![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.
Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...
Finding your way around:
|
Need help?
|
|
How you can help:
|
|
Additional tips...
|
NEDOCHAN, good luck, and have fun. Cheers!
Gareth Griffith‑Jones ( The Welsh Buzzard) 13:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC)Thanks but NEDOCHAN ( talk) 15:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
This isn't a warning or anything. Just a reminder that when you're editing MMA bios, use American English for American fighters. Reason I'm sending this is because you used "recognising" on Jon Jones' page instead of "recognizing". TBMNY ( talk) 18:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Apologies that was a mistake. NEDOCHAN ( talk) 08:00, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello. Thank you for
your contributions to
Wikipedia.
When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled " Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:
Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)
Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.
Edit summary content is visible in:
Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting
Preferences →
Editing →
Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary.
Thanks!
MX (
✉ •
✎)
13:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
If you wouldn't mind, could you give your vote on this? Thanks. TBMNY ( talk) 05:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello, NEDOCHAN. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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 Wikipedia 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
OK - per your User page - what's this about? Ben Mac Dui 18:26, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
'While' is more appropriate language for an encyclopedia, as it's an international English word. Also, in a factual description of the geography of an area, the literary, wistful 'whilst' stuck out like a sore thumb.
I can't agree - WP:ENGVAR applies. According to Wiktionary the word is "Mostly restrained to use in British English" and this little thread here also suggests the same. The thread isn't very specific but the word is also more commonly used in Scotland than England and certainly has none of the characteristics there that you suggest. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Scotland/Assessment/FA. ('While' also means 'until' in some British dialects, although that is not a reason to avoid using it.) Ben Mac Dui 19:09, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
What the hell are you doing restoring an anon vandalistic edit? DuncanHill ( talk) 10:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Patience- I was fixing it- sorted now. The issue was that the blanking was not the only problem with the previous edit, and that was all that was undone. So I needed to go back to the way it was before the pointless and destructive edit. NEDOCHAN ( talk) 10:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
OK- mend your words a little, please, I have not been aggressive. It would have been easier simply to revert the entire anon edit in the first place, too. NEDOCHAN ( talk) 10:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello NEDOCHAN. If you want to submit an edit warring report, please follow the instructions at the top of the board. Your complaint had to be removed because it was malformed. And if there is a war on this article, it's hard to see why both parties aren't in violation. Consider using the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 04:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi Ed. Yes I am not quite sure what the due process is as regards reporting. I believe the difference is that I have attempted to resolve the issue on the article's talk page and that of the anon ed in question. I have repeatedly attempted to discuss it. Please could you advise? NEDOCHAN ( talk) 09:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
The Copyeditor's Barnstar |
It's the small things that make a big difference. Thank you for serving Wikipedia. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 23:25, 5 June 2018 (UTC) |
Regarding your revert on the Sting article (discussion before reverting would be preferred in future), the template guidance asks for:
Can you please explain how Eric Clapton (appeared on same charity effort), Dire Straits (added vocals to one track), Phil Collins (the odd charity effort, backing vocals on a couple of album tracks), Peter Gabriel (only toured with), Paul Simon (toured with), and Shaggy (one album with him) meet these criteria, or remove them from the list. The album with Shaggy maybe applies, the others probably not. Thanks. -- Michig ( talk) 17:07, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Can you not see the contradiction here? You say discussion would be preferred, I agree. Yet you deleted all the associated acts bar The Police without discussion. I reverted to the way it was before. Anyway 'toured with' clearly fine. Unsure why 'only toured with' is relevant. So given the tours with Simon, Gabriel and Shaggy they're in. Sting is credited on Dire Straits biggest hit and receives half of the royalties. Definite association. I agree that Clapton probably shouldn't be there so would recommend taking that to the talk page rather than deleting them all without discussion and then complaining about a lack of discussion. NEDOCHAN ( talk) 21:58, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
You mean like the Sting and Paul Simon tour? Called 'On stage together'? Or the Sting and Peter Gabriel tour? Where they played together? Or the Shaggy tour? Where they played together? The guide is pretty clearly saying that a support act for instance wouldn't mean an association but a tour where both acts collaborate would. It's really obvious. So the tours above, which are tours of both acts, clearly count. Look them up. NEDOCHAN ( talk) 07:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi, you reverted my edit of the title box. I feel I clarified the 'mixed gender' description. Saying 'separate' in isolation does not qualify that the practicing of the sport involves mixed gender training, but it is the events which are separate genders. However, saying 'Yes, separate male and female events' does give this information. The term 'separate' in isolation is too brief and potentially misleading.
Where is it stated that unified MMA rules can only be practiced in indoor venues? The descriptions I have read make absolutely no mention of it. Besides, the page is not exclusively a page for unified rules MMA- which fluctuate anyway.
Fighting ring is an excessive description; it is usually the same ring as in boxing or kick boxing- both of which are referred to as 'rings'. I am not aware of any modifications which would warrant the name change. Could you please allow my edits to stand? RickyBennison ( talk) 14:10, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
No problem- appreciate the communication. NEDOCHAN ( talk) 14:20, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much. RickyBennison ( talk) 16:54, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Hey,
Appreciate what you're doing with the Khabib artile but I just wanted to point out that the reason I put "Having never lost a fight in his career" bit in the sentence that follows: "Khabib is a two-time Combat Sambo World Champion and currently holds the longest undefeated streak in MMA, with 27 wins" is because often in MMA (but mostly in UFC), commentators and fans discuss undefeated streaks that are current. For example, Joe Rogan often says "Tony Ferguson has a x undefeated streak". This means Tony has been undefeated for x amount of fights but that doesn't mean that he hasn't lost before. Do you see where I'm getting at? By adding the "Having never lost a fight" bit we can make sure that it is clear to the readers that he has never ever lost a fight, not that he is currently on an undefeated streak, as some readers can take it to mean as such. Imperial HRH2 ( talk) 10:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
You do need to calm it all down a bit. You have twice been pretty rude, although calling me an 'amateur' is accurate, unless you get paid for this, which I think unlikely. I have changed it for clarity, as we don't know whether he has lost a wrestling match or anything else. Also, your adverbial clause (having never lost a fight) did not relate to the main clause, so there were various things wrong aside from the fact that it did appear tautological.I have changed it to a compromise and I'd be grateful if we could leave it at that. Simply reinstating your own edits ad nauseam isn't the right way to go about things. NEDOCHAN ( talk) 12:15, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I would very much appreciate if you, didn't revert edits based solely on your opinion and without prior discussion, and, correctly reviewed any grammar you decide to critique, as "The images leave Alex nauseous" is as grammatically correct as "Alex becomes nauseated by". I would also advise against an edit war.
My Favourite Account Talk 22:23, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
I reverted an edit which made changes that did not improve the article. I should point out that you made the changes to the article without discussion. I restored it to how it was before. I did not actively critique the grammar, but rather reactively restored the article to how it was before your changes. Nauseated is the correct adjective. Even if, in your opinion, they're the same, then that still means there's no justification for changing an article. If you're correct, then you simply made a synonymous edit. If you're not, then I restored the correct version. Either way no improvement was made. As for an edit war, I would remind you that you changed a perfectly good article and I restored. It's on you. NEDOCHAN ( talk) 23:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
I find it interesting that you criticise me for 'opinion' when that is all you seem to be offering. Also, that your edits are good faith but mine assume none. I should also point out that there has already been consensus that agrees with me. Your other bone of contention seems to be that saying 'Alex becomes nauseated by the films' is ambiguous, as it was the images of the films that made him feel nauseated. That is a strange thing to say. 'I went to see a scary film' is not ambiguous. It would not invite the response, 'What was scary, the images?'.
As for your saying I like to revert, then I would respond by saying that I revert unexplained changes which do not improve articles. You'll notice that I rarely get in arguments. And I don't blank my talk page. And this is not 'my favourite account' but my only one. NEDOCHAN ( talk) 09:25, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
First, I did not assume you were American. I said your misunderstanding of the difference between the words might be as a result of its use in US English. Read it again. Secondly, I did not make any edits on 9 September, so not sure what you mean there. Thirdly, read this. 'Nauseated is the correct adjective. Even if, in your opinion, they're the same, then that still means there's no justification for changing an article.' This is not demonstrative of uncertainty. The point was that the words are not the same. Even if they were/are (which they're not), then it's still a synonymous edit, which are pointless. Fourthly, another editor agreed with me. None has agreed with you. So that's a lot more consensus than you got. Blanking talk pages is blanking talk pages, which is discouraged. Finally, if this is your only account, you seem to be awfully keen to argue for a new editor. Now, the main point. I sought to compromise. I changed it to include your edit as to the ambiguity you felt was there. I was civil and assumed good faith. You reverted my compromise. You offered no compromise, which is odd considering I'm supposed to be the one being argumentative. NEDOCHAN ( talk) 14:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank goodness for that. NEDOCHAN ( talk) 08:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi NEDOCHAN
We're working to measure the value of Wikipedia in economic terms. We want to ask you some questions about how you value being able to edit Wikipedia.
Our survey should take about 10-15 minutes of your time. We hope that you will enjoy it and find the questions interesting. All answers will be kept strictly confidential and will be anonymized before the aggregate results are published. Regretfully, we can only accept responses from people who live in the US due to restrictions in our grant-based funding.
As a reward for your participation, we will randomly pick 1 out of every 5 participants and give them $25 worth of goods of their choice from the Wikipedia store (e.g. Wikipedia themed t-shirts). Note that we can only reward you if you are based in the US.
Click here to access the survey: https://mit.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_0xE0vVW1MclX1d3
Thanks
Avi
Researcher, MIT Initiative on the Digital Economy -- Avi gan ( talk) 02:07, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, NEDOCHAN. 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 Wikipedia 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)
NEDOCHAN,
what u remove my edits for?
Kawhilaugh42 ( talk) 01:31, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
I believe I explained the edit quite clearly. The incident which you wrote about had already been dealt with in the article. Your edit also did not display a neutral point of view. NEDOCHAN ( talk) 09:33, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
TBMNY ( talk) 16:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
I see that you've criticised me for changing the result of Frank Mir's loss to Javy Ayala. The reason why i do it, is solely because there's no such thing as a TKO submission. It's either a TKO or a submission. It can't be both. That's why i change it. All respect to you, but i don't care what Sherdog says. If it's wrong i'll correct it. Daniboy0202 ( talk) 22:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
It's not about me it's about consensus and sourced material. Your opinion and original research don't matter. NEDOCHAN ( talk) 23:23, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Means wp:RS, please read it. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
I have it's just the small s threw me off. It's unusual to use the RS argument when the content isn't sourced. That is not the main point though. The point is anti-Islam is clearly more a neutral term. Read this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view NEDOCHAN ( talk) 14:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
It is in the info box, yet so is Anti Islam. My point is that Anti Islam is more neutral. Seems obvious. NEDOCHAN ( talk) 14:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. NEDOCHAN ( talk) 14:54, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Please read wp:minor, a minor edit is not one that shifts emphasis or tone. Slatersteven ( talk) 22:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Show me one edit that I have marked as minor which shifts emphasis or tone. The edits marked as minor are all grammatical corrections. NEDOCHAN ( talk) 22:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
One example, please. NEDOCHAN ( talk) 23:17, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
The clue is those which I marked as minor. Try again. NEDOCHAN ( talk) 23:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
I made individual edits. I UNDID edits which reverted ALL edits. I didn't revert everything, everything I did was reverted. I see you're struggling to come up with a single edit marked as minor which changed meaning or tone. Might that be because there aren't any? NEDOCHAN ( talk) 23:44, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
That was a mistake made when making a grammatical edit. I'll change it. Thanks. NEDOCHAN ( talk) 23:59, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
I was removing the semi-colons. And the reason you don't see much change is why I marked it as minor. Is it not a big enough minor edit? NEDOCHAN ( talk) 00:05, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at English Defence League shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. you should know this ----- Snowded TALK 23:11, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Reverting dozens of separate edits is warring. NEDOCHAN ( talk) 23:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC) Talk page. NEDOCHAN ( talk) 23:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
I think the actions of the editor are clearly personal. They have been following my edits. I wasn't rude. And it certainly wasn't an attack, much as your post isn't a threat. Experience has nothing to do with anything and you ought to know that. What with all your experience and everything. NEDOCHAN ( talk) 20:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
It's quite clear. If you continue to force into the article, the edits you want, without first gaining a consensus for those edits at the article talkpage? then you will end up being 'blocked'. It's not a matter of what you think is right or wrong. The result will be that you'll get blocked, if you continue in the manner of editing, that you've been doing. GoodDay ( talk) 21:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
It is being discussed on the talk page and we're approaching a solution. NEDOCHAN ( talk) 21:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't want my hours to be wasted when I am attempting to discuss edits on the talk page and have agreed to every request bar none. Please. NEDOCHAN ( talk) 21:40, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. Thank you.
Slatersteven (
talk)
23:28, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk)
08:50, 4 March 2019 (UTC)Hi Nedochan, if you disrupt any more pages with inappropriate copy editing, you may end up being reported to WP:AN/I, which could mean you'll be topic banned from copy editing altogether. The situation on Talk:English Defence League is not acceptable. If grammar really is your passion, as your user page says, please consider a different approach. SarahSV (talk) 22:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I'm glad somebody has the energy to keep up with some of this guy's bad edits; he long ago wore me out and I'm not inclined to make a personal project of following him around to revert his bad edits. I see your username on his UTP from last year, so you're aware of at least some of the history.
There are plenty of incompetent editors, that just comes with the territory, but there aren't many who are that prolificly bad while repeatedly lecturing other editors in their edit summaries. In my view Anthony22 needs to be kept away from highly visible content, and I would support some kind of topic ban to that effect. ― Mandruss ☎ 15:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
I shall be warning them again- Yeah, that's kind of my point. I think it's abundantly clear that warnings will not be effective, and we're past that. At one point the warnings were so strong from so many editors that he disappeared for something like six months, then reappeared and picked up where he left off. ― Mandruss ☎ 15:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Parenthetical commas are used to separate words or phrases that are not essential to the sentence. Without the word "Leeds", the sentence would read "After this incident Atherton and England headed to Headingley for the second Test", which would be fine as a sentence. However, the word Leeds is a qualifier of the word "Headingley". It's not part of the phrase "for the second Test" (which is not a clause because it has no verb in it). Do you follow my reasoning? Deb ( talk) 18:35, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
You are not correct at all. NEDOCHAN ( talk) 18:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Main clause 'Atherton and England headed to Leeds'. Adverbial clause of purpose 'for the second test'. You're confused by Headingley, which is not part of the essential clause. Pretend it's not there. NEDOCHAN ( talk) 19:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
How can "Their version of the song, which was inspired by the fact that it had featured on Gavin & Stacey" be correct? If their version of the song had already featured on Gavin and Stacey, how could it have been inspired by that appearance? Or, when you said "their", did you mean that the Comic Relief version, featuring Tom Jones, was inspired by the version sung by Rob Brydon and Ruth Jones that had previously appeared on Gavin and Stacey? I suggest this improved wording: "The Comic Relief version of the song, on which Tom Jones featured, was based on a version sung by Brydon and Jones in an episode of Gavin and Stacey." I'll put this on the article talk page as well. Deb ( talk) 15:08, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
I sought a compromise as that's always the aim. Grammatically speaking, I assure you that the reverted version was sound but if you're not happy with it let's figure something out. NEDOCHAN ( talk) 16:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to
Prostitution, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the
edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been
reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the
sandbox for that. Thank you.
General Ization
Talk
12:58, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Prostitution; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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:
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. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 17:37, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Check again bud. I just restored to the original pre all the added names. I'll forgive the template but it leaves a slightly sour taste. NEDOCHAN ( talk) 17:39, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Ffs. I'm not warring. I'll leave the important addition of a load of names into the opening paragraph. NEDOCHAN ( talk) 17:47, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period may also be taken as evidence of edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. See below for exemptions.
- General Ization Talk 17:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
No 3rr and no edits post warning. You threatened me. I stopped. You threatened again. I didn't restart. You reported me. NEDOCHAN ( talk) 18:02, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
I did desist. That's sort of the point. Yet you continued. NEDOCHAN ( talk) 18:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. The thread is
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:NEDOCHAN reported by User:General Ization (Result: ). Thank you.
General Ization
Talk
17:58, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
'Stop warring.' 'I wasn't but ok.' 'I said STOP WARRING.' 'I haven't returned to the page.' 'Do it again. I dare you.' 'Haven't. Why the threats?' 'That's it. I'm reporting you. Let's let them decide.'
Report concludes the obvious.
Argues with the conclusion. NEDOCHAN ( talk) 20:49, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi. I wanted to let you know the proposal has been modified and Mandruss notified me I should do this. The proposal, similar to the old one is:
This is just a notification. Thanks.
The script I am using changes cooperate → co-operate. By searching on the Internet I found that cooperate is the most used form in American English, but in other forms of English it's preferred co-operate. Since A Clockwork Orange is written in "EngvarB", that means "non-specific but not N. American spelling", I thinks it's correct to change to co-operate. -- Mazewaxie ( talk • contribs) 13:25, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello! I read your comment and edits and I wanted to say that I really do appreciate your help with my additions. Im new to wikipedia so I'm still trying to figure out all the different ways to edit and communicate with the other editors of the articles. Initially in my draft article for the DNA evidence I used excerpts from the trial transcripts but I got dinged for copyright infringement so now Im using paraphrasing but then you run into the issue of violating the synthesis. Im working really hard on this and in either case I wanted to let you know that I appreciate your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samsongebre ( talk • contribs) 17:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for helping out with the article. I couldn’t figure out how to thank you any other way other than here. I’ll ad more citations and publish it soon. Samsongebre ( talk) 23:05, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Was there a reason you just mass reverted ALL of my edits, and not just the ones adding the wrestling content? I mean, he's more than likely going to be confirmed to perform at WWE's next PPV on Monday anyway, but whatever. GhostOfDanGurney ( talk) 02:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
PWInsider is considered an RS by WP:PW, and I didn't actually include any speculation, but nice try. GhostOfDanGurney ( talk) 09:38, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello,
you reverted my edit as being too detailed. Why not ? But in this case you should also move the following section : "By 2012, Lennon's solo album sales in the US had exceeded 14 million units. He had 25 number-one singles on the US Billboard Hot 100 chart as a writer, co-writer or performer." English wikipedia is not "USA Wikipedia". The USA aren't the alpha and omega of the earth Biosphere. The USA are just a little part of the landmass. There are many other countries in the world, some larger and some more populated and perhaps (debatable) one even more powerful, China. Therefore privileging the USA to the entire human world is a total ineptitude in an article introduction. In that case why the Canadian or the UK or the Italian sales have not been displayed. English wikipedia is the version of Wikipedia written in English but certainly not the version of Wikipedia restricted to the USA or to the USA views, angles, opinions. So, using your logic, I will move the ""By 2012, Lennon's solo album sales in the US had exceeded 14 million units. He had 25 number-one singles on the US Billboard Hot 100 chart as a writer, co-writer or performer." section (to the Discography section) which has no reasoon to be written here in introduction and I will replace it by something much more accurate : my old section with no details because it concerns all the countries.
You said in your headline revert that the contents of my edit was indicated "elsewhere". I would really appreciate to know where worldwide sales of John Lennon's solo discs are indicated. If it is the case then let me tell you that it is very well hidden.
About the Website that counted worldwide sales, their method is much better than the method used by the RIAA to count US sales. In other words, the "worldwide" 72 million units is a result much more trustful than the "US RIAA" 14 million units. First of all, the RIAA doesn't count sales but certifications. For instance in the US, more than 925,000 "Walls and Bridges" physical albums (vinyls and CDs) have been sold. It has been certified gold by the RIAA when the 500,000 mark has been crossed. Since the 1,000,000 has not, the album is not certified as platinum therefore with no new certification, RIAA credits this album with only 500,000 sales instead of the real 925,000 figure. 800,000 Milk and Honey physical albums have been sold in the US but the RIAA figure is only 500,000 (Gold certification). Double Fantasy is RIAA certified "only" 3×Platinum whereas the 4 million mark has been crossed (4,050,000) because RIAA simply lacks time to count album sales (there are many albums by many artists sold) : perhaps Lennon album sales will be scrutinized by the RIAA in ... ten years. In fact Lennon has sold more than 22 million physical albums in the US and not 14 million as stated by the RIAA. Of course this underrating is also true for any other artist.
However in the end if you consider that my original edit was too detailed for an introduction (and finally I agree with you) therefore the US RIAA sales and the #1 singles in the US Billboard charts have absolutely no reason to be indicated in this introduction whereas the WORLDWIDE sales are much more adequate. Besides as I wrote before are not indicated, to my knowledge, elsewhere. In fact there are no "solid" worldwide disc sales indicated in any Wikipedia article, be it in English or in any other language. -- Carlo Colussi ( talk) 11:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for removing all my hard work! There was no up to date information since 2016. UNCOOL!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidsmith2014 ( talk • contribs) 14:56, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi. You removed a wikilink at Lennox Lewis. I reverted your edit and invite you to discuss the change you would like to make on the talk page as encouraged by WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.-- SaskatchewanSenator ( talk) 20:36, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
You reverted my edit about the second limerick playing on the shoretened form of Hampshire (Hants) saying it doesn't. Could you explan how it doesntt? Meanwhile I have reinstated it. Murgatroyd49 ( talk) 09:18, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
NEDOCHAN ( talk) 12:00, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps you might like to review Special:Diff/934429188 per dictionaries such as https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fianc%C3%A9e, https://www.dictionary.com/browse/fiancee, https://www.thefreedictionary.com/fiancee. Sun Creator( talk) 15:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
CASSIOPEIA( talk) 06:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi you recently reverted my edit on Conor McGregor. This I believe was unnecessary as per WP:DONTREVERT. In my original edit summary I explained why I added the information. I have restored my original edit and opened a section on the talk page so that we can find consensus. Please remember that reverting is usually reserved for disruptive editing and not simply that you do not agree with what was written. Cheers. -- Dom from Paris ( talk) 13:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Conor McGregor shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Dom from Paris ( talk) 14:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Do these rules not apply to you? Would you care to discuss the points?
NEDOCHAN (
talk)
14:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
During a dispute discussion, until a consensus is established, you should not revert away from the status quo (except in cases where contentious material should be immediately removed, such as biographies of living people, or material about living people in other articles). (my bolding). The article as it was written posed some quite potentially serious legal ramifications as the information had been cherry-picked to paint the fan in a negative light which was my reason for modifying. WP:BLP policy applies to
all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, article titles and drafts.and this includes the fan even if he is not the subject of the article. I hope this helps you understand why I reverted and warned you about potential edit-warring. Cheers -- Dom from Paris ( talk) 15:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards.or you may have misread what I wrote. Reading and especially understanding policy and guidelines comes with experience. I am glad that you consider yourself an experienced editor I do not consider myself "such" an experienced editor myself but I think I have been working in enough policy and guideline based areas such as New Pages Patrol and Articles for Creations to offer a little friendly advice but as they say, you can lead a horse to water... anyway happy editing. -- Dom from Paris ( talk) 17:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.
Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...
Finding your way around:
|
Need help?
|
|
How you can help:
|
|
Additional tips...
|
NEDOCHAN, good luck, and have fun. Cheers!
Gareth Griffith‑Jones ( The Welsh Buzzard) 13:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC)Thanks but NEDOCHAN ( talk) 15:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
This isn't a warning or anything. Just a reminder that when you're editing MMA bios, use American English for American fighters. Reason I'm sending this is because you used "recognising" on Jon Jones' page instead of "recognizing". TBMNY ( talk) 18:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Apologies that was a mistake. NEDOCHAN ( talk) 08:00, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello. Thank you for
your contributions to
Wikipedia.
When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled " Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:
Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)
Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.
Edit summary content is visible in:
Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting
Preferences →
Editing →
Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary.
Thanks!
MX (
✉ •
✎)
13:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
If you wouldn't mind, could you give your vote on this? Thanks. TBMNY ( talk) 05:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello, NEDOCHAN. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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 Wikipedia 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
OK - per your User page - what's this about? Ben Mac Dui 18:26, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
'While' is more appropriate language for an encyclopedia, as it's an international English word. Also, in a factual description of the geography of an area, the literary, wistful 'whilst' stuck out like a sore thumb.
I can't agree - WP:ENGVAR applies. According to Wiktionary the word is "Mostly restrained to use in British English" and this little thread here also suggests the same. The thread isn't very specific but the word is also more commonly used in Scotland than England and certainly has none of the characteristics there that you suggest. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Scotland/Assessment/FA. ('While' also means 'until' in some British dialects, although that is not a reason to avoid using it.) Ben Mac Dui 19:09, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
What the hell are you doing restoring an anon vandalistic edit? DuncanHill ( talk) 10:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Patience- I was fixing it- sorted now. The issue was that the blanking was not the only problem with the previous edit, and that was all that was undone. So I needed to go back to the way it was before the pointless and destructive edit. NEDOCHAN ( talk) 10:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
OK- mend your words a little, please, I have not been aggressive. It would have been easier simply to revert the entire anon edit in the first place, too. NEDOCHAN ( talk) 10:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello NEDOCHAN. If you want to submit an edit warring report, please follow the instructions at the top of the board. Your complaint had to be removed because it was malformed. And if there is a war on this article, it's hard to see why both parties aren't in violation. Consider using the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. Thank you, EdJohnston ( talk) 04:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi Ed. Yes I am not quite sure what the due process is as regards reporting. I believe the difference is that I have attempted to resolve the issue on the article's talk page and that of the anon ed in question. I have repeatedly attempted to discuss it. Please could you advise? NEDOCHAN ( talk) 09:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
The Copyeditor's Barnstar |
It's the small things that make a big difference. Thank you for serving Wikipedia. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 23:25, 5 June 2018 (UTC) |
Regarding your revert on the Sting article (discussion before reverting would be preferred in future), the template guidance asks for:
Can you please explain how Eric Clapton (appeared on same charity effort), Dire Straits (added vocals to one track), Phil Collins (the odd charity effort, backing vocals on a couple of album tracks), Peter Gabriel (only toured with), Paul Simon (toured with), and Shaggy (one album with him) meet these criteria, or remove them from the list. The album with Shaggy maybe applies, the others probably not. Thanks. -- Michig ( talk) 17:07, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Can you not see the contradiction here? You say discussion would be preferred, I agree. Yet you deleted all the associated acts bar The Police without discussion. I reverted to the way it was before. Anyway 'toured with' clearly fine. Unsure why 'only toured with' is relevant. So given the tours with Simon, Gabriel and Shaggy they're in. Sting is credited on Dire Straits biggest hit and receives half of the royalties. Definite association. I agree that Clapton probably shouldn't be there so would recommend taking that to the talk page rather than deleting them all without discussion and then complaining about a lack of discussion. NEDOCHAN ( talk) 21:58, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
You mean like the Sting and Paul Simon tour? Called 'On stage together'? Or the Sting and Peter Gabriel tour? Where they played together? Or the Shaggy tour? Where they played together? The guide is pretty clearly saying that a support act for instance wouldn't mean an association but a tour where both acts collaborate would. It's really obvious. So the tours above, which are tours of both acts, clearly count. Look them up. NEDOCHAN ( talk) 07:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi, you reverted my edit of the title box. I feel I clarified the 'mixed gender' description. Saying 'separate' in isolation does not qualify that the practicing of the sport involves mixed gender training, but it is the events which are separate genders. However, saying 'Yes, separate male and female events' does give this information. The term 'separate' in isolation is too brief and potentially misleading.
Where is it stated that unified MMA rules can only be practiced in indoor venues? The descriptions I have read make absolutely no mention of it. Besides, the page is not exclusively a page for unified rules MMA- which fluctuate anyway.
Fighting ring is an excessive description; it is usually the same ring as in boxing or kick boxing- both of which are referred to as 'rings'. I am not aware of any modifications which would warrant the name change. Could you please allow my edits to stand? RickyBennison ( talk) 14:10, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
No problem- appreciate the communication. NEDOCHAN ( talk) 14:20, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you very much. RickyBennison ( talk) 16:54, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Hey,
Appreciate what you're doing with the Khabib artile but I just wanted to point out that the reason I put "Having never lost a fight in his career" bit in the sentence that follows: "Khabib is a two-time Combat Sambo World Champion and currently holds the longest undefeated streak in MMA, with 27 wins" is because often in MMA (but mostly in UFC), commentators and fans discuss undefeated streaks that are current. For example, Joe Rogan often says "Tony Ferguson has a x undefeated streak". This means Tony has been undefeated for x amount of fights but that doesn't mean that he hasn't lost before. Do you see where I'm getting at? By adding the "Having never lost a fight" bit we can make sure that it is clear to the readers that he has never ever lost a fight, not that he is currently on an undefeated streak, as some readers can take it to mean as such. Imperial HRH2 ( talk) 10:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
You do need to calm it all down a bit. You have twice been pretty rude, although calling me an 'amateur' is accurate, unless you get paid for this, which I think unlikely. I have changed it for clarity, as we don't know whether he has lost a wrestling match or anything else. Also, your adverbial clause (having never lost a fight) did not relate to the main clause, so there were various things wrong aside from the fact that it did appear tautological.I have changed it to a compromise and I'd be grateful if we could leave it at that. Simply reinstating your own edits ad nauseam isn't the right way to go about things. NEDOCHAN ( talk) 12:15, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I would very much appreciate if you, didn't revert edits based solely on your opinion and without prior discussion, and, correctly reviewed any grammar you decide to critique, as "The images leave Alex nauseous" is as grammatically correct as "Alex becomes nauseated by". I would also advise against an edit war.
My Favourite Account Talk 22:23, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
I reverted an edit which made changes that did not improve the article. I should point out that you made the changes to the article without discussion. I restored it to how it was before. I did not actively critique the grammar, but rather reactively restored the article to how it was before your changes. Nauseated is the correct adjective. Even if, in your opinion, they're the same, then that still means there's no justification for changing an article. If you're correct, then you simply made a synonymous edit. If you're not, then I restored the correct version. Either way no improvement was made. As for an edit war, I would remind you that you changed a perfectly good article and I restored. It's on you. NEDOCHAN ( talk) 23:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
I find it interesting that you criticise me for 'opinion' when that is all you seem to be offering. Also, that your edits are good faith but mine assume none. I should also point out that there has already been consensus that agrees with me. Your other bone of contention seems to be that saying 'Alex becomes nauseated by the films' is ambiguous, as it was the images of the films that made him feel nauseated. That is a strange thing to say. 'I went to see a scary film' is not ambiguous. It would not invite the response, 'What was scary, the images?'.
As for your saying I like to revert, then I would respond by saying that I revert unexplained changes which do not improve articles. You'll notice that I rarely get in arguments. And I don't blank my talk page. And this is not 'my favourite account' but my only one. NEDOCHAN ( talk) 09:25, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
First, I did not assume you were American. I said your misunderstanding of the difference between the words might be as a result of its use in US English. Read it again. Secondly, I did not make any edits on 9 September, so not sure what you mean there. Thirdly, read this. 'Nauseated is the correct adjective. Even if, in your opinion, they're the same, then that still means there's no justification for changing an article.' This is not demonstrative of uncertainty. The point was that the words are not the same. Even if they were/are (which they're not), then it's still a synonymous edit, which are pointless. Fourthly, another editor agreed with me. None has agreed with you. So that's a lot more consensus than you got. Blanking talk pages is blanking talk pages, which is discouraged. Finally, if this is your only account, you seem to be awfully keen to argue for a new editor. Now, the main point. I sought to compromise. I changed it to include your edit as to the ambiguity you felt was there. I was civil and assumed good faith. You reverted my compromise. You offered no compromise, which is odd considering I'm supposed to be the one being argumentative. NEDOCHAN ( talk) 14:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Thank goodness for that. NEDOCHAN ( talk) 08:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi NEDOCHAN
We're working to measure the value of Wikipedia in economic terms. We want to ask you some questions about how you value being able to edit Wikipedia.
Our survey should take about 10-15 minutes of your time. We hope that you will enjoy it and find the questions interesting. All answers will be kept strictly confidential and will be anonymized before the aggregate results are published. Regretfully, we can only accept responses from people who live in the US due to restrictions in our grant-based funding.
As a reward for your participation, we will randomly pick 1 out of every 5 participants and give them $25 worth of goods of their choice from the Wikipedia store (e.g. Wikipedia themed t-shirts). Note that we can only reward you if you are based in the US.
Click here to access the survey: https://mit.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_0xE0vVW1MclX1d3
Thanks
Avi
Researcher, MIT Initiative on the Digital Economy -- Avi gan ( talk) 02:07, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, NEDOCHAN. 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 Wikipedia 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)
NEDOCHAN,
what u remove my edits for?
Kawhilaugh42 ( talk) 01:31, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
I believe I explained the edit quite clearly. The incident which you wrote about had already been dealt with in the article. Your edit also did not display a neutral point of view. NEDOCHAN ( talk) 09:33, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
TBMNY ( talk) 16:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
I see that you've criticised me for changing the result of Frank Mir's loss to Javy Ayala. The reason why i do it, is solely because there's no such thing as a TKO submission. It's either a TKO or a submission. It can't be both. That's why i change it. All respect to you, but i don't care what Sherdog says. If it's wrong i'll correct it. Daniboy0202 ( talk) 22:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
It's not about me it's about consensus and sourced material. Your opinion and original research don't matter. NEDOCHAN ( talk) 23:23, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Means wp:RS, please read it. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
I have it's just the small s threw me off. It's unusual to use the RS argument when the content isn't sourced. That is not the main point though. The point is anti-Islam is clearly more a neutral term. Read this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view NEDOCHAN ( talk) 14:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
It is in the info box, yet so is Anti Islam. My point is that Anti Islam is more neutral. Seems obvious. NEDOCHAN ( talk) 14:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. NEDOCHAN ( talk) 14:54, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Please read wp:minor, a minor edit is not one that shifts emphasis or tone. Slatersteven ( talk) 22:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Show me one edit that I have marked as minor which shifts emphasis or tone. The edits marked as minor are all grammatical corrections. NEDOCHAN ( talk) 22:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
One example, please. NEDOCHAN ( talk) 23:17, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
The clue is those which I marked as minor. Try again. NEDOCHAN ( talk) 23:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
I made individual edits. I UNDID edits which reverted ALL edits. I didn't revert everything, everything I did was reverted. I see you're struggling to come up with a single edit marked as minor which changed meaning or tone. Might that be because there aren't any? NEDOCHAN ( talk) 23:44, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
That was a mistake made when making a grammatical edit. I'll change it. Thanks. NEDOCHAN ( talk) 23:59, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
I was removing the semi-colons. And the reason you don't see much change is why I marked it as minor. Is it not a big enough minor edit? NEDOCHAN ( talk) 00:05, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at English Defence League shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. you should know this ----- Snowded TALK 23:11, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Reverting dozens of separate edits is warring. NEDOCHAN ( talk) 23:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC) Talk page. NEDOCHAN ( talk) 23:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
I think the actions of the editor are clearly personal. They have been following my edits. I wasn't rude. And it certainly wasn't an attack, much as your post isn't a threat. Experience has nothing to do with anything and you ought to know that. What with all your experience and everything. NEDOCHAN ( talk) 20:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
It's quite clear. If you continue to force into the article, the edits you want, without first gaining a consensus for those edits at the article talkpage? then you will end up being 'blocked'. It's not a matter of what you think is right or wrong. The result will be that you'll get blocked, if you continue in the manner of editing, that you've been doing. GoodDay ( talk) 21:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
It is being discussed on the talk page and we're approaching a solution. NEDOCHAN ( talk) 21:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't want my hours to be wasted when I am attempting to discuss edits on the talk page and have agreed to every request bar none. Please. NEDOCHAN ( talk) 21:40, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. Thank you.
Slatersteven (
talk)
23:28, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. — Martin (
MSGJ ·
talk)
08:50, 4 March 2019 (UTC)Hi Nedochan, if you disrupt any more pages with inappropriate copy editing, you may end up being reported to WP:AN/I, which could mean you'll be topic banned from copy editing altogether. The situation on Talk:English Defence League is not acceptable. If grammar really is your passion, as your user page says, please consider a different approach. SarahSV (talk) 22:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I'm glad somebody has the energy to keep up with some of this guy's bad edits; he long ago wore me out and I'm not inclined to make a personal project of following him around to revert his bad edits. I see your username on his UTP from last year, so you're aware of at least some of the history.
There are plenty of incompetent editors, that just comes with the territory, but there aren't many who are that prolificly bad while repeatedly lecturing other editors in their edit summaries. In my view Anthony22 needs to be kept away from highly visible content, and I would support some kind of topic ban to that effect. ― Mandruss ☎ 15:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
I shall be warning them again- Yeah, that's kind of my point. I think it's abundantly clear that warnings will not be effective, and we're past that. At one point the warnings were so strong from so many editors that he disappeared for something like six months, then reappeared and picked up where he left off. ― Mandruss ☎ 15:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Parenthetical commas are used to separate words or phrases that are not essential to the sentence. Without the word "Leeds", the sentence would read "After this incident Atherton and England headed to Headingley for the second Test", which would be fine as a sentence. However, the word Leeds is a qualifier of the word "Headingley". It's not part of the phrase "for the second Test" (which is not a clause because it has no verb in it). Do you follow my reasoning? Deb ( talk) 18:35, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
You are not correct at all. NEDOCHAN ( talk) 18:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Main clause 'Atherton and England headed to Leeds'. Adverbial clause of purpose 'for the second test'. You're confused by Headingley, which is not part of the essential clause. Pretend it's not there. NEDOCHAN ( talk) 19:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
How can "Their version of the song, which was inspired by the fact that it had featured on Gavin & Stacey" be correct? If their version of the song had already featured on Gavin and Stacey, how could it have been inspired by that appearance? Or, when you said "their", did you mean that the Comic Relief version, featuring Tom Jones, was inspired by the version sung by Rob Brydon and Ruth Jones that had previously appeared on Gavin and Stacey? I suggest this improved wording: "The Comic Relief version of the song, on which Tom Jones featured, was based on a version sung by Brydon and Jones in an episode of Gavin and Stacey." I'll put this on the article talk page as well. Deb ( talk) 15:08, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
I sought a compromise as that's always the aim. Grammatically speaking, I assure you that the reverted version was sound but if you're not happy with it let's figure something out. NEDOCHAN ( talk) 16:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to
Prostitution, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the
edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been
reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the
sandbox for that. Thank you.
General Ization
Talk
12:58, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Prostitution; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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:
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. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 17:37, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Check again bud. I just restored to the original pre all the added names. I'll forgive the template but it leaves a slightly sour taste. NEDOCHAN ( talk) 17:39, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Ffs. I'm not warring. I'll leave the important addition of a load of names into the opening paragraph. NEDOCHAN ( talk) 17:47, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period may also be taken as evidence of edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. See below for exemptions.
- General Ization Talk 17:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
No 3rr and no edits post warning. You threatened me. I stopped. You threatened again. I didn't restart. You reported me. NEDOCHAN ( talk) 18:02, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
I did desist. That's sort of the point. Yet you continued. NEDOCHAN ( talk) 18:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on
edit warring. The thread is
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:NEDOCHAN reported by User:General Ization (Result: ). Thank you.
General Ization
Talk
17:58, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
'Stop warring.' 'I wasn't but ok.' 'I said STOP WARRING.' 'I haven't returned to the page.' 'Do it again. I dare you.' 'Haven't. Why the threats?' 'That's it. I'm reporting you. Let's let them decide.'
Report concludes the obvious.
Argues with the conclusion. NEDOCHAN ( talk) 20:49, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi. I wanted to let you know the proposal has been modified and Mandruss notified me I should do this. The proposal, similar to the old one is:
This is just a notification. Thanks.
The script I am using changes cooperate → co-operate. By searching on the Internet I found that cooperate is the most used form in American English, but in other forms of English it's preferred co-operate. Since A Clockwork Orange is written in "EngvarB", that means "non-specific but not N. American spelling", I thinks it's correct to change to co-operate. -- Mazewaxie ( talk • contribs) 13:25, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello! I read your comment and edits and I wanted to say that I really do appreciate your help with my additions. Im new to wikipedia so I'm still trying to figure out all the different ways to edit and communicate with the other editors of the articles. Initially in my draft article for the DNA evidence I used excerpts from the trial transcripts but I got dinged for copyright infringement so now Im using paraphrasing but then you run into the issue of violating the synthesis. Im working really hard on this and in either case I wanted to let you know that I appreciate your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samsongebre ( talk • contribs) 17:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for helping out with the article. I couldn’t figure out how to thank you any other way other than here. I’ll ad more citations and publish it soon. Samsongebre ( talk) 23:05, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Was there a reason you just mass reverted ALL of my edits, and not just the ones adding the wrestling content? I mean, he's more than likely going to be confirmed to perform at WWE's next PPV on Monday anyway, but whatever. GhostOfDanGurney ( talk) 02:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
PWInsider is considered an RS by WP:PW, and I didn't actually include any speculation, but nice try. GhostOfDanGurney ( talk) 09:38, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello,
you reverted my edit as being too detailed. Why not ? But in this case you should also move the following section : "By 2012, Lennon's solo album sales in the US had exceeded 14 million units. He had 25 number-one singles on the US Billboard Hot 100 chart as a writer, co-writer or performer." English wikipedia is not "USA Wikipedia". The USA aren't the alpha and omega of the earth Biosphere. The USA are just a little part of the landmass. There are many other countries in the world, some larger and some more populated and perhaps (debatable) one even more powerful, China. Therefore privileging the USA to the entire human world is a total ineptitude in an article introduction. In that case why the Canadian or the UK or the Italian sales have not been displayed. English wikipedia is the version of Wikipedia written in English but certainly not the version of Wikipedia restricted to the USA or to the USA views, angles, opinions. So, using your logic, I will move the ""By 2012, Lennon's solo album sales in the US had exceeded 14 million units. He had 25 number-one singles on the US Billboard Hot 100 chart as a writer, co-writer or performer." section (to the Discography section) which has no reasoon to be written here in introduction and I will replace it by something much more accurate : my old section with no details because it concerns all the countries.
You said in your headline revert that the contents of my edit was indicated "elsewhere". I would really appreciate to know where worldwide sales of John Lennon's solo discs are indicated. If it is the case then let me tell you that it is very well hidden.
About the Website that counted worldwide sales, their method is much better than the method used by the RIAA to count US sales. In other words, the "worldwide" 72 million units is a result much more trustful than the "US RIAA" 14 million units. First of all, the RIAA doesn't count sales but certifications. For instance in the US, more than 925,000 "Walls and Bridges" physical albums (vinyls and CDs) have been sold. It has been certified gold by the RIAA when the 500,000 mark has been crossed. Since the 1,000,000 has not, the album is not certified as platinum therefore with no new certification, RIAA credits this album with only 500,000 sales instead of the real 925,000 figure. 800,000 Milk and Honey physical albums have been sold in the US but the RIAA figure is only 500,000 (Gold certification). Double Fantasy is RIAA certified "only" 3×Platinum whereas the 4 million mark has been crossed (4,050,000) because RIAA simply lacks time to count album sales (there are many albums by many artists sold) : perhaps Lennon album sales will be scrutinized by the RIAA in ... ten years. In fact Lennon has sold more than 22 million physical albums in the US and not 14 million as stated by the RIAA. Of course this underrating is also true for any other artist.
However in the end if you consider that my original edit was too detailed for an introduction (and finally I agree with you) therefore the US RIAA sales and the #1 singles in the US Billboard charts have absolutely no reason to be indicated in this introduction whereas the WORLDWIDE sales are much more adequate. Besides as I wrote before are not indicated, to my knowledge, elsewhere. In fact there are no "solid" worldwide disc sales indicated in any Wikipedia article, be it in English or in any other language. -- Carlo Colussi ( talk) 11:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for removing all my hard work! There was no up to date information since 2016. UNCOOL!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidsmith2014 ( talk • contribs) 14:56, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi. You removed a wikilink at Lennox Lewis. I reverted your edit and invite you to discuss the change you would like to make on the talk page as encouraged by WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.-- SaskatchewanSenator ( talk) 20:36, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
You reverted my edit about the second limerick playing on the shoretened form of Hampshire (Hants) saying it doesn't. Could you explan how it doesntt? Meanwhile I have reinstated it. Murgatroyd49 ( talk) 09:18, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
NEDOCHAN ( talk) 12:00, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps you might like to review Special:Diff/934429188 per dictionaries such as https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fianc%C3%A9e, https://www.dictionary.com/browse/fiancee, https://www.thefreedictionary.com/fiancee. Sun Creator( talk) 15:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
CASSIOPEIA( talk) 06:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi you recently reverted my edit on Conor McGregor. This I believe was unnecessary as per WP:DONTREVERT. In my original edit summary I explained why I added the information. I have restored my original edit and opened a section on the talk page so that we can find consensus. Please remember that reverting is usually reserved for disruptive editing and not simply that you do not agree with what was written. Cheers. -- Dom from Paris ( talk) 13:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Conor McGregor shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Dom from Paris ( talk) 14:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Do these rules not apply to you? Would you care to discuss the points?
NEDOCHAN (
talk)
14:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
During a dispute discussion, until a consensus is established, you should not revert away from the status quo (except in cases where contentious material should be immediately removed, such as biographies of living people, or material about living people in other articles). (my bolding). The article as it was written posed some quite potentially serious legal ramifications as the information had been cherry-picked to paint the fan in a negative light which was my reason for modifying. WP:BLP policy applies to
all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, article titles and drafts.and this includes the fan even if he is not the subject of the article. I hope this helps you understand why I reverted and warned you about potential edit-warring. Cheers -- Dom from Paris ( talk) 15:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards.or you may have misread what I wrote. Reading and especially understanding policy and guidelines comes with experience. I am glad that you consider yourself an experienced editor I do not consider myself "such" an experienced editor myself but I think I have been working in enough policy and guideline based areas such as New Pages Patrol and Articles for Creations to offer a little friendly advice but as they say, you can lead a horse to water... anyway happy editing. -- Dom from Paris ( talk) 17:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)