![]() | 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. |
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.
SarahSV
(talk)
20:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Bishonen |
talk
22:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)@ Bishonen: I have most certainly NOT violated the 30/500 limitation to anything even slightly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict since the issue was explained to me by 331dot a couple of days ago. Also, I have to say, it seems to me a bit ridiculous to be blocked for edit warring when the user who reported me ( SlimVirgin) explicitly stated that I did not violate the WP:3RR. I have since learned from Wallyfromdilbert that the 3RR does not constitute the definition of edit warring, but still, couldn't you just have given me a warning or something? Anyway, I see this is only for 24 hours, and I was actually planning on taking a break anyway, so I won't appeal this block. I'll take your advice & take the editing a bit slower in the future. M . M 22:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
"any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict". The Holocaust and its talk page are not reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict - WP:ARBPIA3#General Prohibition does not apply to the page. Icewhiz ( talk) 06:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:AnCap Meme Ball.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Ronhjones (Talk) 21:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
When you insert a source into an already sourced paragraph, you must make sure that the new source you've inserted actually supports all of the information. So for example - say you have:
This is sentence A. This is sentence B. This is sentence C.<ref>Ref A</ref>
If you then insert a new source:
This is sentence A, with clause 1.<ref>Ref B</ref> This is sentence B. This is sentence C.<ref>Ref A</ref>
Ref B has to support not just "with clause 1." but also "This is sentence A." This is elementary editing practices, and elementary sourcing practices. I strongly strongly urge you to read ALL of the help pages on sourcing and referencing before continuing to try to edit high profile articles. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Having returned from a block for edit warring at The Holocaust, you've gone right back to it. If this continues, you risk being topic-banned or blocked indefinitely. It seems that Yunshui did impose an indefinite block on 15 February, then 331dot unblocked because Icewhiz agreed to be a mentor. Icewhiz, can you confirm that this mentoring is happening? The Holocaust article is too important to mess around with, and having to deal with these reverts is time-consuming. SarahSV (talk) 16:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
@ SlimVirgin: I try to have patience, but this whole shtick is just getting more & more pathetic. All I did now was correct Eichmann's month of execution, elaborate on his indictments, link to the main article, make it an independent paragraph, and make a few grammar fixes. All that seems to have been accepted, except for the independent paragraph part (for some reason). And I didn't go "right back to edit warring" on the Holocaust - I went right back to editing a wide range of acticles, including this one, which I did not make even one revert on it since my latest block. M . M 17:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
@ Icewhiz: Yes, that seems like a good idea for now. It's not worth spending my time editing an article where >50% of my edits get reverted anyway. Though, I might be active on its talk page within the considerable future. M . M 17:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload files. However, it appears that one or more of the files you have uploaded or added to a page, specifically
User:VwM.Mwv/Userbox, may fail our
non-free policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted file of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our
Non-free criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the
Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
00:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
VwM.Mwv; Things work in reverse on copyright. We aren't trying to prove they are copyrighted. We work from the default position that a work is copyrighted unless proven otherwise. In both cases of these photographs, we don't have proof they are free from copyright. There's a very good chance they are no longer copyrighted. In fact, I'd be surprised if they were. The Ayn Rand image comes from a book from 1943. Such works are public domain if copyright isn't renewed. It's uncommon for books to have their copyright renewed. In fact, only about 7% do. But, we don't know for a fact if it was not renewed, so we have to presume it was. If the copyright was renewed, then the book and the dust jacket image would not be in the public domain until 2038. Similary, the Reichstag photo might not be in the public domain until 2040. I'm sorry it's so complex. But, it's reality in copyright circles. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 16:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
I just wanted to say, I really appreciate your willingness to listen and learn. So often we run into people who upload copyrighted works that we can't use, and they just get mad. I also wanted to give you a link to this; Gratis versus libre. Wikipedia is founded on the principal that we are libre. Many people unfortunately think that because something is free, it is libre. I.e., you find it on the net somewhere and it didn't cost you anything to download it, so it's free. The kind of mistake you made in this is similar, but your course of action sets you apart and above many others who refuse to learn, and in some cases continue to upload copyright violations anyway. Kudos to you! -- Hammersoft ( talk) 19:52, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello M. M. I noticed a user box at User:VwM.Mwv/Userbox where you claim to hate Islam. This most probably can be formulated to avoid the word "hate". I actually suggest to remove it, but it's your call. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 01:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
"I hate Judaism, not Jews"- would such a user box antagonize you? A userbox such as this invites confrontation - instead of dialogue. Icewhiz ( talk) 09:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
"I hate Atheism, not atheists"(or any other X - choose some other label that you self-identify with). The English Wikipedia has a whole slew of editors (including, for instance, editors from Islamic countries) - you don't want to come off as someone who is opposed to someone else's identity. Icewhiz ( talk) 09:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
All right, I'll remove it. But for the record, this is pretty discriminatory against politically incorrect historical facts. Note: I tried to write this a few times during the last minutes, but was blocked due to conflicting edits. M . M 10:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Your recent editing history 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. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 10:32, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
@ Icewhiz: Yeah, that's why I usually initiate the talk page discussions, but it's sometimes seen as edit warring anyway. Maybe I need to do it even earlier (after the first revert, regardless of if it came from me or someone else)? M . M 12:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
I am done playing games. You will remove, within 20 minutes of your next edit to Wikipedia, any reference to Islam or Muslims from your user page. You will not post any disparaging userbox/statement towards any group (religious or otherwise) on your user page or elsewhere. You will refrain from any userbox/statement that may be perceived as offensive by a large groups of people. You may have a right to express such opinions (debatable). Your statements may be factual. It does not matter - it is not conductive to building an encyclopedia (and too many users have spent time trying to explain this to you), and it promotes conflict rather than collaboration. I am not willing to be associated with you should such statements continue to be present on your user page (or elsewhere). Should these statements not be removed within 20 minutes of your next edit to Wikipedia - I am done mentoring and advocating for you. Icewhiz ( talk) 10:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
All right, I'll remove it. But for the record, this is pretty discriminatory against politically incorrect historical facts. Note: I tried to write this a few times during the last minutes, but was blocked due to conflicting edits.M . M 10:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
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 shown interest in governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues. 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 Wikipedia's policies, or the 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.
You've been asked by your Wiki mentor to stay away from the Holocaust / Gun control topics, yet you continue to display the same WP:NOTHERE behaviour. Please follow your mentor's advice. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 20:59, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
@ K.e.coffman: Please read this carefully because it's going to be the last comment I bother making on the topic for a while: The neutrality of that article is disputed, whether you like it or not. You should do Wikipedia a service and restore at least one of the templates I recommended until talk page consensus is reached. M . M 21:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
If you add the "neutrality disputed" template to Nazi gun control argument one more time, or if you send another retaliatory edit warring template to a user, I will block you for disruptive editing. I hope that's quite clear. You needn't bother to tell me that you've already stated you've stopped editing the article. I note you said so here, but you nevertheless [ added the template again some hours later. Just stop, please. Bishonen | talk 16:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC).
Thank you for the removal above. I have another request - you are under quite a bit of scrutiny (just looking at the amount of admin comments on your page, indicates this). I want to discuss an editing plan with you - which topics you will edit and which you will not. Let begin with what not for now, please:
What yes: (I'm basing this off of what I see you are editing).
If you want to do small scale editing on something that isn't in the above - you don't have to ask me. If you want to get involved in a new topic area - please run it by me first - ask. I am willing to consider specific articles as an exception for the NO list as well. I am fairly responsive, and if it isn't something full of trouble - I'll simply say yes. Please create User:VwM.Mwv/EditPlan - and make a NO / YES list there - both of which will increase in length. Thank you. Icewhiz ( talk) 14:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Icewhiz ( talk) 17:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi VwM.Mwv. I became very concerned when I saw you tell Icewhiz that you "Got it", meaning you would take his advice to stay off certain pages, but then you went back to editing the same page within a matter of hours. Worse, your edit was "edit warring" (restoring after a revert). Even worse still, when another editor pointed this out to you on your talk page, you argued with him that you were right, and it didn't seem to matter to you at all that you basically broke a promise to Icewhiz. It seemed to me you were ignoring Icewhiz, disrespecting the time and effort he's put in to helping you, and ultimately wasting his valuable time.
Everybody here is a volunteer, including you and including me. Every time an editor comes here and edits any page, they are donating their time to the project. I value that donation very highly, particularly from experienced users (whose time is worth more to the project because they can make more improvements faster). I hope you value Icewhiz and Bishonen's time like I do, and I hope you realize that not everybody gets the kind of personal attention (and extreme patience) that they and others have been donating to help you personally.
Please do not waste the time of these volunteers. If you don't want their help, just say so, so they can spend their time elsewhere. If you do continue to accept their help, then please do your best in good faith to follow their advice, be honest with them, and keep your promises. I hope that you do continue to accept Icewhiz's help and following his advice, and that you keep contributing to the encyclopedia. Thanks and good luck. Leviv ich 22:10, 28 February 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. |
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.
SarahSV
(talk)
20:46, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Bishonen |
talk
22:17, 23 February 2019 (UTC)@ Bishonen: I have most certainly NOT violated the 30/500 limitation to anything even slightly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict since the issue was explained to me by 331dot a couple of days ago. Also, I have to say, it seems to me a bit ridiculous to be blocked for edit warring when the user who reported me ( SlimVirgin) explicitly stated that I did not violate the WP:3RR. I have since learned from Wallyfromdilbert that the 3RR does not constitute the definition of edit warring, but still, couldn't you just have given me a warning or something? Anyway, I see this is only for 24 hours, and I was actually planning on taking a break anyway, so I won't appeal this block. I'll take your advice & take the editing a bit slower in the future. M . M 22:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
"any page that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict". The Holocaust and its talk page are not reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict - WP:ARBPIA3#General Prohibition does not apply to the page. Icewhiz ( talk) 06:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:AnCap Meme Ball.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Ronhjones (Talk) 21:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
When you insert a source into an already sourced paragraph, you must make sure that the new source you've inserted actually supports all of the information. So for example - say you have:
This is sentence A. This is sentence B. This is sentence C.<ref>Ref A</ref>
If you then insert a new source:
This is sentence A, with clause 1.<ref>Ref B</ref> This is sentence B. This is sentence C.<ref>Ref A</ref>
Ref B has to support not just "with clause 1." but also "This is sentence A." This is elementary editing practices, and elementary sourcing practices. I strongly strongly urge you to read ALL of the help pages on sourcing and referencing before continuing to try to edit high profile articles. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:39, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Having returned from a block for edit warring at The Holocaust, you've gone right back to it. If this continues, you risk being topic-banned or blocked indefinitely. It seems that Yunshui did impose an indefinite block on 15 February, then 331dot unblocked because Icewhiz agreed to be a mentor. Icewhiz, can you confirm that this mentoring is happening? The Holocaust article is too important to mess around with, and having to deal with these reverts is time-consuming. SarahSV (talk) 16:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
@ SlimVirgin: I try to have patience, but this whole shtick is just getting more & more pathetic. All I did now was correct Eichmann's month of execution, elaborate on his indictments, link to the main article, make it an independent paragraph, and make a few grammar fixes. All that seems to have been accepted, except for the independent paragraph part (for some reason). And I didn't go "right back to edit warring" on the Holocaust - I went right back to editing a wide range of acticles, including this one, which I did not make even one revert on it since my latest block. M . M 17:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
@ Icewhiz: Yes, that seems like a good idea for now. It's not worth spending my time editing an article where >50% of my edits get reverted anyway. Though, I might be active on its talk page within the considerable future. M . M 17:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload files. However, it appears that one or more of the files you have uploaded or added to a page, specifically
User:VwM.Mwv/Userbox, may fail our
non-free policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted file of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our
Non-free criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the
Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --
Marchjuly (
talk)
00:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
VwM.Mwv; Things work in reverse on copyright. We aren't trying to prove they are copyrighted. We work from the default position that a work is copyrighted unless proven otherwise. In both cases of these photographs, we don't have proof they are free from copyright. There's a very good chance they are no longer copyrighted. In fact, I'd be surprised if they were. The Ayn Rand image comes from a book from 1943. Such works are public domain if copyright isn't renewed. It's uncommon for books to have their copyright renewed. In fact, only about 7% do. But, we don't know for a fact if it was not renewed, so we have to presume it was. If the copyright was renewed, then the book and the dust jacket image would not be in the public domain until 2038. Similary, the Reichstag photo might not be in the public domain until 2040. I'm sorry it's so complex. But, it's reality in copyright circles. -- Hammersoft ( talk) 16:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
I just wanted to say, I really appreciate your willingness to listen and learn. So often we run into people who upload copyrighted works that we can't use, and they just get mad. I also wanted to give you a link to this; Gratis versus libre. Wikipedia is founded on the principal that we are libre. Many people unfortunately think that because something is free, it is libre. I.e., you find it on the net somewhere and it didn't cost you anything to download it, so it's free. The kind of mistake you made in this is similar, but your course of action sets you apart and above many others who refuse to learn, and in some cases continue to upload copyright violations anyway. Kudos to you! -- Hammersoft ( talk) 19:52, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello M. M. I noticed a user box at User:VwM.Mwv/Userbox where you claim to hate Islam. This most probably can be formulated to avoid the word "hate". I actually suggest to remove it, but it's your call. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 01:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
"I hate Judaism, not Jews"- would such a user box antagonize you? A userbox such as this invites confrontation - instead of dialogue. Icewhiz ( talk) 09:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
"I hate Atheism, not atheists"(or any other X - choose some other label that you self-identify with). The English Wikipedia has a whole slew of editors (including, for instance, editors from Islamic countries) - you don't want to come off as someone who is opposed to someone else's identity. Icewhiz ( talk) 09:53, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
All right, I'll remove it. But for the record, this is pretty discriminatory against politically incorrect historical facts. Note: I tried to write this a few times during the last minutes, but was blocked due to conflicting edits. M . M 10:56, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Your recent editing history 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. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 10:32, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
@ Icewhiz: Yeah, that's why I usually initiate the talk page discussions, but it's sometimes seen as edit warring anyway. Maybe I need to do it even earlier (after the first revert, regardless of if it came from me or someone else)? M . M 12:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
I am done playing games. You will remove, within 20 minutes of your next edit to Wikipedia, any reference to Islam or Muslims from your user page. You will not post any disparaging userbox/statement towards any group (religious or otherwise) on your user page or elsewhere. You will refrain from any userbox/statement that may be perceived as offensive by a large groups of people. You may have a right to express such opinions (debatable). Your statements may be factual. It does not matter - it is not conductive to building an encyclopedia (and too many users have spent time trying to explain this to you), and it promotes conflict rather than collaboration. I am not willing to be associated with you should such statements continue to be present on your user page (or elsewhere). Should these statements not be removed within 20 minutes of your next edit to Wikipedia - I am done mentoring and advocating for you. Icewhiz ( talk) 10:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
All right, I'll remove it. But for the record, this is pretty discriminatory against politically incorrect historical facts. Note: I tried to write this a few times during the last minutes, but was blocked due to conflicting edits.M . M 10:58, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
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 shown interest in governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues. 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 Wikipedia's policies, or the 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.
You've been asked by your Wiki mentor to stay away from the Holocaust / Gun control topics, yet you continue to display the same WP:NOTHERE behaviour. Please follow your mentor's advice. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 20:59, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
@ K.e.coffman: Please read this carefully because it's going to be the last comment I bother making on the topic for a while: The neutrality of that article is disputed, whether you like it or not. You should do Wikipedia a service and restore at least one of the templates I recommended until talk page consensus is reached. M . M 21:38, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
If you add the "neutrality disputed" template to Nazi gun control argument one more time, or if you send another retaliatory edit warring template to a user, I will block you for disruptive editing. I hope that's quite clear. You needn't bother to tell me that you've already stated you've stopped editing the article. I note you said so here, but you nevertheless [ added the template again some hours later. Just stop, please. Bishonen | talk 16:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC).
Thank you for the removal above. I have another request - you are under quite a bit of scrutiny (just looking at the amount of admin comments on your page, indicates this). I want to discuss an editing plan with you - which topics you will edit and which you will not. Let begin with what not for now, please:
What yes: (I'm basing this off of what I see you are editing).
If you want to do small scale editing on something that isn't in the above - you don't have to ask me. If you want to get involved in a new topic area - please run it by me first - ask. I am willing to consider specific articles as an exception for the NO list as well. I am fairly responsive, and if it isn't something full of trouble - I'll simply say yes. Please create User:VwM.Mwv/EditPlan - and make a NO / YES list there - both of which will increase in length. Thank you. Icewhiz ( talk) 14:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Icewhiz ( talk) 17:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi VwM.Mwv. I became very concerned when I saw you tell Icewhiz that you "Got it", meaning you would take his advice to stay off certain pages, but then you went back to editing the same page within a matter of hours. Worse, your edit was "edit warring" (restoring after a revert). Even worse still, when another editor pointed this out to you on your talk page, you argued with him that you were right, and it didn't seem to matter to you at all that you basically broke a promise to Icewhiz. It seemed to me you were ignoring Icewhiz, disrespecting the time and effort he's put in to helping you, and ultimately wasting his valuable time.
Everybody here is a volunteer, including you and including me. Every time an editor comes here and edits any page, they are donating their time to the project. I value that donation very highly, particularly from experienced users (whose time is worth more to the project because they can make more improvements faster). I hope you value Icewhiz and Bishonen's time like I do, and I hope you realize that not everybody gets the kind of personal attention (and extreme patience) that they and others have been donating to help you personally.
Please do not waste the time of these volunteers. If you don't want their help, just say so, so they can spend their time elsewhere. If you do continue to accept their help, then please do your best in good faith to follow their advice, be honest with them, and keep your promises. I hope that you do continue to accept Icewhiz's help and following his advice, and that you keep contributing to the encyclopedia. Thanks and good luck. Leviv ich 22:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)