User talk:Djcheburashka

November 2014

I'm leaving this up as an example of the abuse use of templates by Roscelese. Djcheburashka (talk) 00:53, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at David Lisak. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Is this a joke? You're in violation of a slew of policies and the matter is up for POV discussion. The person being disruptive here is you, not me.

Djcheburashka (talk) 08:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Deletions of unsourced material at IFALPA page

RE: The dispute at the International Federation of Air Line Pilots' Associations page:

Frankly, I am a bit disappointed that you would give any credence at all to Orange Mike's argument for reverting back to statements that are clearly in non-compliance with numerous wiki rules: Namely that my editing might be risky, BECAUSE I MIGHT DO SOMETHING IN VIOLATION OF THE RULES at sometime in the future!! Please show me where in the rule pages of Wikipedia, the appropriateness of any deletes is to be judged on how you think some editor might act in the future?

If you would please take the time to read the that wiki article, and the deletes that I made, you will see All my deletes were justified by the Wiki Rules, not to mention the tag at the top of the page, because none of the statements had been supported by ANY CITATIONS AT ALL, for over 7 years.

And then, look at the response of editor Orange Mike: Did he offer ANY good reason at all why his wholesale revert back to many rule-breaking statements, complied with Wikipedia rules of editing? If so, please show that to me; I am unable to find any legitimate argument on his side. All he did is make a red herring personal attack; nothing more.

Your comments from your own talk page above:

"Your refusal to discuss any of these issues, preventing there from ever being a consensus, does not entitle you to them claim "no consensus, the page must stay in favor of my bias forever."

Djcheburashka (talk) 18:59, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Dude -- In the first place please sign your comments. In the second, I don't run the place. Someone raised a dispute, which calls for discussion and an attempt at consensus. Since I am neutral, I tried to offer assistance.

It appears that you posted a lengthy argument on the talk page, someone objected, and then immediately after you made your edits. Some of those edits seem good, but some go to far.

You are also manifestly partisan on the issue.

I therefore suggested that the two of you go back to the talk page and try to build consensus.

Djcheburashka (talk) 09:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Comment by EditorASC

I am in the same situation at the IFALPA page. Editor Orange Mike has done the same; he has refused to discuss the legitimate wiki rules issues I raised on the talk page, so I will respond in the same words you did, when you were found to be in the same situation:

Directed at Orange Mike:

"Your refusal to discuss any of these issues, preventing there from ever being a consensus, does not entitle you to them claim "no consensus, the page must stay in favor of my bias forever."

EditorASC (talk) 06:18, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

When I looked at the talk page, it did not appear to me that much effort had been made by either of you to try to reach consensus before fighting over the edits. Is it really so hard to try to have a reasonable discussion to resolve it? It looked like some of your edits were removing violative material, but some of your edits seemed unnecessary, excessive, and POV. Why don't you just try to work it out?

Djcheburashka (talk) 09:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Feminist school of criminology

From CambridgeBayWeather's talk page

The feminist school of criminology page does not have a single citation on it.'

<facepalm>. Dude, it has TEN citations from NINE sources, and you were given a DIRECT LINK to them seven paragraphs above that ludicrous claim. Do you not understand the meaning of the word "citation"? --Calton | Talk 09:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

You're right -- "not a single" was too far. It would be more accurate to say that in three pages of screens, it has seven citations, two of which are actually accessible. Those citations claim, as support for the article, things like Justice Souter's dissent in the Morrison case, which obviously has nothing to do with either criminology or feminism or the feminist theory of criminology.

Djcheburashka (talk) 09:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

You're right -- "not a single" was too far.

No, it was flat wrong. One-hundred-percent wrong. Not even slightly correct, especially since this particular bullshit claim was part of your alleged rationale for having it deleted.

It would be more accurate to say that in three pages of screens, it has seven citations...,

What possible ACTUAL difference does density make? I tell you, in case it's unclear: none whatsoever.

...two of which are actually accessible

<facepalm>. Yet ANOTHER principle/rule/guideline/practice/bit of reality which you don't understand. Do you have access to a library? Then the sources are accessible. "Having a URL" is NOT -- and never has been -- a requirement for a source. EVER.

Wikipedia:Verifiability#Access_to_sources: Some reliable sources may not be easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print source may be available only in university libraries or other offline places. Do not reject sources just because they are hard or costly to access.

Wikipedia:Offline sources: The first sentence reads, "Wikipedia's reliable sources guideline states that articles should be sourced with reliable, third-party, published sources. Even though Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, there is no distinction between using online versus offline sources. [Emphasis in the original]

And even if true -- and it's not even close -- it's STILL irrelevent.

I'm trying to think of one single thing you've been right about so far, and there haven't been any. You seem to have great difficulty with the phrase, "I was wrong", given the elaborate excuses you ginned up to avoid saying it. --Calton | Talk 02:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Somehow you've obtained the mistaken view that your statements or conduct so far demonstrate a reason why I or anyone else should be concerned with your opinion on these matters. I continue to leave your comments up, because I think they say a lot about who you are, and how your other actions should be views.

I will not, however, take the bait and stoop to the level of responding to you in kind. Djcheburashka (talk) 03:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Just read your message

Saw where the article was protected by an admin. I understand your position, and consult you to utilize the RfC process for consensus, and avoid reverting edits, especially when it involves editors who are known to be disruptive. Block logs speak volumes. Unfortunately, if you edit long enough, you will likely run into situations that defy common sense, and will tax every ounce of your patience. Walk away from it, and come back later. Familiarize yourself with WP policies and guidelines - learn them well so you aren't the one who ends up getting blocked. Remember Aesop's fable about the tortoise and the hare - there is no deadline on WP articles, and no need to edit with a sense of urgency. There are lots of trip hazards - learn where/what they are, and avoid them. Kindest regards... Atsme☯^Consult 19:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Second this. Wise words. Alex Maione (talk) 07:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Editing and template competence warning

Thank you for attempting to edit Wikipedia. However, one or more edits you labeled as disruptive, such as the edit at Dasha Zhukova are not considered disruptive under Wikipedia policy. Also, don't use templates you don't actually understand, nor make claims about policies and practices about which are demonstratively wrong or about which you know less than the editor you are attempting to lecture. See also WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:CIR. Thank you. --Calton | Talk 03:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

You attempted to revert an edit you didn't understand on a page you had never looked at before, apparently as part of some sort of odd vigilante campaign related to your views of the POV dispute over the David Liskan and False accusation of rape pages. That is disruptive editing.

If you believe it is not disruptive editing, then please explain to me your reasoning. I will happily revert the template if you have an explanation of how your edit was in good faith. Djcheburashka (talk) 03:09, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	I think this is most germane to your work. Alex Maione (talk) 07:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 09:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

IFALPA

I'm just getting a 404 too... strange. Anyway, looking at the deleted text, it's so blatantly promotional that it would have qualified as a speedy as spam, so I'm leaving it dead. Thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:12, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Looking through the history, it's been spam for several years now. Although the edit warring didn't help, I couldn't find a clean version to restore too. The text needs too much work to be tweaked into neutrality, so if someone really wants this article they would do better starting from scratch. I'm surprised it lasted so long before it was whacked to be nonest. thanks again Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:27, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Precisely why I decided to begin eliminating overtly SPAM statements that were clearly POV and OR, and which had been that way for over 7 years (not one single, valid WP:RS cite to support any of it, even after a notice was posted at the beginning of the article, stating that challenged statements could be removed if not properly cited).

What surprised me is that any Wiki Administrator would not only revert my well-thought-out deletes, that were explained in detail both in my edit summaries and on the Talk Page, but without any valid justification for a mass revert.

Then, after I poured over Orange Mike | Talk User page, I was even more shocked to find that he was a militant anti-spammer Administrator (which is fine with me - I feel the same about ALL Spam articles which try to use Wikipedia as another propaganda forum, especially since Wiki editing rules clearly forbid such), yet he did a complete back flip on that article, APPARENTLY (my logical inference) because he was in favor of forced unionism.

SPAM propaganda articles, that are in clear violation of multiple wiki editing rules should be blocked and/or deleted -- according to Orange Mike | Talk User Page statements -- UNLESS (again, my logical inference) they supported a particular political view that was consistent with the political views of ADMINISTRATOR Orange Mike | Talk... I think there is a rather precise word for that kind of conduct, but I will avoid using it here lest I be accused of failing to assume "good faith" on the part of ADMINISTRATOR Orange Mike | Talk.

In my view, I should never have had to seek out and post the appropriate speedy delete template on that article. That should have been done by ADMINISTRATOR Orange Mike | Talk, after he was drawn back to that article a second time, by the deletes that I made, with proper explanation. But, instead he staked out a contrary position: That of DEFENDING and PROTECTING a blatant SPAM propaganda article, that had been defying Wiki editing rules for over 7 years.

Admins and Rollbackers can use the rollback button to quickly undo the last edit(s) by a single person on a single page. It is the equivalent of picking the last version by another editor from the history and restoring that, without leaving an edit summary. Non-admins have access to a javascript tool that has the same function.

The rollback tool is mainly intended to be used against vandalism, but can also be used to undo ones own mistakes. It should never be used in content disputes, edit wars or to revert another users' good faith edits. [[1]]

For the record, there wasn't any "edit warring" on my part. I simply followed Wiki rules by beginning to delete unsupported SPAM type POV OR statements, that had been there without any citations, for over 7 years. I did that with the full support of Wikipedia editing rules. Since I did not take the bait of an improper wholesale revert by an Administrator, by reverting Orange Mike | Talk back, any first step of an "edit war" began with his actions, not mine. EditorASC (talk) 03:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

You will notice that I did not challenge the G12 deletion of the article. If the topic is genuinely notable, a new article should be built from scratch. Neither I (a proud union leader) nor EditorASC (an avowed union basher) should be involved. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• • • EditorASC Talk Guys - this is beyond ridiculous. The page was a poorly-done page about a notable subject, a union with 100,000 members. Either way, Jimfbleak now deleted the whole thing so you can start from scratch. Anyway, whatever --- I'm not an admin here, I'm just somebody who happened to be neutral and thought I could help you guys move from conflict to cooperation. In that, I failed miserably. EditorASC, the fact that you are continuing to post on my page about this, a week after the page was deleted, shows that you're letting your passions get the best of you. My talk page is not "the record." OrangeMike - what do you care what he writes on my talk page? You don't have to respond to everything that anyone says about you. So, guys, chill. This is wikipedia editing, it only changes the page, it doesn't alter reality. OrangeMike, perhaps you want to take a try at building an NPOV, properly sourced article, that EditorASC can then pick a fight with you over.

• • • In the meantime, I will continue to not give a shit about either aviation unions or the effect of aviation unions on aviation safety.

• • • If you guys would like to continue to argue about this on my talk page, feel free to do so forever, but please confine it to this section. The other sections are for other people to yell at me about different things. Thank you for your cooperation. Djcheburashka (talk) 07:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Verbosity

I haven't seen or read the ANI discussion: and deliberately I am not going to.

I agree with you, that writing out a structured argument saying if this therefore that, and so on, seems to be the exception nowadays, we have to write in twitterspeak. I'm sorry, but I don't. I write longhand – indeed I type longhand – I don't even use the visual editor. It gives me time to think what I am writing. Then, after I have slammed it all in (in a draft or my user space) I go through carefully and revise it, trying to make it shorter. Like Voltaire said, "I have only made this longer since I have not had time to make it shorter".

Try translating an article from another language's Wikipedia (if you are familiar with another language, I guess from your name that you are) and you will see how verbose they can be compared to the English. When I translate the hardest thing is to decide how to do the blue pencil (editing); the words are the easy bit but "how would I say this to a divere worldwide audience of English speakers"? And that is very hard because I translate it and however I do it I look at it two days later and think, oh, that is not exactly a machine translation but a word-for-word translation, and now I should put it into proper English.

So I do think that the ramble, discussion, at the start, following up leads and finding references, is an important part of the process. And if one just slammed in eg "Djcheburashka is a town in southern Poland, population 900, its chief manufacture is porn stars" or whatever that would get an instant comeback of where are your RS and so on. But when you take the time to do the RS it's called verbiage.

Well I dunno about the ANI but I think articles should be to the point, but discussions can ramble.

Si Trew (talk) 07:54, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

It's "Humour", btw, as any fule kno. The lack of good humour on WP from hard working editors does frustrate me sometimes. We work our tits off to copy edit and make stuff acceptable, and I don't think a legalistic background does harm: I am a software engineer and in my trade we are called language lawyers, which was red the last time I looked, the people who will say this is in such and such a spec at para 14.5.2.7. We're kinda respected in the trade for that skill above any other, writing code is easy, saying this or that meets the spec or doesn't, is hard. It is a bit legalistic to do so when code monkeys bash out stuff without a thought. Take time and trouble. I owe you a blue pencil.

You might have some fun at The Internet Oracle; all contributions are anonymous. I tend to do mine in iambic pentameter or iambic tetrameter. Do you know A. P. Herbert's works? The Negotiable Cow must be a standard text by now. But Misleading Cases is redlink. Si Trew (talk) 08:58, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you but re-reading your remarks at my talk page, I can only agree more. (I did notice you don't like conversations split across multiple pages, you hypocrite!) I tend to wade into very obscure articles – I think I even created a railway transport diagram for a the Casablanca tramway – and think well that's not too bad a job. Well, anything popular now is hardly worth doing because one instantly gets reverted, as you say, without discussion or without any assumption of good faith. If you stick in the backwaters I think you can improve the encyclopaedia, though. I take a lot out of it, so I think it is fair to try to put something back in. Si Trew (talk) 07:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Jack Stock

Hi Djcheburashka, Jack Stock is notable as per Wikipedia:Notability (sports) subsection regarding Australian Football League players. Cheers --Terlob (talk) 02:39, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok - I see what you mean. That's a pretty dang low standard. So every single player in the league gets a page? Djcheburashka (talk) 02:42, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Terlob Actually I take that back. The criteria on WP:Notability (Sports) - Australian Football are guidelines: Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. It doesn't seem to me that every single player in the league is notable for that reason, and there isn't anything on the page to indicate why this player should be considered notable. Perhaps I should have marked it for deletion discussion rather than speedy deletion? Djcheburashka (talk) 02:52, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing!

	Two jars of big Aguas frescas for you!
	Thanks for reviewing the article! Here, two jars of big aguas frescas for you! :D ~ Muffin Wizard ;) 05:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

FSOC questions

This evening, curiosity and duty as an editor to get the article right motivated me to read Feminist school of criminology to see what all the fuss was about. Unfortunately, I was unable to get past the lead without it giving rise to a plethora of questions, starting with the physical location of the "school", its organizational structure, curriculum, the name of its founder, whether its governed by a Board of Regents, if it's state or privately funded, etc. It is a school, isn't it? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the article name appears to be more of a headline for an editorial piece than the name of an encyclopedic article about a person, place or thing. It doesn't even appear to be an ideology, so then I thought perhaps it was the title of a television miniseries. What is it, exactly, or do you know? There certainly appears to be a big fuss to keep the article as is, but how can editors engage in intelligent discussion to delete or keep it without knowing what it is? Atsme☯^Consult 09:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Atsme Hah! Yeah, that's about right. It appears to be a total of 5 or so obscure journal articles from the 1970s and 1980s. Except, its what evergreenfir's PhD thesis is about. It reads like a sophomore's history 201 essay. Are the warning tags still up that have been on there for six years? I did mess up the deletion request, but that page should go. Djcheburashka (talk) 16:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Wow. Unacceptable. We need more info. Atsme☯^Consult 18:49, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I want to wait for all of this to cool down, and perhaps for some resolution of the multiple ANI's, before touching this again. I don't want to complicate things or make another stupid mistake. Did you know there's another ANI going on regarding Roscelese by the way? Someone complained that she's been violated page protections on one of the abortion articles, and she responded by claiming that the complainer must be a sockpuppet. The whole thing is extraordinary -- this person has a multitude of past warnings, sanctions, blocks, and violations of blocks, all relating to edit warring womens' rights pages and abusing editors; but she has a real knack for distracting people from those allegations by making accusations against her accusers, and somehow she's managed to escape serious consequences. Trying to edit those pages is hard enough with all the "mens rights movement" nut-jobs around, having aggressive, abusive radicals on the other side of the political spectrum makes the whole project basically impossible. Djcheburashka (talk) 22:30, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Waiting is a good plan. FYI, I asked a few questions to an accomplished editor who also happens to be an admin regarding some of the things that troubled me about FSOC. Her response was enlightening. [2] Atsme☯^Consult 02:34, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Atsme Oh? Do tell. I'm less concerned about that one page (which could be edited down to be viable) than I am about the structural problem here. When you have impassioned radicals vying for control over the depiction of a subject, it can only end one of three ways: 1) The groups take control of different pages, so there's effectively sets "owned" by each, with a kind of "front line," and all the pages on the subject are POV; 2) They reach a "faux" consensus by wordsmithing each sentence until the whole piece is totally illegible; or 3) The behavior of both groups is modified. Djcheburashka (talk) 03:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I understand your position, and agree with you in many respects, but as an eternal optimist, I maintain faith in the system. I was in a similar position once, and imagine there are many other editors who experienced same at one time or another. Thankfully, we're not the only ones who acknowledge there's a problem, but keep in mind, the opposition sees it the same way from their own perspective. I learned early on that an editor can stand firm on policy easier than they can stand firm on principal, the latter of which is often misinterpreted as being combative. There is a high toll to pay for policy violations regardless of whether or not your goal was simply to get the article right. I've also learned from reading the debates and conclusions of various ANIs and BLPNs that the only truly acceptable bold edits are the ones that correct a BLP violation, and even then you may encounter editors who WP:DONTGETIT, or perhaps it's a perspective issue, or they may be socks, SPAs, or disruptive editors per WP:NPOV or WP:NOTADVOCATE or WP:NOTOPINION. In some instances, it may even be a situation where GF editors simply don't realize they are not following guidelines, or have violated policy. Many of the problems stem from varying interpretations of policy which lends itself to vibrant debates, some of which escalate to WP:CIVILITY violations, and that's sad. There are all kinds of behavioral issues as evidenced by the debates at ANI. My heart goes out to the admins because no matter what action they take, the losing editor is not going to like it. The latter may explain why it's easier for admins to simply block both editors, say for edit warring, and why it is most important for them to focus on policy violations and behavioral issues rather than content disputes. I consult you to edit one article at a time, and focus on a particular statement or paragraph in that article that you believe is problematic. Take it to the Talk page, and explain your reasons. I pointed out FSOC because even though the violations are blatant, and accomplished editors may agree, you still have to go through the steps. Atsme☯^Consult 16:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Your recent AfD activity

Hi Djcheburashka,

You have recently nominated a few articles for deletion. Before nominating any more articles, please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's notability and deletion policies. None of your nominations have been policy-based, which is the backbone for all deletion debates. You've referenced one or two policies but said they weren't enough to give notability; however, an article that meets at least one notability threshold is considered notable. So, when you said, for example: This fits a minimum guideline on WP:Notability-sports because he played in the Victorian Football League, that ends the discussion and the subject is considered notable. In addition, make sure you familiarize yourself with what to do before nominating an article for deletion. Let me know on my talk if you need any help! Deadbeef 09:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Deadbeef thank you for your comments. The requests you're referring to are founded on WP:N -- the articles in question have, generally, no content other than to name the subject and say that he played professional Australian football, all with a single cite to the Encyclopedia of Australian Football. Copying each entry over for a stub, which is what someone's done, does not seem to me a productive exercise, and it fails to meet the minimum standards for notability. Its true that there are people who share your view. Its seems that your view was the consensus some time ago. Today, while there's apparently been a debate for some time as to whether appearance in professional sporting event is sufficient to demonstrate notability, there is no such consensus. The notability guideline for sports says that these people, on the basis of having appeared in a league event, may be considered notable. But, however, that mere fact does not conclusively establish notability.

You are certainly entitled to your view on the subject, and to object on the deletion pages. The requests themselves were proper by WP:N, WP:ASC, and WP:DEL. (I believe these articles meet the criteria for speedy deletion, which allows deletion for biographies that have only a single source or where there's no indication of importance even if notable. I have only stopped using SC because I respect that some people object.)

Thank you. Djcheburashka (talk) 16:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

November 2014

Your recent editing history at Jordan Belfort shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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 your 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. Bbb23 (talk) 01:20, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23 Huh? I have one revert, Ravenfire has 3.

What do I do here? After Revenfire's first revert (which ignored the talk page) I opened discussion on the talk page and his own talk page in response to his deletion. First he said the point was not backed by the source, then I cut-and-pasted the quote. He expressed a different concern. I proposed modifications to the sentence at issue to reflect his concerns, pointing him to the relevant sections of the guidelines. He said they could not be resolved. I therefore wrote a new sentence which removed what he had said was his concern. He reverted, raising a new concern, this time arguing that an WP:RS establishing that SO joined the NASD in April, 1987, was insufficient to demonstrate that it was founded earlier than that date. I thought that was silly, but I modified the sentence again. Again he reverted - this time he felt identifying the date was redundant with saying that it was unclear who had founded the firm which, obviously, is not the case. At that point I made 1 revert.

In the BRD cycle, the B edit was Ravenfire's. I reverted and opened discussion. I've made numerous changes to try to reflect his concern -- at the start I think he had at least an argument (although I think he was wrong); at this part, I don't think he even has that.

Is this really how difficult it is to get even simple edits done around here? Djcheburashka (talk) 01:38, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

You have two obvious reverts, one at 7:32 and the other at 9:00. However, even your edit of November 15 at 9:21 was a revert as it restored material that had been removed from the article. I warned the other editor as well.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:47, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23 The second change (and only, in my view, revert) was at 19, not 9. The edits of November 15 and today at 7:32 both made changes to the content that were directly responsive to the issue identified by the other editor.

The question I asked was: What do I do here? I don't see any legitimate discussion taking place, although I've tried to commence it. Djcheburashka (talk) 01:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

You're dead wrong about the reverts. However, as for your other question, you can never justify edit-warring based on a content dispute or even a failure to participate in a disussion about it. If you believe the other editor is not discussing the issue with you, you'll have to use a different dispute resolution instrument.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Bbb23 In what respect am I wrong about the reverts? At this stage of things, whose version goes in while this goes some other form of dispute resolution? The pre-"war" version of the page was from the 15th; I assume Ravenfire prefers the last version he reverted. Djcheburashka (talk) 02:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I've got a better idea. Why don't you look at the definition of a revert at WP:3RR and explain to me why the two edits I said were reverts were not?--Bbb23 (talk) 02:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I started editing because, looking at pages on subjects about which I know a bit, I've noticed that the quality has been dropping pretty dramatically over the last few years. I'm starting to understand why. Djcheburashka (talk) 02:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

And to answer your question: Every edit to a page necessarily changes something that another editor has done, but there's no "three edit" rule. If inserting different text into a section from which someone else has deleted text, where the text is about the same subject, counts as a "revert," then every edit to every page would be a revert. Djcheburashka (talk) 02:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)