Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:35, 9 September 2022

Welcome!

Hello, Coldtrack, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Misplaced Pages
• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Misplaced Pages Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Misplaced Pages. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Quis separabit? 23:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Lotfi A. Zadeh

Your edits to this article have been contested. Per WP:BRD, please get a consensus on the article's talk page before restoring them. Thank you, Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:56, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Please

Please slap me with a trout on my talk page, due to my silliness on this page. You can find it here, or on the red part of this: GermanGamer77 20:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

1RR on White Helmets

The article is under a 1RR restriction. With these edits , you've broken the one revert restriction. Please revert to the previous version (this one)

The notification for discretionary sanctions is on the talk page.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:48, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Done. But doing so reverted you in the process. Manual "undo" failed due to later contributions and I could not see clearly everything that had to be switched back and forth. --Coldtrack (talk) 19:11, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fine. Thank you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Note

A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

--NeilN 04:19, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@NeilN: I am aware of the restrictions. Have I at this time violated something of which I was unaware? --Coldtrack (talk) 04:22, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

No, but this particular discretionary sanctions area says you're not "officially" aware unless you get the above message. --NeilN 04:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Relevant information and policy

In noticed you recent edit to White Helmets (Syrian Civil War). I conducted a random revision search, and it is clear from my findings that the first sentence of the article is the status quo. Your addition of new content into said sentence may well be correct and warranted, but other editors have contested it by way of their revisions. Under normal circumstances I would encourage following the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle but as I am sure you are aware, the article is bogged down at the moment and different parties have decided to contest each-other's edits outright; it seems to be an all-or-nothing approach to edits of any side. Thus, policy dictates that we as editors conform to WP:NOCON, which outright states that content reverts to what it was before the new edits (be they adding, removing, or modifying content) were made. Such is the condition of the White Helmets article now, as I see it. I would encourage you to start talk page discussions to discuss changes to the article, though I admittedly do not know how successful this approach will be given the subject. Best of luck.--SamHolt6 (talk) 05:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

SamHolt6. I thank you for the information, can you show me the exact edit you are referring to so I can better understand the violation I committed? BTW yes I am involved in discussions but at the moment it is a "make your vote known" so there is little genuine dialogue (but there is the normal harassment of comments by some where people have voted against their viewpoint). I'll see what best I can do to fix the problem in my case. Thanks. --Coldtrack (talk) 19:35, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi Coldtrack. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Misplaced Pages:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Swarm ♠ 20:13, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Sincerest thanks! --Coldtrack (talk) 17:50, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:11, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Acknowledged. --Coldtrack (talk) 17:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Removed links to unauthorized videos on YouTube

The page on Modern Marvels had links to content on Youtube that was not authorized to be there. The videos were pirated content, the Youtube accounts were deleted, the links are no longer valid. Please undo your revision. Also, please pay more attention to your edits in the future. --William Zwicky (talk) 11:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Coldtrack. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Avers

Hi. Appreciate the random "correction" but really? "avers" instead of argues? Moreover, checking the dictionary (to my shame I must admit it's the first time I encounter this term...) it means "to state positively ", "to assert". I really don't see why you'd use such an obscure term instead of the more commonly used "argues".

Please tell me what the rationale is.

Thank you.Cealicuca (talk) 19:19, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Cealicuca, thanks for admitting you didn't know the word. I'm all for changing it if you believe it is obscure. The issue I had with "argues" is that one normally uses this word as a type of response in which case we should put the other point first - or likewise - just have something like "they say", "they state", "they claim", etc. If we can at least agree between the two of us what term to use then at we'll avoid falling into WP:LAME which sadly affects all disagreeing parties. Respond here if you like. --Coldtrack (talk) 19:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Coldtrack Yeah, I apologize for the revert, I really thought It was bogus. I am an above average non-native English speaker but... yes, I admit I've never heard of this term before. In any case, while I do understand what you're trying to underline (and the "no argument before dispute"... interesting, didn't think of it from this angle), you have me at a loss. Now that you pointed out this - I find it hard to accept "argue". Rationalize? Maintain?Cealicuca (talk) 19:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Cealicuca. Yeah I like "rationalize", nobody can find fault with it and it gives impact to a technical viewpoint. Go for it! :) --Coldtrack (talk) 19:53, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Coldtrack Thank you for a most civilized interaction, and please excuse my abrupt revert on grounds of lack of knowledge as well as recent... events regarding this article. Should you wish to contribute more to the article, you'd be more than welcome. Maybe a new voice might bring balance to the force. Cheers.Cealicuca (talk) 19:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Not a problem, and thanks for the warm responses and discussion. That is one article to which I have no background knowledge hence the reason I was reading it. But as you know, sometimes as you read, you feel the urge to hammer the "edit" button because one assumes "this word sounds better" and so on! :) Keep up your good efforts! --Coldtrack (talk) 20:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I just had a talk with a native English speaker friend and he pointed me towards the Oxford English Dictionary, saying that "avers" is quite antique, but also pointing out that "rationalize" has negative connotation :(. In the end, after having a more or less lengthy talk about it, it seems that "argues" fits best. Cealicuca (talk) 08:12, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Cealicuca. After so much discussion and having explored all options, I don't think "argues" really hurts. So let it be what it was before we both experimented. "Aver" is used a lot in legal jargon, but a glance across Misplaced Pages and in particular Google, it is definitely a living word not on its way to abandonment just yet, but as you said originally, there is an "obscure" aspect to it. Google dictionary describes "rationalize" as "attempt to explain or justify (behaviour or an attitude) with logical reasons, even if these are not appropriate.", so I can see where the slightly negative connotation comes in which we would inadvertently be accusing one party of doing. So let it remain "argues", I am fine with it. --Coldtrack (talk) 18:50, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Coldtrack. Again, I very much appreciate your rational approach. I would not insist any longer on this, but you being unfamiliar with the subject of the article would actually be an asset, since I believe that passion (among other things) is simply overwhelming any fact-based (sourced of course) debate on the associated Talk page. On the other hand, I completely understand not wanting to go head first into a hornet's nest. So... your choice obviously, but I could promise you an "exciting" experience should you wish to contribute more to the article. Cheers.Cealicuca (talk) 21:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

If I can I will, I promise! Thanks Cealicuca! :) --Coldtrack (talk) 21:24, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Additionally

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Misplaced Pages's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

While I'm glad it got resolved above, please be aware you violated the page level sanction and if you had been warned, you would be blocked now. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:35, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

DeltaQuad. Yes I'm surprised Romanian articles are classed by Misplaced Pages as Balkans as normally one thinks of this as former Yugoslavia plus Albania and maybe Greece but nothing more. Can you tell me what precisely the rule was that I violated, and where you see I violated it. This is purely for future reference so I don't fall into any traps. Thank you. --Coldtrack (talk) 23:19, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

This is not complicated. Specifically, this edit where you reverted for a second time. Don't do that on articles covered by discretionary sanctions. MPS1992 (talk) 23:32, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy to explain it. MPS1992 is right about the answer. This explains it more. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 00:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Got it, this is 1RR per day basically. Sorry to be a pain and ask, but where am I supposed to look when editing? --Coldtrack (talk) 03:30, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Yazidis

Hello. I reverted your edit on Yazidis since the dispute is whether they are an ethnic group or a Kurdish minority. --Semsûrî (talk) 07:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

I am leaving this message on your talk page as a way to say thank you for the contributions that you made on the Dimitar Apasiev article. Dikaiosyni (talk) 19:04, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Dikaiosyni, no problem. I saw you were developing the article so I thought I'd help where I could. BTW - when you removed the "uncategorised" tag, you also removed the categories in the process, please see. Thx. --Coldtrack (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Coldtrack, thank you for the heads up, I have fixed it. Dikaiosyni (talk) 19:10, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Violation of editing restrictions on White Helmets (Syrian Civil War)

The page is covered by the following rule, "Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period)", which you have violated. You should self-revert. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:03, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

1RR restriction

The article White Helmets (Syrian Civil War) is under 1RR restriction. You broke it . Please self revert. Volunteer Marek 18:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

As you now know I hold up my hands over this one. The reply came on your own talk. --Coldtrack (talk) 18:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

National Endowment for Democracy

Can I get your opinion on my recent edits there? I don't think I did anything wrong. Think maybe I should put the citations at the end each sentence instead of the paragraph I added? Seems like one admin is exerting page ownership. "Consensus" is being invokes to remove well-sourced content but keep churnalism content dependent entirely on primary sources.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 16:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

PlanespotterA320, if you are referring to this edit then yes I stand by your tags. The article is problematic but then anything representing the US government and its foreign interests is slanted heavily that way and yes admins will abuse their powers as will many other editors. I've seen it many times: policy pushed to one side as the stronger factions relies heavily on shit-talk and post hoc rationalisation to support its tendentious viewpoint. --Coldtrack (talk) 17:12, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Alexei Navalny

Welcome to Misplaced Pages.

You are on WP:3RR so you better not make another revert.

I have also reverted three times, yes, but mine is current and you've got no consensus comrade. --Free Belarus Now (talk) 18:23, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Free Belarus Now. Another western establishment lackey I see. That's the reason WP is a global failure. Are you going to comment on Talk:Alexei Navalny or not? --Coldtrack (talk) 18:25, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Re: Yugoslavia–European Communities relations

I am fine with your phrasing. Actually, as far as I am concerned the important part of the statement is that Yugoslav crisis directly influenced development of the common policy. The current phrasing (feeling of guilt etc) is just the phrasing similar to the cited reliable source.--MirkoS18 (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Mirko. I guess we have a mini-consensus now. I'm now waiting for Juicy Oranges to respond with his thoughts and not just revert to no mention of the common policy which came about as a result of the matter at hand. Judging by his editing patterns he appears "sem-retired" though that's not for me to say, either way his reply could come in the next minute or the next month. Nonetheless, you and I have reached an agreement and that's a great step. Cheers! --Coldtrack (talk) 22:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Your edit

Please explain this edit. --Ashleyyoursmile! 19:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

As on your talk page when you were posting the above. --Coldtrack (talk) 19:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Kosovo

I ask you to review your recent posts in the RfC there and strike, hat, remove, or otherwise fix your personal attacks, bludgeoning, "forum"-ing, or otherwise disruptive comments. If it is still there tomorrow, I will probably join in the pending ANI thread against you and ask for sanctions. As I said earlier, I am not going to ignore any further disruptive behavior in this RfC, but I want to give you a chance to avoid having to respond to yet another noticeboard complaint. Levivich 15:20, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Levivich. I have work and do not get the opportunity to go online seven days a week. Tuesday is my hardest day of the week as I work late into the evening. Can you cite where I have personally attacked you, and where I have committed other violations (by summarising the message in three or four words) and I will see about striking or removing them. --Coldtrack (talk) 18:57, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I noticed that when I looked at your contributions history after posting my message, so please forget what I said about "tomorrow" and I apologize me for rushing. You are under no obligation to edit every day (or even every week); there is WP:NORUSH and I shouldn't have imposed a specific deadline.

The specifics are already listed at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Update request, which I hadn't noticed when I initially posted my message to you here (which is why I rewrote the message, sorry also for the multiple pings). I would highlight:

• "I have never in my life seen such a one-sided and flagrantly loaded misrepresentation of the matter at hand anywhere ... loaded overture ... totally disingenuous to pretend reliable sources are the be-all-and-end-all ... flat out mendacious" Special:Diff/1077267863, in which you're repeatedly calling me a liar (misrepresentation, loaded, disingenuous, mendacious) for the way I framed the RFC. It's funny you also wrote in that same post, "If the wording is problematic, then help find better wording", since that's what the RFC is about.
• "... you can do no more that parrot the "RS" mantra ... a stable version (albeit one that did not satisfy the narratives of pro-Kosovo independence narratives) ... does not greenlight biased editors to covertly erect an Aunt Sally that is contrived to deliberately afford primacy to their POV under the auspices of how it gets written in "reliable" sources ..." Special:Diff/1078165420
• "RS is a tired argument and if it the one and only response you have for every challenge made to it, then you'd best go read WP:ONUS. In other words, you don't get to foreclose suggestions that frustrate your unrelenting standpoint by yammering the same old policy over and over." Special:Diff/1078165945
• "... Battleground editors, not just here but across the site, hide behind "reliable sources" merely as a way of building a fortress around statements which are downright controversial at best, and flat out wrong at worst. I've had these discussions elsewhere. When the sources a challenging editor presents all come from publishers and other media with pre-existing "NON-RS" status, the gatekeepers of the controversial viewpoint have no other argument than to cling to RS which might then (as in my case once) send the challenging editor/s down the pathway to reviewing which sources really are and are not RS. After that? There is no more argument for anyone to claim that the current batches are what they say they are unless they are nakedly invoking circular fallacies. What happens next? As the "keep RS what it is" foot soldiers jump up and down and blow a gasket, some other "higher up" admin comes along and collapses the discussion with a "NOTAFORUM" tag." Special:Diff/1078167996

Those aren't only uncivil, but you're also basically saying "damn the RS, I know what's right!" which is just going to get you kicked off this website eventually. Misplaced Pages is about summarizing RS, so yeah, the RS kind of is the be-all-and-end-all-of-content disputes.

By the way, Special:Diff/1078445055 is a message I removed from my talk page, which is the same exact thing, except from the opposite side of the political divide. I don't tolerate that kind of nonsense from any side, but if we don't all nip it in the bud, it will spiral out of control like this.

So, this message is my way of saying, "I'm going to ask for you to be sanctioned if you don't stop it." But--and I really mean this--don't feel like you have to respond on any sort of timeline imposed by me. For my part, I'll see how you respond to the ANI thread and this message, whenever that may be. Thanks for reading this and being open to striking/removing/modifying/whatever your remarks. Levivich 22:17, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

"Misplaced Pages is about summarizing RS, so yeah, the RS kind of is the be-all-and-end-all-of-content disputes." No it's not Levivich. In the first place, there is WP:ONUS. In the second place, it begs the question (fallacy of circular reasoning), and in the third place, this is a wording matter rather than a debate over "I know what's right", so no opponent of Option B advocates a choice of words that is "unsourced". I resolve to strike out any offending remark but we must get to the bottom of this one first, and at the moment with regards your "reliable sources are all that matters" argument, you're not out the gates yet on that one. They matter - and so do other things beyond RS. Feel free to reply on this thread. --Coldtrack (talk) 22:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Levivich. I presume you haven't read the above. Let's see if you and I can reach an understanding by moving away from Kosovo and focusing somewhere else. I can edit on any part of the world yet there is one zone even I keep a distance from if I can help it. Now, far from perfect or neutral in any way, have a good look at how Jerusalem is said to be presented. Which country is it in? Well, depending whom you ask, there could be up to FOUR answers. 1) Israel, who claim it all and control it all. 2) Palestine. 3) West being Israeli and East being Palestine or 4) the defunct but never rescinded special status of Jerusalem being self-governing and not in any country (per early UN recommendation). The article lede favours NONE but focuses on an explanation of the delicately conflicting views. However, so-called "reliable sources" don't seem to have any problem claiming Jersulem to be part of Israel: BBC, CNN among others. None of us can go onto that talk page on the back of a bold change by Red Slash and expect to still be editing after an ANI report is filed against someone doing what Horse Eye's Back has done. Do you get what I am saying here? --Coldtrack (talk) 22:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Hijri year

First, the Misplaced Pages "engine" ignores multiple spaces. So abc def and abc def are displayed identically. In the specific case, the original source had a double space, which is typographically incorrect of course but is invisible to visitors. Removing it was thus valid but just annoying to article watchers unless done in the course of a more substantive edit. So why was it done? The only credible reason was to get that grossly offensive username in the record.

Second, the name had already been reported and blocked.

Finally, should I have had the kneejerk reaction to revert it? No, probably not – except that doing so makes it clear that gratuitous offensiveness is not tolerated. Evidently you disagree. Clearly I won't revert again. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 07:50, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

John Maynard Friedman. Sorry if my behaviour appeared abrupt. It was something else which led me to follow the trail of this editor and I didn't pause for thought once regarding the username. It just flew overhead like a airplane. In my experiences, when a username violation is detected then the blocking admin normally offers the offending editor a chance to switch name to something more appropriate. He was down for disruptive editing, though all I could see was this edit which looked on the iffy side. There appeared to be no warnings or anything so clearly some obscure nonsense is going on somewhere. I've now looked to find that he appealed but was declined as being a sockpuppet and again, I don't know how on earth anybody can claim "checkuser evidence" on a person who makes five edits. I'm sure the IP address may have been used abusively in the 20 years of English Wiki but these things rarely remain static for too long. Some edits were definitely in good faith such as this one which caught my attention. I am very pleased that you restored them following the initial reverts. In future, if I feel it is better to revert seasoned editors such as you, I'll try to provide a more civil summary. All the best. --Coldtrack (talk) 22:23, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

@Coldtrack: no need to apologise, we were both collateral damage from that editor's behaviour. If it is of any consolation, I did exactly the same thing as you, but from the opposite direction: it was just OBVIOUS that the "not here" block was for the abusive user-name: the possibility that it might be for another reason never occurred to me. I was equally astonished at how quickly the admins nabbed him on so little evidence apart from the user-name. In the only other case I've been involved with, the perp has a very distinctive 'fist' and favourite topics.

Anyway, policy WP:banned means banned says "revert all edits, good or bad", so that's what I did. But of course since they were fixing typos, I had to redo them. Nothing especially clever. --John Maynard Friedman (talk)

Edit warring against multiple editors

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. OhNoitsJamie 21:35, 9 September 2022 (UTC)