Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 12:22, 5 October 2021

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard

Shortcuts

Update this page

This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

You must notify any user you have reported.

You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Additional notes

When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.

Definition of edit warring

Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Click here to create a new report

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
345	346	347	348	349	350	351	352	353	354
355	356	357	358	359	360	361	362	363	364
Incidents (archives, search)
1146	1147	1148	1149	1150	1151	1152	1153	1154	1155
1156	1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164	1165
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
467	468	469	470	471	472	473	474	475	476
477	478	479	480	481	482	483	484	485	486
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
319	320	321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328
329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:Alsoriano97 reported by User:Araesmojo (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: "Difficult to post due to fast paced nature of Portal:Current_events Multiple days, same behavior. Examples from Sept. 19th shown below. Behavior has been ongoing for months."

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Adding second example of 3RR from 10/1/2021 (Edited 10/2/2021)Araesmojo (talk) 17:43, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal%3ACurrent_events%2F2021_May_12&type=revision&diff=1022949962&oldid=1022925020%7C

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Portal_talk:Current_events&oldid=1023348929

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAlsoriano97&type=revision&diff=1045470261&oldid=1043461440

Comments:

Long standing issue with user Alsoriano97 on the page Portal Current Events that has proved difficult to resolve due to rapid pace of Portal Current Events, and the current page changing every day. User has a history of 3+ reverts on multiple days over multiple months and has often been enforcing their personal view of what Portal Current Events "should" contain. User has been warned previously, and had a long discussion on the talk page of Portal Current Events that has been linked. Discussion has further examples of revert behavior. Have also archived list of all stories on Portal Current Events redacted (usually with limited comment) at User:Araesmojo/News_Stories_Redacted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Araesmojo (talk • contribs) 17:43, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This dispute seems to be about similar changes that are made on multiple different days at Portal:Current events. At first sight it is not easy to follow. I've left a note on User:Alsoriano97's talk page and hope they will respond. EdJohnston (talk) 03:32, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pahlevun reported by User:M.Nadian (Result: No violation)

This user deleted my content and created an editing war.

He misread all my sources and deleted all my edits, including Infobox "See Also". I used Fars News Agency for the issues he talked about, but he considers Fars News Agency, which interviewed Rahimpour and covered his work, to be completely invalid. If those resources are only for the topics he talks about, not the important part.

I wanted to solve this issue, but he only adds to the problem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Pahlevun

I told him to delete the parts he thinks are wrong but he deletes all the parts.

I just want finish it, I think it isn't ban user(s) for this isuee.

thanks.M.Nadian (talk) 16:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The third diff linked above is not a revert, as I wrote in the summary it was starting the article over because it was being used as a WP:SOAPBOX and the content was not backed by reliable sources. Pahlevun (talk) 11:07, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If I continued, it was not clear how many times you would undo my edit. The sources were completely credible compared to what I used. I said in above.

If you had a problem with a particular source, you must not have deleted all my edits you shot and deleted that source.M.Nadian (talk) 12:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No violation – Nobody broke WP:3RR. If there is actually a long-term dispute, please try to explain on the article talk page what it is. So far neither party has used the talk page to make their case. EdJohnston (talk) 03:36, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Br Ibrahim john reported by User:Suneye1 (Result: User blocked)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

[2] Undid revision 1047914769 by Tayi Arajakate (talk)
[3]Undid revision 1047918084 by Tayi Arajakate (talk)
[4]Undid revision 1047920023 by Suneye1 (talk). Lead must be concise. Discuss controversies in body
[5]Undid revision 1047921632 by Suneye1 (talk) Removed unrelated content and pov. I don't understand wha

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6],[7],[8]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[9],[10],[11]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [12]

Comments:

This user was previously blocked one week for edit warring. Despite discussion on three different pages and opposition from two different users, the user reverts it to their desired version. The user told Tayi Arajakate If you are interested in discussion, use the topic talk page and not my talk page.[13] but pings me at Tayi Arajakate's talk page to discuss.[14]. In my opinion, this user doesn't understand many polices or is WP:NOTGETTINGIT.- SUN EYE 1 09:44, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Both User:Tayi Arajakate and User:Suneye1 are restoring unsourced and pov content in a Biography Joseph Kallarangatt.

See [15]. They are removing all comments in support of a controversial remark made by the person and are adding theories and baseless accusations. Their opinions may be or may not be correct but they are adding pov. Please see User talk:Tayi Arajakate#3 October 2021 for further details.

//Kallarangatt is involved in a number of controversies over covering up of sexual assault allegations in the Church//

--->This information is wrong. There is no case against him. And there are no explicit and direct allegations.

//He has also been accused of using the love and narcotics jihad controversy as a distraction from the sexual assault and corruption allegations surrounding the Church and to forge an alliance with the Hindutva movement in India, in an effort to prevent corruption investigations from agencies under the Narendra Modi government.//

---> This is clear pov. It is an opinion without proof.

The following section is sourced however, it is not related to the person.

//In early September 2018, the Church became the subject of a major controversy after a group of nuns led protests over inaction against Bishop Franco Mulakkal, accused of having raped and sexually exploited a nun multiple times over a period of 2 years. The nun was complaining to various authorities in the Church hierarchy since 2017 but it had elicited no response. She eventually lodged a police complaint against Mulakkal on 28 June 2018, the protesting nuns stated that Mulakkal had powerful supporters within the Church.//

--->Must be removed. Because it is not related to the person. The Church involved is not his Church and the people involved have no relationship with him.

Another serious problem with their edits is their persistent removal of the Church head's reaction and addition of some nuns' comments, which fails notability criteria.

//The Catholic oriented Joint Christian Council (JCC) and the Kerala Catholic Reformation Movement (KCRM) criticised Kallarangatt on similar lines, raising concerns//

---> Who told them that these organisations are 'Catholic oriented'?? Not only they use weasel words but also use these kind of comments of some organisations in the lead without making it clear that it was just the opinion of these organisations.

//It was criticised for ignoring large population boom in India and for going against the existent two-child norm in Kerala, the critics from within the Syro-Malabar community described it as an unethical and immoral scheme created for petty political gains and as interference in the sexual lives of married couples by unmarried clergy.//

-->These are weasel words. There are not specifying who are thise critics. Clearly they saying their own opinion. Must be replaced with explicit mentioning of the 'who said what and when'. It should be also noted that there's no two-child norm in Kerala. The users are deliberately misleading readers.

//The Hindutva proponent right wing Bharatiya Janata Party // What's that? Again pov. BJP is a political party and it is its definition, not 'The Hindutva proponent right wing'. Br Ibrahim john (talk) 10:03, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware that this may be considered an edit-war. However, since this is a biography article, it is our responsibility to be truthful. We cannot accuse a person of rape, covering up of sexual assaults, and conspiracy with right wing until we have enough reliable evidence for that. The two other users involved are continuously adding these kind of baseless accusations that lack reliable sources. How can we spare a Biography article is such a condition. Why should we remain silent when people in Wikepedia are themselves maligning notable personalities??Br Ibrahim john (talk) 10:13, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are reliable sources for all of the quoted lines and they are accompanied by the Bishops's responses and his supporters' as well which Imbrahim john hasn't mentioned here. If you want details, I've addressed these point-wise on my talk page, the write up above is a copy paste from there. I've also tried explaining policies such as those on neutral point of view, reliable sources, notability, etc to them but by the looks of it, it doesn't appear to have worked. They are also barely coherent and I think they might have issues with communicating in English, for example Kallarangatt isn't the one accused of rape and neither does the article say so but they seem to think otherwise. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 11:31, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no misunderstanding. //Kallarangatt is involved in a number of controversies over covering up of sexual assault allegations in the Church//. This was what that was in the lead. But it is clearly false and maligning. The bishop is not involved in any sexual assault allegations. The case that was mentioned in the article, which I removed and these users were repeatedly restoring, is in no way related to this person. The institution, organisations and people involved have no relationship with the person.Br Ibrahim john (talk) 12:37, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You still seem to misunderstand that. The article does not say that there were sexual assault allegations against Kallarangatt.- SUN EYE 1 14:22, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 1 month--RegentsPark (comment) 12:59, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sukant9993 reported by User:Zoglophie (Result: No action)

Comments:

The discussion in Talk:Pramod Bhagat clearly stated as cited by ample reliable sources that the subject's *birth place* is Hajipur, Bihar not Attabira, Odisha. User changed the birth place here first then again, thrice and violated WP:3RR by reverting yet again here. zoglophie 10:01, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Declined The user hasn't reverted since the last warning. Please remember to notify the user when posting here (I've done it for you). And note that you're flirting with 3RR as well. --RegentsPark (comment) 13:06, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To RegentsPark, are we going to give wrong information to public about the subject in stake of the Wikipedia's three revert rule? He removed reliable references and made changes as how he wanted it to be, and even after five hours, no body gives a damn thing to revert it to the stable version again? zoglophie 13:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Zoglophie: Every source I've seen says you are wrong and the other user is correct. And at least some of the sources, e.g., ESPN, are reliable. Indeed, at least one of the sources you cite supports what the other user says. I suggest you take a long break from the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:05, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23 Hindustan times, Times of India, Deccan Herald, Navbharat Times are some high quality sources which say otherwise. They mention the line "Native town as Hajipur, but he moved in his childhood to Attabira, Odisha when he was polio stricken". I am now stopping to check this page again, but please note that I have no connection with the subject, my interest to this article was only due to the sport. Thankyou. zoglophie 15:01, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Zoglophie: I went back and looked again, and I see now that the sources are conflicting. Some sources say he was born in Hajipur (e.g., Times of India), and others say he was born in Attabira (e.g., ESPN). The only way to resolve that is to form a consensus on the article Talk page. Edit-warring certainly isn't the way.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:18, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:111.94.6.152 reported by User:SunDawn (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

User being reported: 111.94.6.152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

12:41, 3 October 2021 (UTC) "/* 2017 refusal to report alleged sexual assault */ It's already clear, this is a criminal case that should have strong and valid information to make it feasible as published content. Don't share the allegation information without analyzing the legal context."
12:28, 3 October 2021 (UTC) "/* Controversies */ It's a criminal case. As public information platform, we should share valid information with solid evidence. Don't share your assumption or opinion related to a criminal case."
12:19, 3 October 2021 (UTC) "/* 2017 alleged sexual assault cover-up */ As said, the university "taking further steps to investigate" doesn't mean university coverup the case, but we must share the valid information with solid evidence that strengthening by the court verdict, not an allegation based."
11:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC) "/* Controversies */ It's an allegation without solid evidence and court verdict - don't share false information"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

12:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Gadjah Mada University."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

12:34, 3 October 2021 (UTC) "/* 2017 alleged sexual assault cover-up */ Reply"

Comments:

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Favonian (talk) 14:10, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cheezypeaz reported by User:Aquillion (Result: Closed, no action required)

CLOSED

Appears to be a misunderstanding. No further action required. Deb (talk) 15:49, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

21:46, 3 October 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1048030666 by Aquillion (talk) discuss in talk"
21:45, 3 October 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1048030156 by Aquillion (talk) discuss in talk"
21:38, 3 October 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1048028723 by Aquillion (talk) take it to talk"
17:01, 3 October 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1047978523 by John Jones (talk) take it to the talk page He's a politician which you have argued to keep. also has an MA in history and has written a proper history book."
13:59, 3 October 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1047918236 by John Jones (talk) This has already been discussed at length in the talk area under Church of Wales conspiracy theory"
17:03, 2 October 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1047777022 by Monsyn (talk) - See message to you Monsyn in the talk area before reverting this again." (This one is just outside 24 hours but included for completeness.)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

21:54, 3 October 2021 (UTC) "/* Friendly WP:3RR warning. */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

21:38, 3 October 2021 (UTC) "/* Some things that should not need saying */"
21:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC) "/* Martin Johnes on the Welsh Not. */ new section"

Comments:

When I notified them about the WP:3RR on their talk page, they made it clear they had no idea what it is (and I believe them, since they immediately took it to WP:AN, here, which is hardly something someone who knows the relevant policy would do.) I was reluctant to report them given their lack of experience, but after that conversation went nowhere I think they need at least some sort of warning to make it clear that they know how seriously the 3RR is taken. -- Aquillion (talk) 22:39, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, thought it was a vandal. I thought that the WP:3RR rule was over the same stuff so I asked at ANI to clarify the rule, I had no idea this page existed. I will revert my reverts and provide an explanation afterwards. Cheezypeaz (talk) 22:57, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted my reverts. So the page is as it would have been if I had not reverted. Like I said I believed the rule was for reverting the same edit three times. Now I know better. I'll wait a couple of days before fixing. Cheezypeaz (talk) 02:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At least 3 of the examples are not edit wars, specifically the John Jones and Monsyn reverts (different content etc. Somewhat knowing what they were doing in removing/reinstating content that had been discussed in the first instance that Cheezy reverted). The Aquillion ones are. But it seems like a pointless block now as they have both got down to discussion, Cheezy reverted his last revert and have something that I think they both agree with, even if Aquillion has stopped on talk page for now. Games of the world (talk) 07:03, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - No action appears necessary. If no objection from User:Cheezypeaz or User:Aquillion, I will close this discussion. Deb (talk) 09:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:RafaelJC12 reported by User:Haminoon (Result: Warned)

User being reported: RafaelJC12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

07:30, 4 October 2021 (UTC) "This use of primary sources does not violate Wikipedia rules."
06:48, 4 October 2021 (UTC) "This use of primary sources in no way violates Wikipedia rules."
06:00, 4 October 2021 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

07:11, 4 October 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Sophie Labelle."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

07:17, 4 October 2021 (UTC) "/* Unreliable sources */"

Comments:

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. However, I will warn RafaelJC12 one more time that if they try to re-add the "tracing drama" stuff again, they will be blocked. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:199.67.203.142 reported by User:The Grand Delusion (Result: Page protected)

User being reported: 199.67.203.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

14:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1048145964 by The Grand Delusion (talk) nice, big daddy came to the rescue for Serols - I clearly explained why I removed the ref, if you dont like it, you have a problem, not me"
12:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1048131419 by Serols (talk) I clearly explained it, there are no refs required on already premiered shows - stop the bullying"
12:24, 4 October 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1048130842 by Serols (talk) unexplained revert - refs are removed from already premiered shows"
12:19, 4 October 2021 (UTC) "Undid revision 1048130495 by Serols (talk) refs are removed from already premiered shows"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

14:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC) "Reverted 2 edits by 192.193.116.143 (talk) to last revision by 192.193.116.137"
15:30, 4 October 2021 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on List of Hulu original programming."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User has been repeatedly removing references without giving a valid reason for doing so, and has made false claims of "bullying" from Serols and has displayed an antagonistic attitude with the latest revert. I understand that it's precedent to remove sources when a show has premiered, but I think it's a precedent that should be abandoned since there is no valid rationale established for it. The Grand Delusion^{(Send a message)} 15:34, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected – Five days. Both parties broke 3RR. EdJohnston (talk) 02:27, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tron4444444 reported by User:Sundayclose (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [16]

Diffs of the user's reverts:
NOTE: Previous 3rr report on this user four days ago was archived today with no action. User apparently has taken this to mean that the edit warring can resume. Please see WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive441#User:Tron4444444 reported by User:Sundayclose (Result: ) for seven previous reverts from a few days ago. This editor appears to be an SPA who is WP:NOTHERE. I'm copying the reverts from the previous report. Two additional reverts were made in the last 24 hours, for a total of nine reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Soft warning (first message on new talk page) 17:27, 29 September 2021; Stronger warning 23:03, September 29, 2021; User removes warning and responds that they don't have to follow the rules: 01:39, September 30, 2021; Third warning 14:36, October 4, 2021

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [17]

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: 19:07, October 4, 2021

Comments:
Sundayclose (talk) 19:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:134.195.198.201 reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: )

Previous version reverted to: [18]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [23]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:IP has continued to revert 3 different editors.

Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [diff]

Comments:

IP134.195.198.201 reverted me(I left after being reverted a 2nd time), making demands and not using the talk page until being reverted by the 3rd editor Noorullah21.

On the Battle of Anandpur (1704) said IP did not understand the word "capitulated" and edited warred[24][25][26] to include WP:OR(added a person dead since 1701) into that article. All of this AFTER being told multiple times to read the article talk page where I have quoted the source used and what it states concerning this particular siege/battle. Then they posted this in their edit summary.

"Sources do not mention Mughal Victory or Sikhs surrender either.

I believe this editor may not be competent in English, having not understood what "capitulated" means. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Kansas Bear wasn't being civil on the discussion page on Battle of Anandpur and nor was there any discussion about term capitulated as I clearly mentioned that I was reading different page of reference (914 as I did quick search after downloading pdf file). I am very well aware of the term but Kansas Bear has own personal view which has no fact to it. Later, Kansas Bear, made the change and the change wasn't reverted on Battle of Anandpur page. Only thing I would recommend is for Kansas Bear to be civil on discussion page and not to try to escalate the dispute. He even told me to talk to admin if I have issue with him being uncivil. 134.195.198.201 (talk) 23:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

as far as Afghan Sikh wars is concerned, there is talk page discussion on the article's page with another user Noorullah21. Its joint effort in improving the article with updated sources, fixes and information from both editors. The discussion changes and fixes are ongoing. 134.195.198.201 (talk) 12:21, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 12:21, 5 October 2021 edit 134.195.198.201 (talk) →‎User:134.195.198.201 reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: ) Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit ← Previous edit		Revision as of 12:22, 5 October 2021 edit undo 134.195.198.201 (talk) →‎User:134.195.198.201 reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: ) Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Next edit →
Line 298:		Line 298:

	Editor Kansas Bear wasn't being civil on the discussion page on Battle of Anandpur and nor was there any discussion about term capitulated as I clearly mentioned that I was reading different page of reference (914 as I did quick search after downloading pdf file). I am very well aware of the term but Kansas Bear has own personal view which has no fact to it. Later, Kansas Bear, made the change and the change wasn't reverted on Battle of Anandpur page. Only thing I would recommend is for Kansas Bear to be civil on discussion page and not to try to escalate the dispute. He even told me to talk to admin if I have issue with him being uncivil. [[Special:Contributions/134.195.198.201\|134.195.198.201]] ([[User talk:134.195.198.201\|talk]]) 23:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)		Editor Kansas Bear wasn't being civil on the discussion page on Battle of Anandpur and nor was there any discussion about term capitulated as I clearly mentioned that I was reading different page of reference (914 as I did quick search after downloading pdf file). I am very well aware of the term but Kansas Bear has own personal view which has no fact to it. Later, Kansas Bear, made the change and the change wasn't reverted on Battle of Anandpur page. Only thing I would recommend is for Kansas Bear to be civil on discussion page and not to try to escalate the dispute. He even told me to talk to admin if I have issue with him being uncivil. [[Special:Contributions/134.195.198.201\|134.195.198.201]] ([[User talk:134.195.198.201\|talk]]) 23:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
	: as far as Afghan Sikh wars is concerned, there is talk page discussion on the article's page with another user Noorullah21. Its joint effort in improving the article up updated sources, fixes and information from both editors. The discussion changes and fixes are ongoing. [[Special:Contributions/134.195.198.201\|134.195.198.201]] ([[User talk:134.195.198.201\|talk]]) 12:21, 5 October 2021 (UTC)		: as far as Afghan Sikh wars is concerned, there is talk page discussion on the article's page with another user Noorullah21. Its joint effort in improving the article with updated sources, fixes and information from both editors. The discussion changes and fixes are ongoing. [[Special:Contributions/134.195.198.201\|134.195.198.201]] ([[User talk:134.195.198.201\|talk]]) 12:21, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards