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 22:32, 30 September 2015 editSNUGGUMS (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers121,115 edits OneClickArchiver archived User:165.112.97.73 reported by User:Doniago (Result: Blocked 24 hours) to [[Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive295#User:165.112.97.73 reported by User:Doniago (...← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 22:24, 5 January 2025 edit undoFylindfotberserk (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers166,246 edits +
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{Short description\|Noticeboard for edit warring}}
	__NEWSECTIONLINK__{{no admin backlog}}
	<noinclude>{{pp~~-move-indef~~}}{{/Header}}]		<!--Adds protection template automatically if semi-protected--><noinclude>{{#if:{{PROTECTIONLEVEL:edit}}\|{{pp\|small=yes}}}}__NEWSECTIONLINK__{{no admin backlog}}{{/Header}}] ]
			{{pp-move\|small=yes}}
	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
	\|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}		\|archiveheader = {{Administrators' noticeboard navbox all}}
	\|maxarchivesize = 250K		\|maxarchivesize = 250K
	\|counter = ~~295~~		\|counter = 490
	\|algo = old(~~48h~~)		\|algo = old(2d)
			\|key = 0a3bba89e703569428f2aab1add75bd7d7d1583d2d1f397783aee23fda62b06f
	\|key = c95548204df2d271954945f82c43354a
	\|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. -->

			== ], IP 2a01:4b00:b90c:6700:* reported by ] (Result: Blocked from article for a week) ==
	NOTE: THE BOTTOM IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. -->

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|French mother sauces}} <br />
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 24 hours for BLP violations) ==
			'''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\|Ahmed Mohamed clock incident}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Elduderino}}

			'''Previous version reverted to (IP):''' ]
	<!-- 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. -->

			'''Diffs of Hippo43's reverts:'''
	Previous version reverted to:
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]
			# ]

			'''Diffs of IP's reverts:'''
	<!-- 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. -->
			# ] (probably same IP)
	Diffs of the user's reverts:
			# ]
	#
			# ]
	#
			# ]
	#
	#

			There are a few more, just look at which is nothing but 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:

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' ] (IP), ] (Hippo43, the IP warned them)
	<!-- 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 attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' ], discussion is still on talk at ]
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to Hippo43's talk page:''' ]
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	Please see also ] thread at ].

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to IP's talk page:''' ], ]
	Thank you, — ''']''' (]) 21:51, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
	:Note that ] also applies here. — ''']''' (]) 21:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	*As far as I can tell from the timestamps, there has been no edit warring by Elduderino ''after'' being given his first warning about edit warring, so I'm not inclined to block. But this is independent confirmation that you ({{ping\|Elduderino}}) were edit warring, contrary to ], and if it happens again you will be blocked. Gain consensus on the article talk page before making that change again. --] (]) 22:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
			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)
	**Blocked 24 hours by NuclearWarfare. — ''']''' (]) 22:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
	***Yeah, that's what happens when I type slowly I guess. We generally require a ~~warning~~ ~~before~~ ~~blocking~~, ~~but~~ ~~maybe~~ ~~I missed one on some other page~~. --] (]) 22:07, 28 ~~September~~ ~~2015~~ (UTC)		:{{AN3\|b\|one week}} Both editors, from the article. ] (]) 05:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	****User has multiple warnings on their talk page. But the block log shows for violations of ], not just the edit warring. — ''']''' (]) 22:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
	****{{editconflict}} I blocked for the BLP violation, not for the 3RR. There was a BLP discretionary sanctions notification on the talk page, as well as Cwobeel's edit warring notification given after their last edit to the article. I took as an indication that the user intended to continue implementing their BLP-violating at some point in the future, even if it wasn't in the next 3RR period. If another administrator wants to unblock that is fine, but I would rather force a discussion at this stage. '''<font color="navy">]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 22:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
	*****That's fine; unlike the edit warring warning, the BLP warning did come a few minutes before their final edit to the page. I certainly don't feel strongly enough about it to contest it on their behalf. --] (]) 22:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
	******Thank you both for the attention to this matter. More eyes are needed at ] thread at ]. The entire article needs its sources looked over one-by-one and make sure that any that fail ] be removed. Thank you, — ''']''' (]) 22:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: no ~~action~~ / ~~stale~~ ) ==		== ] reported by ] (Result: Reporting editor blocked 48 hours) ==

	;Page: {{pagelinks\|~~Guatemalan Revolution~~}}		'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Crunchyroll}} <br />
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|~~Sigehelmus~~}}		'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|GachaDog}}

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

	;Diffs of the user's reverts:		'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
			# "We don’t need an owners field to put bigger companies as the owner"
	# {{diff2\|683017435\|15:55, 27 September 2015 (UTC)}} "adding npov, ref, fixing grammar, etc"
			#
	# {{diff2\|683055661\|20:57, 27 September 2015 (UTC)}} "changed a word, added a synonym, removed a needless replacement term, added a reference. That's it....what exactly is wrong here?"
			#
	# {{diff2\|683079670\|00:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)}} "You seem to imply that changing one half of a sentence was worth a multiple-day discussion for an entire NPOV label. You should start the discussion the next time, I'm standing by my changes. This violates nothing!"
			#
	# {{diff2\|683166462\|15:49, 28 September 2015 (UTC)}} "added back in democratic, I see the issue; I don't count this as a revert, pls correct me tho if wrong"
			# "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"

	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
	# {{diff2\|683101739\|04:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)}} ""
	# {{diff2\|683178415\|17:29, 28 September 2015 (UTC)}} "/* September 2015 */"

	;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
	# {{diff2\|683185202\|18:21, 28 September 2015 (UTC)}} "/* Possible bias/lack of WP:NPOV */ will you please discuss this?"

	;<u>Comments:</u>

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	Continued and pointed refusal to discuss these edits, despite multiple invitations to do so, and multiple warnings about edit-warring. Despite this, I the editor to self-revert, which they have declined to do. ] (]) 23:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
	:You know the only reason I didn't report you first for your insistence on red tape and refusal o cooperate or ] was out of the Christian kindness in my heart. Why can't you be more like that Australian guy? Chill out.--<small style="font-size:85%;">] ]</small> 14:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
	::Note: User has ; as of now no action is necessary. It was late in coming, but ] might be appropriate. ] (]) 20:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
	:::Notice how you're the only one who cares and is riding off bureaucratic red tape abuse, whilst the nice Australian fellow actually cared about improving the community. You're the one hanging yourself.--<small style="font-size:85%;">] ]</small> 20:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
	No action taken for now. Was also considering a block for the personal attack in the edit summary. Sigehelmus is to treat this as a warning. — Martin <small>(] · ])</small> 16:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: blocked 24 hours) ==

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Sur Baher}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Debresser}}

			<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)
	<!-- 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. -->

			: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)
	Previous version reverted to:
			::{{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)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 3 months) ==
	<!-- 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:
	# : Change heading from "1967-present: Israeli occupation" to "1967-present: Israeli control"
	# : Change heading from "1967-present: Israeli occupation" to "1967-present: Israeli control"

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Khulna Division}}

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|76.68.24.171}}
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: see: ]

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	<!-- 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:

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
			#
			#
			#
			#

	Article is under 1RR, ] (]) 23:04, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	=== Reaction by Debresser ===

			'''Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page:'''
	: I have know Huldra for a while already. He makes very good edits in general, but he also has a clear POV, and that is fine with me, as long as he doesn't disturb this project with his POV. The problem is, that he is also a belligerent editor, who has taken to pick on me, and because a few other editors with the same POV regarding the PI conflict work together, he thinks he can get away with it. I would like a clear message to be sent to Huldra, that the community will not stand for ignoring talkpage consensus and disruptive behavior, and will not allow him to "take over" a whole bunch of article.

			<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)
	: My second edit was at best a very partial revert, which came to restore a consensus version. I would like to point out to the admins here that the question whether that header should say "occupation" or "control" was discussed at <u>considerable</u> length at ], and that Huldra himself took an active part in that discussion. Coming back after half a year and disturb that consensus is a blatant ] edit, and per the ] Huldra should not even be able to report me here. The least I propose is a ] warning to Huldra to this effect.
			*Blocked 3 months for block evasion.--] (]) 14:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
			*:@],
			*: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) ==
	: Please also see ] where Huldra posted an a friendly (unknown to me) talkpage stalker replied to him that I do have a point, and that Huldra should continue discussing this. To which Huldra's only reply was that he doesn't believe in discussion with me, with the explicitly stated reason that he is been unable in the past to convince me!! The fact is that Huldra has on many occasions been able to convince me, but not always, i.e. when he is wrong. It is not me who refuses to discuss with him, but he with me (see first line in edit, for example).

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Paul Pelosi}}
	: I ask to view my edit in light of the above, that Huldra knowingly ignored a consensus, and displays blatant disruptive behavior, including a refusal to discuss with me, and warn Huldra accordingly. ] (]) 10:31, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
	::There is a 1RR in place across the topic area. All of us have to abide by it, including you. You could still self-revert and there would be no problem. And you are misrepresenting a consensus on the issue. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 15:24, 29 September 2015 (UTC)</small>
	::: Your point of view is as usual, and your support for Huldra as well. Which per Huldra's argument at ] means your opinion doesn;t count. :)
	::: The consensus on the issue is clear, see my latest post on the article talkpage: ].
	::: An editor who willfully ignores consensus is a disruptive editor, and not much better than a vandal. Why would Huldra be allowed to do this, and I am not allowed to revert one word of a whole edit? If I am to be punished for changing one word (and I do find it hard to call that a "revert"), then I insist Huldra be punished for willfully making a disruptive edit in blatant disregard of consensus that she herself (I remembered the gender just in time, after I already started to write "he himself") was part of establishing. ] (]) 20:42, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
	::::(e/c) I am the "friendly talk page stalker" (unknown to you because we have never extensively interacted) referred to above. I have been on the sidelines for years, and am known to a few well-respected editors in I/P, on either POV. ], please self-revert. Let us get back to doing real substantive work and get off this wretched board. I think you made some interesting comments, some quite persuasive and should be discussed further ''away from here''. This is not a game of tennis, no one is winning "points". Please show some grace here. It would go a long way. Regards, Simon. ] (]) 20:57, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
	:::::This looks to be a 1RR violation, based on the two diffs submitted above. I propose a 48-hour block if the editor won't self-revert. If Debresser considers changing 'occupation' to 'control' to not be a revert then he is an optimist. For him to perceive a consensus on Talk for the word 'control' in that heading then he is even more optimistic. ] (]) 21:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
	::::::IMO, this
	::::::*A) is a clear 1 RR-violation
	::::::*B) Debresser has made it absolutely that they have no intention to self-revert, even when asked to do so by multiple editors (Irondome, Nishidani (on my talk-page), myself and Nableezy)
	::::::*C) If he is not blocked for this, then that means that the 1 RR rule is not valid for Debresser, and that he can "impose" a consensus", by breaking the rules and edit-warring.
	::::::*(Besides the above, I also note that Debresser also here insists on calling me "male", even after being told not to do so ],) --] (]) 12:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
	:::::::: EdJohnston, the fact is that "control" was the word that stuck after that long discussion. Huldra was part of that discussion. If so, his change of that word after half a year is a deliberate disruption. Why do you ignore that?
	:::::::: EdJohnston, I undid one word from a whole edit . Is that worth all the talk about a 1RR violation?
	:::::::: I think that all this talk about a block is out of proportion in view of the deliberate disruptiveness of Huldra's edit, and that my revert to the previous consensus version regarding this heading, was the best call. In addition, it is already after 24 hours, so if you want, please consider as though I undid my edit and then re-did it after 24 hours. If anybody wants me to waste Wikimedia resources and do that, I am willing to do so. ] (]) 12:15, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
	:Dovid. This is becoming a cognitive/behavior problem. This is the 4th time I can remember you breaking 1R with impunity, because editors like myself you regard as part of a 'cabal' (see above) have refrained from reporting you
	:My last notice was concerning . I waited a full week because of Rosh HaShanah, then the Sabbath. You refused in the end to budge. Here again, the prelude to this report was advice away from admin eyes, on personal pages, quietly telling you just to revert. No threats. Again, for the second time this month, you just ignored this collegial informal courtesy.
	:I told Simon I wouldn't comment here, but given this stubbornness in the face of advice from all sides, done in a quiet collegial spirit of nudging, for a practice of violating 1R repeatedly, I'm breaking my undertaking because you appear to think this is about bluffing, and not a matter of simply sticking to rules the rest of us stick to. You might have not noticed but, in part due to Simon's good offices, editors here have been trying recently to lower the temperature and rid this area of the ] repute it has long, unfortunately, had.

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|138.88.222.231}}
	:I'd remind you that being right is no excuse. at AE, most admins were minded to hand out a week sanction to me. I stubbornly refused to revert. I considered it a matter of honour since, unlike this case, I would have been obliged to restore a falsehood. ''Correctly'' Seraphimblade imposed a 1 month sanction. Truth is not the issue, but rule-adherence.
	:You may think Ed's mulling of a 48 hour sanction neither here nor there, and 'wearable' on a point of honour. But you are making even that more complicated. --] told you yesterday re your persistence in calling Huldra a man, that ] violation" ''if it continues''.] What's your answer this morning? To write defiantly:'Huldra was part of that discussion. If so, '''his''' change of that word. . .' In refusing to revert, and persisting in an uncompromising defiance of friendly warnings, you give all the appearance of wanting to call someone's bluff. This piddling matter could have been buried quietly, and you insist on drama. So, for tetragrammaton's sake, either wake up, and do the proper thing as you have been advised to do unanimously, or bullheadedly declare that you don't give a stuff for collegial practice.] (]) 13:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
	I have blocked for 24 hours. Debresser has plenty of opportunity to revert per the suggestions here. — Martin <small>(] · ])</small> 16:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
	::Thank you for finally blocking. ]: I understand yours, and ] wish to make the I/P area less contentious/posonous. Just let me say this: giving in to the bullies, is not a good way to start. Please report every 1RR from Debresser (or anyone else!) from now on, (after they are given a chance to revert, of course.] But if he continues to edit like normal, after being told to self-revert: please don´t hesitate a minute to report him ...and block him. Seriously, haven´t we wasted ''far'' too much time on this? ] (]) 21:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Blocked 48 hours) ==

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Muhammad in Islam}}
			# {{diff2\|1267112015\|17:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Edit Citation"
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|Simpleabd}}
			# {{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:'''
	;Previous version reverted to:
			# {{diff2\|1267091206\|15:26, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Caution: Unconstructive editing on ]."
			# {{diff2\|1267110746\|17:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]."

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
			*See ]
	# {{diff2\|683225521\|23:23, 28 September 2015 (UTC)}} "ok. we add good source already."
	# {{diff2\|683146375\|12:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)}} "we add good source."
	# {{diff2\|683125286\|09:06, 28 September 2015 (UTC)}} "i already messaged you. you are making mistake already."
	# {{diff2\|683125047\|09:03, 28 September 2015 (UTC)}} "the source and information is clean. kindly do not make it complicated."
	# {{diff2\|683124224\|08:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)}} "kindly check the source Quran 3:19. it states Islam is the only religion in the sight of ALLAH. Quran 2:285, ALLAH is make no distinction to any of His messengers."

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

			EW with IDHT and copyvios. – ] (]) 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). <small><sub>''signed'', </sub></small>] (]) 18:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
	;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
			*{{AN3\|ab}} ] (]) 03:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

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

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Wounded Knee Massacre}}
	;<u>Comments:</u>

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|GreenMeansGo}}
	The user as notified by User:Materialscientist about his unconstructive edit and was asked by User:AstroLynx to discuss his controversial changes on talk first . Instead, he keeps edit warring. -]] 04:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	:Please see the history of article, he is continuously changing the sourced information. -]] 05:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|b\|48 hours}} Edit warring on multiple article with multiple editors. ] <sup>]</sup> 12:58, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Semi, Warnings) ==
			#
			#
			#
			#
			#

			'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Demographics of Tunisia}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Tounsimentounes}}

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	<!-- 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. -->

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


			<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>
	<!-- 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. -->
			* 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)
	Diffs of the user's reverts:
	#
	#
	#
	# (This last one is rather dubious for reasons discussed below)

			: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)
	<!-- 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 -->
			: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)
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
			:: 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)
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
			:::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) ==
	<!-- 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:
	and on the user's talk page under

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Ponnunjal (film)}}
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Tamilfilmsbuff}}
	I am not sure this is a 3RR violation, because the 41.x IP seems likely to be the same person who recently necessitated page semi-protection on ] - the edit summaries and nature of the edits are suggestive to me that that is the case. If so, perhaps the 4th revert is justified as reverting a persistently disruptive editor - indeed, one I also reverted.

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	If it _is_ a 3RR violation, of course, that also means I'm up to 3 reverts from 15:07 GMT on the 28th September onwards, so if that necessitates action, so be it.

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	Like last time I was here, for all I know {{u\|Tounsimentounes}} is _right_, but I'm not getting anywhere on having them produce sources to demonstrate it. ] (]) 06:52, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
			# {{diff\|oldid=1262246919\|diff=1267230449\|label=Consecutive edits made from 05:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC) to 05:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}}
	*'''Result:''' Semiprotected one month. ] and ] are both at three reverts and are '''warned''' not to continue. Tounsimentounes stated on Talk: ''"We had already approved of that on the "Religion en Tunisie" French page, so we started cleaning the errors on the other language's pages"'' This doesn't excuse you from persuading editors here that your changes are an improvement. ] (]) 03:51, 30 September 2015 (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 edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	== ] reported by ] (Result: Page protected) ==

	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|EA Sports UFC}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|AdrianGamer}}

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	<!-- 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:

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	<!-- 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:
	#
	#
	#
	#

			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)
	<!-- 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 -->
			:{{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)
	<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. -->
	Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

			== ] reported by ] (Result: Warned user(s)) ==
	<!-- 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:

			'''Page:''' ]
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
	* I have tried to communicate with all the involved editors and I heard no response from them. Adding ] is definitely not acceptable. What I did is to simply revert them, as adding GAMECRUFT can be considered as . I did not break the 3RR Rule. I revert you within a 48-hour period. ] (]) 16:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
	<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ -->
	] it is not a valid reason to remove content. Removing valid content is vandalism. --] (]) 16:13, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
	:: Except that you were reverted by at least three editors for adding content that adds nothing to the article and which can be considered ] so you are the one going against policy. And anyone who looks at the article history can see that you are the one edit warring.--] (]) 16:34, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
	:: It is not valid content. It's inappropriate per guidelines that are already established. If you want to re-add it then you need to open a discussion about why this case is exempt from the guidelines. --] (]) 18:54, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|p}} There's a few IP's that sound the same at the article... ] <sup>]</sup> 21:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

	~~== ]~~ reported by ] ~~(Result: Indefinitely blocked) ==~~		'''User being reported:''' ]

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|The Naked Communist}} <br />
			#
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Hawljo}}
			#
			#

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' , the whole section
	<!-- 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. -->

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


			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	<!-- 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:
	#
	#
	#
	#
	#

			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.
	<!-- 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:
	Also this warning, for a separate article:

			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.
	<!-- 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 -->
			*{{AN3\|w}} No 3RR violation and user was warned of the 1RR restriction after their last edit. ] ] 07:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: - not article Talk page, but mine, where I recommended taking this persistent edit to the article Talk page

			== ] reported by ] (Result: No violation) ==
	<u>Comments:</u> <br />
	Newly created account, edit warring on at least two articles, no engagement on any Talk page, persisting beyond warnings. ] (]) 22:43, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
	:Also at or beyond 3RR at and . ] (]) 22:46, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
	*{{AN3\|n}}. I've indefinitely blocked the user as ].--] (]) 23:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Talk:Subcompact crossover SUV}} <br/>
	== ] reported by ] (Result: no action) ==
			'''Previous version:''' <br/>
			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
			#
			'''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: Withdrawn) ==
	'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Uniformitarianism}} <br />
	'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Hal2k1}}

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Zionism}} <br />
	<!-- 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. -->
			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|إيان}}

	Previous version reverted to: ~~"Uniformitarianism is the assumption that~~ ..."		'''Previous version reverted to:'''

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	<!-- 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. -->
			*Note: ] is active on this page.
	Diffs of the user's reverts:
			# (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)

	~~# 14:14, 26 September 2015‎~~ ~~''"Uniformitarianism is claimed to be an assumption~~ that ...~~"''~~		See ,
	# 23:36, 26 September 2015 ''"Uniformitarianism is the principle, claimed by some to be an assumption, that ..."''
	# 10:23, 27 September 2015‎ ''"Uniformitarianism is the principle or assumption that ..."''
	# 11:06, 27 September 2015‎ ''"Uniformitarianism is the principle or assumption that ..."''

			'''Diff 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: https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Hal2k1#Notice_of_Edit_warring_noticeboard_discussion

			'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' ]
	<!-- 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: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Uniformitarianism#HELP.21.21.21.21_Page_has_been_sabotaged_-_Once_again.2C_.22Uniformitarianism.22_is_not_an_assumption

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

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br />
	Please be advised that this account was created with the sole purpose of using the 3RR noticeboard and hopefully settling this dispute. I have been posting as the IP in the attempt at dispute resolution linked above. I'm unsure whether or not this would count as a 3RR violation (the warning was issued after the final edit, and I am also at the third revert, meaning that I am also at least due a warning, if not more) but there is quite a lengthy dispute surrounding it for which I have asked administrator intervention.

			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)
	Since around March of this year, ], first under an IP, then with a registered account, began attempting to add original research (stating conclusions from sources that are not stated by the sources themselves) to the article that directly contradict the reliable sources. Though corrected several times by other editors since then, he continuously re-introduces his edits, insisting that the reliable sources are "wrong" and refuses to acknowledge that his edits constitute original research despite explanations and warnings from at least two other editors.

			:@] 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)
	The diffs listed above have been part of an attempt to obfuscate the meaning of the opening sentence, which describes uniformitarianism as an "assumption" in accordance with the reliable source underpinning it. ] believes that this contradicts his original research and should be removed from the article.
			::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)
	] (]) 12:35, 30 September 2015 (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? ''']'''<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)
	*{{AN3\|n}}. I've semi-protected the article for one month to at a minimum reduce the disruption from accounts who are not logging in. Another administrator is free to take more focused action against a particular editor.--] (]) 14:19, 30 September 2015 (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.
	::Re. Your semi-protected notice, I think it should be clarified that I have been posting and editing under the 217.x IP. It is a dynamic public IP which I have no control over, so not an attempt at sockpuppetry.] (]) 14:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
			: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)
	{{an3\|s}} The report was stale even at the time of posting. I see the editor has now taken to writing huge walls of text so hopefully the edit warring is now over. — Martin <small>(] · ])</small> 17:02, 30 September 2015 (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)
			:::Okay, if I see correctly, this complaint is mostly about formalities. I can do this too. Where was the reported user formally notified about the contentious topic restrictions in this area? ] (]) 05:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			::::Huh. Guess if he hasn't. This can be closed then. I'll notify him now.
			::::<s>He was in 2021: </s> Nvm, that's another area. He was warned in 2021 for unrelated area. I'll withdraw this report since user was never warned of A-I sanctions that I can tell. That is my mistake. I've seen him around this area a lot but apparently, nobody ever warned him. Have now done so. ''']'''<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> 05:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

	== ] reported by ] (Result: ~~blocked~~ ~~then~~ ~~unblocked~~) ==		== ] reported by ] (Result: Warned; indefinitely blocked) ==

	;Page: {{pagelinks\|~~Turkey~~}}		'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Shahada}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|Heimdallr of Æsir}}

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Zyn225}}
	;Previous version reverted to:

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# ] "(I used to consider myself a Hellenophile (listening to Dalaras, etc.) but thanks to Greeks like Dr.K and Athenean, I can't help but wish for the complete economic collapse and starvation of Greece.)"
	# {{diff\|oldid=683462163\|diff=683473103\|label=Consecutive edits made from 13:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC) to 14:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)}}
	## {{diff2\|683467633\|13:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)}} "Adding the original link, which is given as the source of this map in Wikimedia Commons: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/kurdish_lands_92.jpg"
	## {{diff2\|683473103\|14:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)}} "I checked out the Talk page and there is obviously no consensus at all. Unlike the situation in Iraq and Iran, there is no regional district or subdivision named "Kurdistan" in Turkey. Also, the map is from 1992 and therefore obsolete."
	# {{diff2\|683427626\|06:43, 30 September 2015 (UTC)}} "Those are two different, separate sources. The precise definition in the original CIA map is "Kurdish-inhabited area". Changing this definition amounts to "POV", while combining separate sources to reach a new result amounts to "original research"."
	# {{diff2\|683308221\|13:47, 29 September 2015 (UTC)}} "This is what the original CIA source says. Stop POV pushing: https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Kurdish-inhabited_area_by_CIA_(1992).jpg"
	# {{diff2\|683295820\|11:38, 29 September 2015 (UTC)}} "The CIA map says "Kurdish-inhabited areas", not "Kurdish-majority areas": https://commons.wikimedia.org/File:Kurdish-inhabited_area_by_CIA_(1992).jpg"

	;Diffs of ~~edit~~ ~~warring~~ ~~/ 3RR warning~~:		'''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:'''
			# {{diff2\|1267343727\|18:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Disruptive editing."
			# {{diff2\|1267343865\|18:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Final warning notice on ]."

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


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

			Single purpose account, does not grasp ] ]. ] 18:20, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	Obvious sock of {{vandal\|Lord of Rivendell}}. Will not stop relentless edit-warring. Edit-warring MO identical to other socks. Has been blocked for edit-warring recently. ] <small><sup style="position:relative">]<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.5ex;*left:-5.5ex">]</span></sup></small> 14:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
	:Note that there's actually a two-week-old SPI on this user still active at ]. --] (]) 15:51, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
	:Was blocked then unblocked by {{ul\|Black Kite}}. This is also being discussed at ]. Suggest we close this discussion. — Martin <small>(] · ])</small> 17:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

			:I understand I should have discussed this but I can't seem to find the discussion page.
	== ] reported by ] (Result: blocked) ==
			: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) ==
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Narcos}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|Signedzzz}}

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|2017–2019 Saudi Arabian purge}}
	;Previous version reverted to:

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Jabust}}
	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
	# {{diff2\|683508974\|18:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 683508500 by ] (])"it's an issue of undue weight to include only negative reviews". this version contains the same reviews - explain"
	# {{diff2\|683508285\|18:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 683507906 by ] (])dont be ridiculous. you made 1 cmt so far, that the reviews are all negative, which you yourself dont even believe"
	# {{diff2\|683507287\|18:42, 30 September 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 683507133 by ] (])no consensus - or discussion - for your change"
	# {{diff2\|683506272\|18:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)}} "/* Reception */ per talk"
	# {{diff2\|683214650\|21:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 683213820 by ] (])justify your edit on talk"
	# {{diff2\|683213454\|21:44, 28 September 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 683212909 by ] (])no, re-adding the source of the contradiction, and splitting RT section in 2 is clearly not an improvement. please justify this on talk"
	# {{diff2\|683212721\|21:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 683211591 by ] (])youve replaced the "positive reviews" self contradiction, moved RT because it's not "positive" enough, not an improvement"

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:
	# {{diff2\|683236055\|00:53, 29 September 2015 (UTC)}} "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on ]. (])"
	# {{diff2\|683508075\|18:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]. (])"

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
			# {{diff2\|1267352536\|19:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (]) reverted vandalism by grudge-bearing stalker"
	Ongoing discussion at ].
			# {{diff2\|1267352090\|19:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"
	;<u>Comments:</u>
			# {{diff2\|1266663622\|17:59, 1 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Undid revision ] by ] (])"

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	Signedzzz has been edit warring with myself and another user for the last couple days (there are likely more than the seven reverts provided above, but four in 20 minutes should be enough to prove the edit warring exists). There is a discussion on the talk page but I'm not honestly sure what his objection is, other than there being "no consenus" for said changes (despite the fact that two other users find the changes to be improvements). The user in question has also been blocked thrice since last November for edit warring. ''']''' 19:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1267340515\|18:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Notice: Edit warring softer wording for newcomers ]"
			# {{diff2\|1267350962\|18:58, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Notice: Edit warring stronger wording ]"
			# {{diff2\|1267352206\|19:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} "ONLY Warning: Unexplained content removal ]"
			# {{diff2\|1267352678\|19:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Final Warning: Unexplained content removal ]"

	~~:This~~ ~~user~~ ~~has~~ ~~made~~ 2 ~~comments~~ on talk:		'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
	*one in which he agrees with the other user that the reviews are all negative (and therefore the section needs rewriting) - which he doesn't believe, since his preferred version contains precisely the same reviews
	*and today, he claims to have added a positive review, which is simply untrue
	:Reverting his reverts seems to be the only way to get him to engage on article talk. Unfortunately his 2 comments there indicate that, so far at least, he is unwilling or unable to make any honest or useful comments. ] (]) 19:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
	::I've explained why I feel the version you keep reverting from is better . You haven't explained why you keep reverting to that version. ''']''' 19:26, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
	:::*You say you've explained. Which of your two comments contained the explanation, the or the ?
	:::* explained very clearly why I prefer the old, stable version. ] (]) 19:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
	:::*Did you read it? What is "The reviews selected by Rotten Tomatoes clearly make more sense in the RT section" if it's not an explanation? Why do you claim that a) the reviews were all negative and b) that you have added a positive review? These are both completely false claims. ] (]) 19:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
	:::*Now you are using a comment you only just added after filing this report, to cover up for the fact that you never attempted to explain your reverts before. ] (]) 19:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
	:::::Sorry but it's hard to take seriously any comment that opens by dismissing concerns raised by two users with the phrase "which no one believes." You should also see how other articles handle critical reception: it's not the way you think it should be. Finally, your little comment does not justify reverting four times in 20 minutes. That's the issue here and I'm done responding to your pointless queries. If you'd like to consider improving the article, great; that discussion goes on the talk page. ''']''' 19:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
	::::::*And by the way, I already , and answered, your only explanation "putting the negative review separately is better", before your belated comment just now confirming that. I shouldn't have to guess what your argument actually is, you should just state it to begin with. ] (]) 20:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
	I've blocked for a week. Calidum: it takes two to edit war and you are not blameless here. — Martin <small>(] · ])</small> 20:09, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

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

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Poppy straw}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|RajanMarwaha}}

			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)
	;Previous version 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)
	;Diffs of the user's reverts:
			*{{AN3\|b\|24 hours}} ] ] 19:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
	# {{diff2\|683502828\|18:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)}} "Opium Poppy straw can be one of several different things: ## What is left after the poppy seed harvest, so the dried stalks, stem and leaves of poppies grown for their seeds ## The dried leaves and stalk harvested after the seed pod has been used for tr"
	# {{diff\|oldid=683505997\|diff=683508758\|label=Consecutive edits made from 18:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC) to 18:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)}}
	## {{diff2\|683506768\|18:39, 30 September 2015 (UTC)}} "##What is left after the poppy seed harvest, so the dried stalks, stem and leaves of poppies grown for their seeds ## The dried leaves and stalk harvested after the seed pod has been used for traditional opium extraction ## The dried leaves, stalk a"
	## {{diff2\|683507171\|18:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)}} "##What is left after the poppy seed harvest, so the dried stalks, stem and leaves of poppies grown for their seeds ## The dried leaves and stalk harvested after the seed pod has been used for traditional opium extraction ## The dried leaves, stalk a"
	## {{diff2\|683507544\|18:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)}} "##What is left after the poppy seed harvest, so the dried stalks, stem and leaves of poppies grown for their seeds ## The dried leaves and stalk harvested after the seed pod has been used for traditional opium extraction ## The dried leaves, stalk a"
	## {{diff2\|683508758\|18:53, 30 September 2015 (UTC)}} "##What is left after the poppy seed harvest, so the dried stalks, stem and leaves of poppies grown for their seeds ## The dried leaves and stalk harvested after the seed pod has been used for traditional opium extraction ## The dried leaves, stalk a"
	# {{diff2\|683515494\|19:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)}} "Decorative Dried Flower producer/growers and wholesalers ( such as UK FLOWER POWER) based in Europe, hand pick the decorative mature seeded pods/heads with or without the stalks for use as floral decorations for visual gratification in arrangements, these"
	# {{diff2\|683517789\|19:54, 30 September 2015 (UTC)}} "Poppy straw (also poppy chaff or husk) is a by-product of the poppy seed harvest, used as seeds in food such as bread. To get poppy straw from opium poppy (Papaver Somniferum.L) the crop is harvested when fully mature and dry in the field, minus the ripe"
	# {{diff2\|683520478\|20:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)}} "Poppy straw (also poppy chaff or husk) is a by-product of the poppy seed harvest, used as seeds in food such as bread. To get poppy straw from opium poppy (Papaver Somniferum.L) the crop is harvested when fully mature and dry in the field, minus the ripe"
	# {{diff2\|683523271\|20:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)}} "Editing requested"

			== ] reported by ] (Result:48 hour block) ==
	;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|The Infernal City}}

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|2600:4040:2BC1:8C00:ACDB:1219:1BB4:76B7}}
	;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
			# https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=The_Elder_Scrolls_V:_Skyrim_%E2%80%93_Dawnguard&diff=prev&oldid=1267482274
			# https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=The_Elder_Scrolls_V:_Skyrim_%E2%80%93_Dawnguard&diff=prev&oldid=1267482193
			# https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=The_Elder_Scrolls_V:_Skyrim_%E2%80%93_Dawnguard&diff=prev&oldid=1267482158
			# https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=The_Elder_Scrolls_V:_Skyrim_%E2%80%93_Dawnguard&diff=prev&oldid=1267482128
			# https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=The_Elder_Scrolls_V:_Skyrim_%E2%80%93_Dawnguard&diff=prev&oldid=1267482079
			# https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=The_Infernal_City&diff=prev&oldid=1267481888
			# https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=The_Infernal_City&diff=prev&oldid=1267481865
			# https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=The_Infernal_City&diff=prev&oldid=1267481818
			# https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=The_Infernal_City&diff=prev&oldid=1267481665
			# https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=The_Infernal_City&diff=prev&oldid=1267480293
			# https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Adam_Adamowicz&diff=prev&oldid=1267481371
			# https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Adam_Adamowicz&diff=prev&oldid=1267481332
			# https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Adam_Adamowicz&diff=prev&oldid=1267481291
			# https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Adam_Adamowicz&diff=prev&oldid=1267480660
			# https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Adam_Adamowicz&diff=prev&oldid=1267479555
			# https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Where%27s_Waldo%3F_(video_game)&diff=prev&oldid=1267481191
			# https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Where%27s_Waldo%3F_(video_game)&diff=prev&oldid=1267481120
			# https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Julian_Lefay&diff=prev&oldid=1267480926
			# https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Julian_Lefay&diff=prev&oldid=1267480882
			# https://en.m.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Julian_Lefay&diff=prev&oldid=1267480926
			# Others (see ].)

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

	Well past 3RR ] (])(]) 20:36, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>
	*I've just given the user advice to discuss desired changes on the article talk page and to go in smaller chunks, requesting specific changes. We'll see what the user does based on that advice. —''']''' (]) 21:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

			Persistent vandalism. Remove of content. ] (]) 08:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
	== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==

			* I blocked the IP for disruptive editing. ] (]) 10:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

			== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
	;Page: {{pagelinks\|Hell in a Cell (2015)}}
	;User being reported: {{userlinks\|Lord Laitinen}}

			'''Page:''' {{pagelinks\|Bengali–Assamese script}}
	https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hell_in_a_Cell_%282015%29&type=revision&diff=683523276&oldid=683523111
	https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hell_in_a_Cell_%282015%29&type=revision&diff=683525106&oldid=683524649
	https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Hell_in_a_Cell_%282015%29&type=revision&diff=683525934&oldid=683525476
	User has clearly broken the 3RR, he's claiming that the content can't be added because it hasn't been officially announced but ] says otherwise. Also claiming that the source isn't reliable by his standards. I could easily get 5 more references that say the same exact thing, but the problem is when he undoes these edits he's also re-adding unreferenced material I removed from the page.

			'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks\|Tejoshkriyo}}
	Additionally, this was left on my talk page. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AFunkatastic&type=revision&diff=683526014&oldid=683524744
	Claiming I've been adding unsourced material, even though as you clearly can see from the sources above that I was adding sourced content and removing unsourced and inaccurate content. And he was reverting said edits meaning he was doing otherwise.] (]) 20:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

			'''Previous version reverted to:'''
	Would also like to refer to this page https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&oldid=681980048 where roughly two weeks ago I reported countless users/IP's as the page ] was under intense vandalism on the day of the event. I think it's possible one of the users that owned one/multiple of these IP's/usernames could possibly be attempting some sort of "revenge/retribution" as I reported a large amount of users. Normally I wouldn't assume this but seeing as this user is edit warring on another wrestling page I felt necessary to point it out. I've discontinued editing this page until this report is reviewed as the user showed no signs of stopping.] (]) 21:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

			'''Diffs of the user's reverts:'''
	{{AN3\|comment}} My main complaint against this user was their clear violations of ], though their source, which contained naught but speculation and events expected, but not assured to happen, was a secondary concern of mine. In summary, I am simply trying to make sure that this user does not pass off speculated events and announcements which have not yet happened as facts. I also wish to note that this edit war started with a blatant insult by ] against my editing skills in the comment section of his first revert of my correction. Thank you. <span style="font-family: Brush Script MT"><span style="color:#800080">'''Lord Laitinen''' (])</span></span> 21:07, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1267607323\|21:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}} "If you believe that my intentions are chauvinism, then you are mistaken, for the previous sentencing implies to misinform the general audience. My intention is to present what is the truth and what goes on a global scale as well as the status of the Eastern nagari -script. Bengalis are not the only ones who call this the "Bengali script", even though officially this should be called the "Eastern Nagari script". Both Bengalis and the layman global public sphere refer this as the "Bengali script"."
			# {{diff\|oldid=1267598936\|diff=1267605297\|label=Consecutive edits made from 21:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC) to 21:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}}
			## {{diff2\|1267604312\|21:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}} "The reference indeed mentions "Bengalis will refer to the script of their language exclusively as the 'Bengali script'", because certainly an ethnic group will attribute the script/alphabet they utilise as THEIRS but it still disregards on what goes internationally and how people approach this script in general; "...the name 'Bengali script' dominates the global public sphere". The point still stands within the limitation of the reference and takes this terminology on a broader scale."
			## {{diff2\|1267605024\|21:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Readded the reference but changed the sentencing of the visual page for accuracy."
			## {{diff2\|1267605297\|21:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}} "changed page number"
			# {{diff2\|1267593518\|20:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}} "It is apparent that the reference hasn't been utilised correctly. The sentence: "It is commonly referred to as the Bengali script by Bengalis" is simply incorrect, for it emphasizes that ONLY Bengalis are the one who refer this script as the "Bengali script". The reference study attached to this sentence says otherwise; "...the name 'Bengali script' dominates the global public sphere", which should tell you that not only Bengalis refer this as the "Bengali script", when non-Bengalis do it too."
			# {{diff2\|1267529376\|14:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}} ""

			'''Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:'''
	:User keeps claiming WP:Crystal was violated, despite<ref>http://www.wrestlingnewsworld.com/another-bout-announced-for-wwe-hell-in-a-cell-spoiler/</ref><ref>http://www.pwmania.com/spoilers-wwe-smackdown-taping-results-for-10115</ref><ref>http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2573757-wwe-smackdown-spoilers-complete-results-and-analysis-for-october-1</ref><ref>http://whatculture.com/wwe/wwe-spoiler-big-match-added-to-hell-in-a-cell.php</ref><ref>http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news/2015/0929/602170/spoiler-another-main-event-revealed-for-wwe-hell-in-a-cell-pay/</ref><ref>http://www.24wrestling.com/spoiler-another-hell-in-a-cell-match-announced/</ref><ref>http://www.prowrestling.net/article.php?WWE-News-New-Hell-in-a-Cell-match-announced-Smackdown-spoiler-44233</ref><ref>http://www.wrestlezone.com/news/625069-new-match-added-to-wwe-hell-in-a-cell-ppv-spoilers</ref><ref>http://www.inquisitr.com/2458973/on-upcoming-smackdown-wwe-to-announce-roman-reigns-match-for-hell-in-a-cell-card/</ref> sources all over the internet saying the same exact thing. This is clearly a spoiler and not speculation (Show is taped Tuesday and airs Thursday) ] clearly overrides ]. As for the user in question as you can see by the three edits I linked above, he reverted three of my edits (technically four because the first edit reverted two edits I made) based on his own interpretation of the guidelines and not the actual guidelines in place. ] (]) 21:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
			# {{diff2\|1267605728\|21:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on ]."

			'''Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:'''
			# {{diff2\|1267603474\|21:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* January 2024 */ new section"
			# {{diff2\|1267607080\|21:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)}} "/* January 2024 */ Reply"

			<u>'''Comments:'''</u>

			Makes changes to longstanding version to contentious topic, removes source, doesn't abide by ], keeps edit warring and even when discussion has started in the talk page. Note similar POV removal dated and also the use of minor ('''m''') in some of the edits which are not ]. ] (]) 22:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
			:Also note this POV arrangement . - ] (]) 22:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 22:24, 5 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: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: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 (Result: No violation)

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: Withdrawn)

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)

Okay, if I see correctly, this complaint is mostly about formalities. I can do this too. Where was the reported user formally notified about the contentious topic restrictions in this area? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 05:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Huh. Guess if he hasn't. This can be closed then. I'll notify him now.

~~He was in 2021:~~ Nvm, that's another area. He was warned in 2021 for unrelated area. I'll withdraw this report since user was never warned of A-I sanctions that I can tell. That is my mistake. I've seen him around this area a lot but apparently, nobody ever warned him. Have now done so. Andre🚐 05:56, 5 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)

User:2600:4040:2BC1:8C00:ACDB:1219:1BB4:76B7 reported by User:Migfab008 (Result:48 hour block)

User being reported: 2600:4040:2BC1:8C00:ACDB:1219:1BB4:76B7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Persistent vandalism. Remove of content. Migfab008 (talk) 08:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I blocked the IP for disruptive editing. PhilKnight (talk) 10:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

User:Tejoshkriyo reported by User:Fylindfotberserk (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

21:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC) "If you believe that my intentions are chauvinism, then you are mistaken, for the previous sentencing implies to misinform the general audience. My intention is to present what is the truth and what goes on a global scale as well as the status of the Eastern nagari -script. Bengalis are not the only ones who call this the "Bengali script", even though officially this should be called the "Eastern Nagari script". Both Bengalis and the layman global public sphere refer this as the "Bengali script"."
Consecutive edits made from 21:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC) to 21:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
1. 21:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC) "The reference indeed mentions "Bengalis will refer to the script of their language exclusively as the 'Bengali script'", because certainly an ethnic group will attribute the script/alphabet they utilise as THEIRS but it still disregards on what goes internationally and how people approach this script in general; "...the name 'Bengali script' dominates the global public sphere". The point still stands within the limitation of the reference and takes this terminology on a broader scale."
2. 21:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC) "Readded the reference but changed the sentencing of the visual page for accuracy."
3. 21:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC) "changed page number"
20:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC) "It is apparent that the reference hasn't been utilised correctly. The sentence: "It is commonly referred to as the Bengali script by Bengalis" is simply incorrect, for it emphasizes that ONLY Bengalis are the one who refer this script as the "Bengali script". The reference study attached to this sentence says otherwise; "...the name 'Bengali script' dominates the global public sphere", which should tell you that not only Bengalis refer this as the "Bengali script", when non-Bengalis do it too."
14:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

21:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Bengali–Assamese script."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

21:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC) "/* January 2024 */ new section"
21:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC) "/* January 2024 */ Reply"

Comments:

Makes changes to longstanding version to contentious topic, removes source, doesn't abide by WP:BRD, keeps edit warring and even when discussion has started in the talk page. Note similar POV removal dated 10 December 2023 and also the use of minor (m) in some of the edits which are not WP:MINOR. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 22:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Also note this POV arrangement . - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 22:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Categories: