes 1885 and the quote "The man credited with coining the word ‘Zionism’ in 1885, Nathan Birnbaum," which I added)

See ,

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Zionism#§_Terminology

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:

Comments:

Note attempt to invite user to self-revert 1RR violation. Yes, consensus required is also active on this page, but 1RR is still being violated here. Andre🚐 07:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@AndreJustAndre but إيان is correct that the addition market no sense... This is not something to drag someone to ANEW over. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

So 1RR is waived when the edits don't appeal to someone? I thought 1RR was a bright line rule. Andre🚐 21:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

And in my view the edits make sense and I thought edit warring is wrong, even if you're right? Are you weighing in on the content, or the behavior? Andre🚐 21:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Wow, this is so petty AndreJustAndre. WP:POINTY vibes. When they brought this up on my talk page, they noted the tenuous nature of their grievance: While the two edits are slightly different, in both cases you removed the addition of 1885, arguably, two reverts, violating the 1RR sanction on this article, emphasis my own. When they invited me to self-revert, I invited them to seek consensus on the talk page. Instead, they decided to waste everyone's time at ANEW.

I didn't go in and explain my edits because I didn't think it was worth it, but it appears the first time I removed 1885 was accidental as I was trying to manually manage an edit conflict. I thought the only addition was the source. (Pharos pointed out on the talk page that AndreJustAndre's information aobut 1885 information was erroneous; AndreJustAndre then felt it was still necessary to include 1885 and used wording that makes no sense. إيان (talk) 19:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

POINT is when you disrupt Misplaced Pages to prove a point. I invited you politely to revert yourself and reminded you of 1RR. Is 1RR waiveable? Andre🚐 21:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Also it's not at all clear that the 1885 information is erroneous. That's in an active discussion on talk. Andre🚐 21:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Zyn225 reported by User:Soetermans (Result: Warned; indefinitely blocked)

User being reported: Zyn225 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

18:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC) "Corrected the true name of Allah. In the holy Quran; the holy revelation from the creator of the universe Allah is the name introduced to humanity. A name has no translation. Thus changing it to a translation in English does not provide the true information about Islam. More so it removes the whole integrity of the Shahada. The Shahada must be testified on the true name of Allah."
18:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC) "Corrected the true name of Allah. In the holy Quran; the holy revelation from the creator of the universe Allah is the name introduced to humanity. A name has no translation. Thus changing it to a translation in English does not provide the true information about Islam. More so it removes the whole integrity of the Shahada. The Shahada must be testified on the true name of Allah."
18:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC) "Corrected the true name of Allah. In the holy Quran; the holy revelation from the creator of the universe Allah is the name introduced to humanity. A name has no translation. Thus changing it to a translation in English does not provide the true information about Islam. More so it removes the whole integrity of the Shahada. The Shahada must be testified on the true name of Allah."
18:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC) "Corrected the true name of Allah. In the holy Quran; the holy revelation from the creator of the universe Allah is the name introduced to humanity. A name has no translation. Thus changing it to a translation in English does not provide the true information about Islam. More so it removes the whole integrity of the Shahada. The Shahada must be testified on the true name of Allah."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

18:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing."
18:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC) "Final warning notice on Shahada."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Single purpose account, does not grasp WP:ALLAH soetermans. 18:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I understand I should have discussed this but I can't seem to find the discussion page.

I think some people are talking a Misplaced Pages page personally. Especially the anti Islam users.

A translation for the name chosen by Allah in his holy revelation to humanity sounds illogical to me. Do you use the translation of your name when you travel to a new country?

It's very clear some people are deliberately ignorant because of their personal beliefs. I am surprised this is even allowed from a non Muslim to edit a page about Islam. Clearly you're doing what you like. This is a Misplaced Pages page where people come to learn. How would they even say the Shahada if you misguide them like this. The Shahada must be said with the True name Allah. Zyn225 (talk) 18:44, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@Zyn225: The place to discuss your change is at Talk:Shahada. The reasons I'm not blocking you for edit-warring is because you are new and because you were not warned about edit-warring. I must also tell you, though, your idea of how Misplaced Pages works is wrong. We work by consensus, not by an editor's personal beliefs. Also, we do not restrict editors from voting on articles because of their religion, nationality, ethnicity, or even their "expertise" in the subject matter. You are warned that if you return to edit-warring, you risk being blocked without further notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@Bbb23 the user was warned about disruptive editing, but not edit warring and 3RR specifically. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

I know.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

New yes but if I knew this is how information is served to normal people I would have stopped coming to this site ages ago. So let's be logical about the Shahada; the Testimony. So basically according to editors and consensus if someone says "There's no God but God" and "Muhammad (peace be upon him) is the servant and messenger of God" -- th

FYI Prophet Muhammad did not even know the word "GOD". This is not the message that the messenger delivered. The Holy revealation; The Holy Quran is very clear about the identity of Allah. If you make a translation of the name you literally misguide everyone including yourself. This needn't debating when you think of it. Basically if a non Muslim from Siberia would come to Shahada page they'd get a word that English speakers non Muslims use. No Muslim uses the word "God" not in the Adhan, not in the prayers. Somethings should be transliterated otherwise it's misinterpretation. Also some translators in hope of selling religion and making people believe have normalized using the word God. Because let's be honest there is some kind of fear in some non Muslims when used the word Allah.

Well what can I say except that everything would be clear when our soul reaches the throat. When we become corpses decomposing to skeletons. Then would we believe. Then would we become mindful of our creator. Grateful for every creation of Allah we enjoy everyday and every breath we take without paying anything. Gratitude that is not within disbelievers. Misplaced Pages needs better management. This is not acceptable that you let whoever hav upe an opinion about things they don't know. What do you except from disbelivers when you put this to vote? Do you expect them to accept the name Allah? Zyn225 (talk) 19:38, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@Zyn225 you can either learn to work with disbelievers or you can go elsewhere. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

No disbelievers have the right or the knowledge to educate the world about their creator Allah, and about religion. It's mockery when you do that. I am working with disbelievers; the Shahada should be properly translated so they are properly educated. If you say the translation you made of the Shahada you are not a Muslim. Jibrail (as) brought the word "Allah" with the revelations as per the command of Allah. Its not from Arabic speaking people and their tradition as you've stated.

Listen wether you believe or not believe its your choice, wether you accept or not that too your choice but to put the wrong and misinterpreted knowledge to the mass that's a heinous crime. It seems to me all the fuss and debate about this issue because these editors just can't accept the word Allah. Muslim is someone who submits their will to Allah as every other creation have done. Because the will of Allah is what people call the law of physics but its the law and will of Allah. So a non Muslim disbeliever should go elsewhere and not try to edit an Islamic page. Zyn225 (talk) 20:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely per WP:NOT HERE EvergreenFir (talk) 20:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: I don't think my warning worked. Thanks for taking care of it - I was eating lunch. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 21:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

"There is no God but God" --- is that your translation of the Shahada? Do you realize how illiterate and illogical the translation sounds when you don't use the true name of Allah? Not to mention the above statement is not the Shahada anymore. One of the 3 questions asked in the grave is Who is your Creator/Lord/Ilah/God? The true answer is Allah, I suppose you would not answer them with the very question you would be asked. Majority of humans can not say the truth. Because they did not worship their creator and now we are here trying to debate the Name? Well guess what all these translations would do no help. You would be called a liar. So consider the information people taking from here; it's far from being right and the truth. I do not accept this as a Muslim. How is this even logical that non Muslims are creating and editing topics about Muslims. Like thanks but no thanks. Not like this; misinterpreted to the core. Zyn225 (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Jabust reported by User:Inexpiable (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

19:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1267352173 by Inexpiable (talk) reverted vandalism by grudge-bearing stalker"
19:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1267351775 by Inexpiable (talk)"
17:59, 1 January 2025 (UTC) "Undid revision 1266631201 by Thenightaway (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

18:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC) "Notice: Edit warring softer wording for newcomers (RW 16.1)"
18:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC) "Notice: Edit warring stronger wording (RW 16.1)"
19:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC) "ONLY Warning: Unexplained content removal (RW 16.1)"
19:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC) "Final Warning: Unexplained content removal (RW 16.1)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Repeated edit warring on multiple pages with multiple users. User has strange knowledge of Misplaced Pages policy for an account only 5 days old, I would request a Check User on this individual also. Inexpiable (talk) 19:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

This is a bad faith report by a user who is seemingly just enraged that I can find guidelines in the manual of style and follow them. They reverted four times at List of people executed in the United States in 2007, where I had removed a redundant restatement of the article's title. Then they evidently decided they would like to bother me more, so reverted an edit I had made several days ago to 2017-2019 Saudi Arabian purge, for no reason whatsoever. I find their behaviour to be extremely unpleasant and very consciously harmful to Misplaced Pages. Jabust (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@Jabust I've seen your frivolous edits in multiple pages of "List of people executed in the United States (Yearly)" and I blatantly disagree with your edits.

He isn't "enraged", @Inexpiable is actually right about reporting you, you've made multiple frivolous edits on other pages such as List of people executed in the United States in 2024, in every article, you'd see a "talk" page, which you can discuss about what to edit, and you've blatantly ignore his messages and repeatedly purging his message in your profile talk page.

In your message, you've stated that his behavior is "extremely unpleasant", but apparently, you're the one that is purging his messages in your profile talk page as stated above, ignoring his verbal warning, therefore, you are being condescending by doing so.

You're currently blocked by @EvergreenFir for 24 hours, next time before proceeding to edit, please kindly used the "talk" page to discuss before proceeding to make frivolous edits. TheCheapTalker (talk) 19:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@Jabust: I am not the one continuing to revert edits. You found the guidelines on the manual of style only 4 days after creating a brand new account??? That is extremely suspicious. You also refused to even discuss the matter and just reverted all the edits. I undid my edit on the List of people executed in the United States in 2007 in good faith because I am not continuing to edit war unlike yourself. Inexpiable (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours EvergreenFir (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Categories: