User talk:NEDOCHAN: Difference between revisions

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 4 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

Further doing this will result in your accounts deletion 192.208.124.18 (talk) 16:05, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would only ever remove anything with good reason. Should you wish to discuss what that reason might be, I suggest you begin a discussion on the relevant talk page. If, however, your plan is to propose adding something that isn't sourced to an otherwise-sourced article or infobox, then I might, on the contrary, suggest not bothering.NEDOCHAN (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing some vandalism patrol, and I've noticed a couple IPs stalking your edits and reverting every single edit you are making. Just thought to let you know, I'll try and get an admin involved. Yoshi24517 ^Chat _Online 23:57, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes, I stumbled upon a highly committed sockpuppet who's taken umbrage against me. Thanks for the heads up and it does seem as if admins have taken care of it.NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:54, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I understand now why you reverted my edits on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theories_about_Alexander_the_Great_in_the_Quran&diff=prev&oldid=1146140333&diffmode=source. My edits on 29 March 2023 were about the manuscripts used by Budge and the hypothesized neo-Persian version citing Monferrer-Sala's paper and other sources (see specifically my 3 edits there on 29 March 2023). Having seen your comments on the page of Bbb23 it seems that you actually meant to just revert a change made later the same day by an IP editor https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theories_about_Alexander_the_Great_in_the_Quran&diff=prev&oldid=1147274395&diffmode=source but you actually reverted edits by several users all the way back to 23 March 2023 (all the way back to this one https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theories_about_Alexander_the_Great_in_the_Quran&diff=prev&oldid=1146140333&diffmode=source). Is it possible to undo your most recent reversions and then just revert or remove the edit you were intending to remove or is there something I can do? Thanks.Gamma737 (talk) 10:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: I linked the wrong edit...Based on your comment to Bbb23 it looks like you just meant to undo this revision on 24 March 2023 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Theories_about_Alexander_the_Great_in_the_Quran&diff=prev&oldid=1146425186&diffmode=source where an IP user added back the thing removed by Bbb23 the previous day for sock puppetry. You can see that my 3 edits on 29 March about the manuscripts did not reinstate that change. It had already been put back by the IP user. So perhaps you can undo your reversions (which lost several good changes since 23 March) and then just delete that bit added by the IP user?Gamma737 (talk) 11:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the pages you're choosing to edit are firm favourites of a long term abuser. Look back at the edit history and you'll see. My advice would be not to edit these pages for a while. NEDOCHAN (talk) 12:06, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. I'll wait a few weeks and then if it's quiet there I will just add back my own edits that I made on 29 March 2023. Please don't remove this discussion from your talk page meanwhile so I can refer back to it, thanks.Gamma737 (talk) 15:33, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@NEDOCHAN Please do not start edit warring over that edit, what is the point of reigniting the debate there? Like I suggested we should be collaborating and supporting each other instead. If you have anything new to add to the conversation I encourage you to contribute to the RfC concerned while still ongoing or if specific to this article please follow WP:BRD and bring the issue to the Roger Gracie's TP, thank you. Lewolka (talk) 09:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't close the RfC as I was involved. The outcome was very clear, as I think you know. I have stopped short of removing all colour boxes across BJJ, but that is a logical course of action. For MMA fighters, we don't use colour boxes.NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:58, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can make a request for a neutral and uninvolved editor to formally close the discussion at Wikipedia:Closure requests. Hope that helps. Lewolka (talk) 10:22, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that edits by banned users may be reverted, but "may" isn't "must be". In this case, the edits do not need to be reverted. Did you actually look at the diffs? The content added is both relevant and referenced, and I checked the reference to ensure it supported the content which it did. That's not disruptive. The most disruption caused was a disagreement over whether "tafsir" should be capitalised, but that over even before the ban. Would you be more comfortable if I, a non-banned user, manually restored the page? – Scyrme (talk) 11:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think block evasion is a terrible thing that ruins Wikipedia.Look back at the page in question and you'll see that this editor has edited the page under at least ten different accounts. They're amazingly disruptive. If you're certain that the broken clock told the right time on this occasion, then of course I'd have no objection to adding the info manually (although of course, as an editor in good standing, you can do anything you like). But I don't think we should encourage this editor by supporting their absurdly obsessive socking.

We're talking literally hundreds of socks over many years.NEDOCHAN (talk) 12:13, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that the very small body of material in question is more constructive than vice versa. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:19, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow, Iskander, that doesn't surprise me. Tread carefully.NEDOCHAN (talk) 14:16, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What's that supposed to mean? I have literally supported you against disruptive editing. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:28, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I meant to say that surprises me, not doesn't. Why you would restore an edit by the same user knowing what you do? NEDOCHAN (talk) 15:58, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you regarding socking, but if a problematic editor decides to do something helpful for once there's no harm in letting it be. A banned editor has nothing left to lose, and indiscriminate reverts are only likely to provoke spiteful vandalism rather than anything constructive. Ordinarily you'd be right to revert, but in this case I think an exception can be made for this article for the particular changes in question (not necessarily for any future changes if they decide to return, of-course). – Scyrme (talk) 13:10, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Permanently banned users evading blocks shouldn't be 'let be'. Their edits should be reverted immediately. NEDOCHAN (talk) 14:23, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was that helpful additions should be kept. Why are you being argumentative when we clearly want the same thing here? You literally said you'd have "no objection" to keeping the content earlier. I'm not telling you to stop reverting disruptive edits by permanently banned editors. I obviously have no objection to that. – Scyrme (talk) 15:36, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I said I had no objection to your manually restoring. I have every objection to being reverted in favour of a troll. NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:00, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Points to note:

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Kaalakaa (talk) 10:57, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not engage in sockpuppetry.NEDOCHAN (talk) 11:56, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]