Misplaced Pages

There you go yet again completely side-stepping the issue and bringing up points that have nothing to do with the basic argument. What I'm saying is not POV-pushing, I think on the contrary it's you who is pushing your own agenda. Look through the edits as well as the talk page, removal of the table has been brought up by others as well. Perhaps you're unaware and so that's why you're only seeing the question with a boxed-in 1-dimensional mindset that is typical of someone actually unfamiliar with a certain topic, but the Persian identity and culture is constantly evolving and our understanding is evolving as well. You play the same old broken record of "but the sources don't say this," without asking when those sources were created? You don't think knowledge becomes outdated and gets built upon? Typical medieval mindset, good job. You're clearly just a troll who removed 40 million people from the stats page without researching the issue simply because the old sources never mentioned such and such as part of the Persian race. Did you know about the political friction Afghanistan and Iran had in the last century that prompted Afghanistan to officially change the name of the language from "Farsi" to "Dari" simply to set itself apart--even though everyone to this day says they speak "Farsi" and rarely do they say "Dari." So it takes little imagination to see how politics can play a role in "sources". And in fact there are more non-Hazara Persian speakers in Afghanistan than Hazaras and yes, Tajikistan is a Persian country. To completely remove these people from the total estimate/statistics (as well as the millions in Uzbekistan and other parts of the Middle East, such as the Gulf Arab states, which has sizable Persian communities known as "Ajams"--but you wouldn't know that) is spreading misinformation under your false expert pretenses, which are completely disconnected from the topic in all reality. Lets remove these 40 million people who make up almost half of the entire Persian population of the world, whose ancestors (spread all throughout Misplaced Pages articles) as well as themselves, have made significant contributions to the overall identity of the Persian culture because one user thinks he alone is the gatekeeper on who is Persian and who isn't.

And to address your other irrelevant points: The system only allows users to be logged in for 30 days straight; I am on Misplaced Pages a lot and there are certainly times where I'm just making a minor edit to improve the quality of the articles here, I don't feel the need to click on "Login" every time I make a minor grammatical correction, etc., just to "get credit" and have it "logged" under my account name. I am voluntarily doing this to help improve the overall quality of the Encyclopedia, I don't need any recognition for my tiny part in this community. Please stop trying to question my contribution here and bringing up these and other moot, irrelevant points and lets address the actual issue of removing the Regions with significant populations table. 570ad (talk) 21:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

There's no valid edit warring warning of User:LouisAragon. A comment in an edit summary is not sufficient, even more so when it is directed at a different editor. LouisAragon had not edited the article in five days when that supposed edit warring notice was given. There's also no clear edit warring by LouisAragon. He or she has only made two reverts today of the article, exactly the same number as User:570ad. I suggest that LouisAragon should either open an SPI connecting 570ad and the IP to one or more previous accounts, or retract the socking accusation. Meters (talk) 22:27, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• Declined --slakr 04:57, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

User:202.92.134.5 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Semi)

Page

Black Pink (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 746245864 by Dr.K. (talk)"
2. 04:08, 26 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 746233103 by Dr.K. (talk) Osen is a reliable news cite for korean entertainment news."
3. Consecutive edits made from 02:44, 26 October 2016 (UTC) to 02:58, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
   1. 02:44, 26 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 746182578 by Drmies (talk) Regardless of country, their songs can be also hiphop and R&B"
   2. 02:58, 26 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 746182499 by Drmies (talk) Added new citation"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:01, 26 October 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Black Pink. (TW★TW)"
2. 03:01, 26 October 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Black Pink. (TW★TW)"
3. 05:28, 26 October 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Black_Pink. (TW★TW)"
4. 05:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Black_Pink. (TW★TW)"
5. 05:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Frequent or mass changes to genres without consensus or reference on Black_Pink. (TW★TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

WP:GENREWARRING, unreliable sources. Adding unsourced genres, fancruft, promotional material. Will not stop. This type of editing plagues K-pop articles. Dr. K. 07:49, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected two months. Genre warring and promotional editing. EdJohnston (talk) 14:07, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Light show reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: Stale)

Page

Donald Trump (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Light show (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC) "/* top */Trimmed factoid supported by links to other articles. The lead is a summary of this article."
2. 19:00, 25 October 2016 (UTC) "/* top */ trimmed material supported by link to another article, not this one. Talk if unclear about BLP"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:56, 25 October 2016 (UTC) "/* October 2016 */"
2. 07:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC) "/* October 2016 */"

Comments:

Article subject to 1RR. Editor acknowledges he didn't bother reading the prominent warning on the edit page. All sorts of arguments can be mounted here (RfC under way, etc.), but they don't amount to a reason to violate 1RR; strict adherence to that restriction is required, unless we want to open the doors to violations for other reasons. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:14, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Light show has clearly engaged in disruptive edit warring in blatant disregard of the ongoing lengthy discussions of the issue in question on the talk page over the last couple of weeks and ongoing discussions on the discretionary sanctions enforcement page, and all consensus-finding processes over the last couple of weeks. He has seemingly taken it upon himself to edit war the now stable few sentences on the sexual assault controversy – the result of painstaking work by numerous editors to find an acceptable, neutral and WP:DUE wording – out of the article. On the talk page he revealingly refers to what we on Misplaced Pages call reliable sources with the pejorative term "MSM". --Tataral (talk) 14:28, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Also note that the claim that there is somehow a "BLP problem" with the wording in question has, prior to the edit warring by User:Light show, been described as "a case of WP:CRYBLP" and without any merit in the ongoing, related discussion concerning the exact same wording on Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. As he has commented on the talk page in the discussion on this exact issue, he is obviously aware of the current discussions of it. --Tataral (talk) 14:37, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

• Stale I thought about a block, but Light Show has had some straight talking on their page, plus at least one editor defending them, so that's probably not a good idea. As LS has not touched the article since yesterday, I'll let them off with a warning. Ritchie333 16:02, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Xenophrenic reported by User:Tobby72 (Result: Stale)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff
4. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ,

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

Comments:

Xenophrenic has been repeatedly blocked for edit-warring, warned about it recently.

He and the other party were both warned about this article on September 1, per AN3 – *"Result: Both editors warned. If either party reverts again at Genocides in history or Genocide of indigenous peoples without getting a prior consensus in their favor on the talk page they may be blocked."

Xenophrenic's massive changes have been opposed, reverted by multiple editors. – diff, diff, diff, diff. -- Tobby72 (talk) 10:37, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

• Stale Katie 00:53, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

User:2607:fb90:1e0b:e660:0:47:7857:9e01 reported by User:DVdm (Result: Semi)

Page: Doc Love (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2607:fb90:1e0b:e660:0:47:7857:9e01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

8. , after notification of this report

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: indirectly at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Doc Love

Comments:

• Result: Semiprotected two months. EdJohnston (talk) 20:05, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

User:95.133.148.13 reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

Page

European Open (snooker) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:25, 26 October 2016 (UTC) "Chris Turner archive listed Irish Open after the German Masters, which have own article. European Open, German Masters, Irish Open are the separate entities in the title of that page."
2. 18:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC) "sorry I don't know what is hÉireann, but do you have the sources which says, European Open and Irish Open are the same tournament??"
3. 18:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC) "Irish Open is not European Open. source please?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:02, 26 October 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on European Open (snooker). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Requested protection, and a small discussion took place, which is good. _Muffled 20:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

• And? An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. Here is three edits only. There are no any sources which say, European Open and Irish Open are the same tournament. Linked in the article Chris Turner archive listed Irish Open after the German Masters, which have own article. European Open, German Masters, Irish Open are the separate entities in the title of that page. I only removed the entry which not supported by any sources. 95.133.148.13 (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

• The IP has always been prepared to discuss his edits so we have to give them that, but he refuses to accept consensus when it goes against him. European Masters (snooker) has had to be protected because this particular IP refused to accept the outcome of an RFC. He hasn't broken 3RR but I think an enforced 12-hour break wouldn't be such a bad thing for him. He can take the evening off and chill out a bit. Betty Logan (talk) 21:09, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
• Good try. If so I think 6, 8 or 12-hour break for BettyLohan must be applied also for the same number of reverts in that article. He can take the morning off. Edit war is a two-way thing. 95.133.148.13 (talk) 21:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

  I haven't reverted at all in relation to the issue you have been reported for and I only reverted once at European Masters (snooker) to enforce a RFC consensus you were determined to ignore. The fact that the article is now protected to prevent you editing it says it all really. Besides your conduct at European Open (snooker) and European Masters (snooker), you have reverted two different editors at Irish Open (snooker) too. You may not have broken the rule on any single article but your behavior pattern across a range of articles is problematic IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 21:43, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oh I've had it with this cat--blocked for 48 hours. Drmies (talk) 21:56, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Wikidemon reported by User:Froglich (Result: Filer blocked)

Page: Frank Marshall Davis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wikidemon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Reported for edit-warring and incivility:

Three reverts in four hours:

• 19:11, 25 October 2016
• 19:33, 25 October 2016
• 23:22, 25 October 2016

...immediately after third revert, blanked the topic in question (containing reliably sourced material) despite knowing that at least four other editors within the last week desired to retain it:

• 23:30, 25 October 2016‎

Personal attacks on article talk page:

• 05:15, 26 October 2016‎

Warned (citing all the above):

• 06:51, 26 October 2016‎

He defends his insult by pretending it wasn't one when it clearly was:

• 16:57, 26 October 2016‎

He is quoted his insult to remind him (fourth paragraph):

• 04:29, 27 October 2016‎

In subsequent exchange, he ignores the matter of the personal attack.

His article edits are reverted by me after a day elapsed:

• 04:13, 27 October 2016

He doubles-down and escalates by reverting and claiming in the edit summary to have warned me (he has not done so following any official procedure) and bringing me to the attention of the noticeboard (see below); also harangues me to secure consensus before any further efforts despite not taking initiatives in starting TP threads, etc.

• 05:38, 27 October 2016‎

He posts what is essentially a AN/EW complaint to the BLP noticeboard without correctly warning the accused user; employs opportunity to ramble about conspiracy theories in general.

• 06:10, 27 October 2016

Given this unapologetic pattern of edit-warring and incivility, I'm boomeranging here.--Froglich (talk) 07:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments:

Bad faith forum shopping, with ridiculously false procedural accusations, by an editor promoting a BLP-violating racist fringe theory that President Obama is an illegitimate child of some communist of a porn star mother. Please visit WP:BLP/N for the locus of this discussion. Any admins watching this, please counsel the reporting editor about the encyclopedia's standards. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 07:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

The purported 3RR violation is stale; the material being edit-warred in by the reporting party is at best contentious, at worst tendentious conspiracy-theory garbage. Barack Obama is a living person, and the fact that he's the president of the United States does not exempt him from the protection of our policies requiring high-quality sourcing and fairness. That a fringe theorist has proposed a wild, nonsensical and wholly-unsupported claim does not require that we include that claim in the biographies of anyone related to that claim. It's incumbent on Froglich to discuss their proposed edits on the article talk page and gain consensus for inclusion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:07, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

"Forum shopping"? ...add WP:CIR to the laundry list (I had though about doing so before, but held off). Regards NorthBySouthBaranof's "stale" comment, a currently ongoing edit war is by definition not stale. As far as the desire of both Wikidemon and NorthBySouthBaranof to debate the merits of Dreams From My Real Father go, it has been a sourced article for over five years concerning a documentary film whose central thesis is supported by the half-brother of the President of the United States (a fact of which NorthBySouthBaranof has within the past day section-blanked twice, so he's certainly not in a neutral corner.) These are diversions attempting to deflect the subject of the incident report.--Froglich (talk) 09:51, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• Note I don't see anything wrong with what Wikidemon has done here, he has reverted a serious BLP violation that even Donald "What birth certificate?" Trump would baulk at (which exempts him from 3RR), and filed a discussion on the BLP noticeboard that has had no replies. Meanwhile, Froglich has now been alerted to Discretionary Sanctions on modern US politics (which this falls under), so this is a warning that you will be blocked if you reinsert that information. Ritchie333 10:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

.... and now Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 72 hours by Bishonen, having had fair warning. Ritchie333 14:56, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Asterixf2 reported by User:Vami_IV, User:Ryn78 (Result: Storm in a teacup)

Following some drama over the status of the Malleus Maleficarum page, I have had the misfortune of having to fight an edit war with Asterixf2 on his talk page and more importantly the article for the Malleus Maleficarum, where this user has thrown out every edit made to the page by any user other than himself. Also see: The Neutral Point of Violation claim that Asterixf2 continues to revert and censor. --Vami IV (talk) 15:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC) Non Nobus

• No violation Users are generally free to clear notices from their own talk page, filers should then assume they have read and understood them. This is a personal attack against Asterixf2 (albeit a mild one that I wouldn't sanction for). In short, you are causing a Category 5 hurricane in an industrial-sized tea urn. Ritchie333 15:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Personal attacks and vandalism by Vami IV

• I am sorry that you are disturbed Vami IV, but please avoid personal attacks such as the one here . --Asterixf2 (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
• Please also avoid vandalism such as here: which was also repeated. --Asterixf2 (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

My advice : listen to this (best done with all the lights turned off and a few candles burning, it's truly terrifying, especially when accompanied by the crackle of the original vinyl) and wait until the intended improvements to the article have been made. It's not a GA, let alone an FA (it's one of those I would have expected Eric Corbett to have got through FAC years ago, but seemingly not) so there is room for improvement. Ritchie333 15:59, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

References

1. the notice for this, where he reverts every edit I make to the section in order to censor me under the guise of "reverting vandalism"

User:Vjmlhds reported by User:Electricburst1996 (Result: Two editors warned)

Page

Template:KidsTVBlocksUSA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:05, 26 October 2016 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 745568501 by Vjmlhds (talk): No - not needed...why single out Litton, when there are so many other production companies? (TW)"
2. 01:35, 27 October 2016 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 746292479 by Vjmlhds (talk): Drop the attitude - it's easier to list by network than producer. (TW)"
3. 18:20, 27 October 2016 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 746377205 by Vjmlhds (talk): The network is what counts, not the distributor. (TW)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• Litton subgrouping 14:15, 26 October 2016

Comments:

Ongoing edit war between this user and Spshu. Resolution initiative was attempted over at template's talk page, but neither party is agreeing with each other. ElectricBurst_(Zaps) 19:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• Result: User:Vjmlhds and User:Spshu are warned for edit warring. Per this comment on his talk page Vmjlhds has agreed to take a break from editing the template. EdJohnston (talk) 00:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

That break is meaningless as he already put his version back in place. He was also warned about abusing Twinkle in not initially giving any sort of meaningful edit summary. Spshu (talk) 14:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Spshu Nice try...a simple look at the revision history will show I made my last edit to the template at 2:20 p.m. Eastern time. The warning then came at 3:50 p.m. Eastern time (which can be found on my talk page). I haven't touched the template since the warning was put in place. Vjmlhds (talk) 17:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

You are confusing two issue the twinkle abuse warning thus proved my point. You don't need to edit the template since it is in the form that you want it in instead of stopping for the discussion of BRD.

• Litton subgrouping 14:15, 26 October 2016 (discussion started)
• Vjmlhds informed of discussion 12:57, 27 October 2016
• Vjmlhds template 4th edit 18:20, 27 October 2016
• "I'm done with the template" 00:44, 28 October 2016

So, the whole backing off editing the template is a falsehood, since you already did. You are done with the template since you have your way. Second, it doesn't matter when the edit warning notice was put into place it is whether or not you exceed 3RR, which you have. The discussion was up for nearly a day and a half. Thus you should have been discussing not reverting. Spshu (talk) 17:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Spshu You're grasping for straws - I never exceeded 3RR (3 reverts in 24 hours), and the fact you just now are talking about 3RR and Twinkle means that you are just trying to pull something out of the air to gripe about something. Looks like a case of sour grapes on your part because you can't revert the template back to your version without a block breathing down your neck. Vjmlhds (talk) 17:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

←Not grasping for straws. I just showed that your statement of being "done with the template" should not be taken seriously to get you off the hook since the template is currently your preferred version thus meaningless. Spshu (talk) 17:57, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Spshu reported by User:Electricburst1996 (Result: Two editors warned)

Page

Template:KidsTVBlocksUSA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 745568501 by Vjmlhds yes grouping needed as Litton syndicates those blocks to those net affil."
2. 14:10, 26 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 746292479 by Vjmlhds since you don't know what is going on then don't edit"
3. 12:27, 27 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 746377205 by Vjmlhds see talk page Litton is not just a producer put the distributor/syndicator, you still have not look into the matter"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Ongoing edit war between this user and Vjmlhds. Resolution initiative was started over on template's talk page, but neither party seems to agree with each other. ElectricBurst_(Zaps) 19:53, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• Result: Vjmlhds and Spshu are both warned per a report just above. EdJohnston (talk) 00:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Looming Edit War with User:Factdefender

WP:EW on the horizon with User:Factdefender (again) for the page David Packouz. User only edits this page, consistently ignores evidence and Wiki guidelines, was previously in violation of the 3RR on this page after warning, did not do a second-chance grace 4th revert after request, and has minimal engagement on any talk page. Sole contributions smack of violation of WP:YOURSELF, COI, and lack of understanding of WP:BLP/H. Want to resolve this before it gets out of hand. --FuzzyGopher (talk) 22:18, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

User:FuzzyGopher Ignores valid source and appears intent on writing this page in a negative light violating neutral tone. Requesting a third party to edit this page. User:FuzzyGopher should refrain from editing this page due to consistently editing with a biased tone. Factdefender (talk) 22:37, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Keith-264 reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: )

Page: Infantry tank (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Keith-264 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Any history of WWII British tanks will involve some of the major references on the subject, two of which, from one of the major authors, are:

• Fletcher, David (1989). The Great Tank Scandal: British Armour in the Second World War - Part 1. HMSO. ISBN 978-0-11-290460-1.
• —— (1989). Universal Tank: British Armour in the Second World War - Part 2. HMSO. ISBN 0-11-290534-X.

These are widely cited, and frequently rather messily. To clean this up, tonight I started by creating citation templates for them:

• {{Book-Fletcher-Great Tank Scandal}}
• {{Book-Fletcher-Universal Tank}}

I then proceeded with (so far) around 100 edits across a few dozen articles, mostly to make the cites linked to the refs. As Fletcher is a prolific author and sometimes has four different works cited in the same article, this linkage is valuable. Too many of these articles have cites of "Fletcher, p 99" and it is going to be an awkward job to finally sort them out.

There is no task on WP so trivial though that someone won't take offence at it. Tonight's was Keith-264 and WP:OWNership of his article at Infantry tank. This descended immediately into abuse, with my edits being described as "retrograde", followed with "ignoramus" and "a fool". See User talk:Keith-264#.22Retrograde edits.22 and Talk:Infantry tank#Citations I was accused of somehow having lost the page numbers in the citations - in fact they've never had page numbers, until I started adding them tonight. In fact Keith managed to break the citation to ref linkage, persisted in using incorrect publication years for these books, and also insisted on describing them as "1993a" and "1993b" (they're from 1989), when they're actually two books hardly known as a two volume set and almost universally referred to by their different titles.

This is a change to citation formats and as such I'm prepared to discuss changes, as is a requirement upon us all. I would contend though that these are good changes, clearer for both readers and editors. I am not though prepared to be repeatedly abused for it, by someone with a very clear OWN problem, who then edit wars to push things back the way they insist, even over someone who's adding the very page numbers they've just demanded. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment. At its heart, this is a format dispute that doesn't belong here yet. I think Andy needs to get consensus for his new templates before he sticks them into any new articles, and I suspect that such consensus would be difficult to obtain. It sounds in the failed {{Cite doi}} experiment of a couple years ago: it's another level of indirection that seems like a good idea but often gets in the way. Consistency in the refs can be handled more generally by bots. Andy's solution also does not default to the standard |ref=harv format but a less common one. There are also CS1/CS2 issues. I'm sympathetic to Keith-264's position even though I clashed with Keith on something else recently. In any event, I don't think the format debate is appropriate for this noticeboard. Glrx (talk) 23:22, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

|ref=harv doesn't work well, or readably, for two books published in the same year, by the same author, and so closely inter-cited within the same article. If someone has better solutions to that, then I'm all ears (and with a single template it's easier to change this stuff). Articles referenced like this or this though are not where we want to be. This is a real problem and it wants sorting.

This is the ANEW page though. Whatever discussions are to be had about handling refs, this post is about abuse and edit-warring. How are we even supposed to begin a discussion working under such conditions? And this is far from the first time for Keith-264 on these articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:31, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

The solution for multiple works by the same author in the same year is to append a letter to the year. The CS1/CS2 template accept those suffixes in their date checking:

* Smith, John (1937a). Title X. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

* Smith, John (1937b). Title Y. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

The Harvard references work fine, too: Smith (1937a) and Smith (1937b)

BTW, changing the reference format or the templates on a page is generally frowned upon: WP:CITEVAR.

Glrx (talk) 23:41, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Andy's right that I rv'd once too often and for that I apologise. I offered a discussion on the talk page which crossed with his complaint on my talk page and a thank-you from a third party. I felt justified in changing to sfns (the only ones I'm really good at) because the article had a references banner from 2009, which I took to mean that seven years had passed without an editor taking an interest. When I revised the references that were already there, the Fletcher books showed a 1993 publication and a 1993 edition which corresponded to the isbn numbers (which I also consolidated to isbn13s as I found that this was Wiki; I've been changing isbn10s as I go). My comments to Andy on my talk page were a retort to his and couched in a similar vein, which I hope is at an end. I'm always available for constructive criticism. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:01, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

You've now warred the cites to be "Fletcher 1993" and "Fletcher 1993a" for what are respectively "Fletcher (1989, Part 1)" and "Fletcher (1989, Part 2)". That is, they now have the wrong year on them and they are also in the wrong order. Or is this some sort of regnal numbering? For two books which are well-known by name, but not by their volume numbers. In what way is this an "obviously objectively better presentation", such that it justifies abuse and edit-warring? This is not a question of them being merely different, it is about them previously, and again now, being misleading (if not simply wrong).

Yes, I can understand that you might not like a change in technical invisible formatting. Personally I don't quibble that if it makes no visible difference to the reader. You are making visible changes though, and they are not good ones. A cite to "Fletcher, Universal Tank" makes a sense to the reader that "Fletcher, 1993a" does not. Especially not when it's to the second book. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Andy, I understand that you are trying to improve what you see as a sub optimal citation and while I can see that Keith reverted several times, from what I can see your own actions breach the WP:BRD policy. For instance, when you made your bold change (which is fine per policy), Keith reverted you (which is also fine per policy). At that point, you then reverted him (which is not fine per policy). The correct response from you to Keith's original revert was for you to explain your change on the talk page, and establish consensus for it. Thus, frankly I would suggest that this be chalked up to experience and everyone moves on from it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:32, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Henocksey reported by User:Haploidavey (Result: )

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:56, 28 October 2016 (UTC) "political propoganda inciting ethnic violence, banned under rules of the current ethiopian state of emergency. Will bring back when state of emergency ends in six months"
2. 17:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC) "political propoganda inciting ethnic violence. Banned under rules of current Ethiopian state of emergency. can bring back info after six months when state of emergency ends."
3. 17:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC) ""
4. 17:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC) "reason explained previously"
5. 16:58, 28 October 2016 (UTC) "I removed this paragarph and others like it because this[REDACTED] page on Ethiopia should be free from any political propoganda peddled by groups inciting violence in my country."
6. Consecutive edits made from 16:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC) to 16:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
   1. 16:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC) "removed information"
   2. 16:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC) "removed paragraphs"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Ethiopia. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Too many attempts to list here. User has been repeatedly invited to discuss on talk-page, per BRD but has not attempted to engage other than in edit summaries (listed above) and reversion Haploidavey (talk) 17:59, 28 October 2016 (UTC)