User talk:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

April 2011[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Pawan Kalyan. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

  1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
  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; 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 continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Switching IPs does not help your case either. Jasper Deng (talk) 00:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Let me make this clear: User: made an edit, not a revert. did not make other edits on the page. User:DMacks reverted's edit. I reverted DMacks's edit. I did not make any other edits on the page. In no way did I edit war, for me and only made a total of 2 contributions and 1 revert on my half. User:Dmacks, however, reverted nearly every edit on the page today, including edits unrelated to this case, giving an appearance of a two sided edit war even though in truth he was simply disruptive against everyone. And yes, obviously he made more than 3 reverts ([1]), including the (revert [2]) of ('s edit [3]) disguised as a non-reverting edit. So as you see, I wasn't edit warring, be merely a victim of a disruptive editor. (talk) 00:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Per WP:DUCK you seem to be the same as that IP.Jasper Deng (talk) 00:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
WP:DUCK allows me to count you as the same as that person. In addition, WP:BLP is an exemption to the three revert rule.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
First, go for a check user search. I'm not even. Willing to bet if you want. Second, even if I was both our edits adds to only 1 revert. That sure is edit warring. (talk) 01:02, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I'll make an SPI out of this. And no, you and the other IP's edits sum up to 3 or more.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:05, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
The other IP's edits are COMPLETELY UNRELATED. Just because the same guy reverted them doesn't make them related. (talk) 01:10, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Idk what DMacks told you, but he's just paranoid that all the IPs who don't completely agree with his random reverting are conspiring against him. (talk) 01:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The edits were very similar. If you do not stop attacking DMacks you will be blocked.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Attacking? He's reverting everyone in the page and just by being reverted I'm attacking him? Please explain. (talk) 01:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
That's an attack on him, especially when you call it disruptive.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Well sorry for that, but it is my opinion, and you should understand that if someone was reverting everything an a page you're reading, you'll think he's disruptive as well. Maybe he has his reasons, but trying to see him as not disruptive isn't something you'd just do, 'cause it is hard to imagine how, although that doesn't imply it can't be true he has good reasons. Thanks for reminding even the apparently obvious can indeed be an attack. (talk) 01:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Now you can't edit the page in question. Admins rarely revert w/o good reason. See our definition of vandalism and WP:BLP - he can revert unlimited times if he sees edits fitting that definition and/or violations of WP:BLP.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I hope your logic is not that because he reverted me I must be vandalizing, which in turn is a good excuse for him to be reverting. We all have the tendency, when tired of something, to just close it up and draw quick conclusions. I do that as well (a lot), but it actually isn't very right, and sometimes you have to look closely at the edits to see for yourself whether I was really "vandalizing". I don't see and violations of BLP in the page either, many users simply added dates titles, and he never made any remarks on BLP in his edits. (talk) 01:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Did you actually read the definition of vandalism? It's broader than you think.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes. Read it long ago. Vandalism in a nutshell is any act to cause damage against Wikipedia. So, how does adding those titles count as vandalism? (talk) 01:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


Did you actually read the complete definition (not just the nutshell)?Jasper Deng (talk) 01:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
How different is it supposed to be? Sure I'll read it, but I doubt I'll see All edits reverted by DMacks also count as vandalism even if DMacks didn't even claim so himself :)
You're not listening. Please read that definition.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I just read all of it now. Still see nothing on there that has much to do with this case. (talk) 02:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
The following constituted vandalism:
And that has ______ to do with this case. (talk) 02:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Exactly what you were doing on that page.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:48, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Reading the history out of curiosity, noticing a large mass of reverts by one person against many different people, and checking it. I noticed on of the unexplained reverts deleted information about many of the movies, leaving blank spaces, so I undid that revert. (talk) 02:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

You should've used an edit summary and in addition, obeyed our consensus.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
(ec) Some of my reverts are explained in edit-summaries (did you use any to explain why your edits are an improvement or to disagree with my reasoning?), others are reverting changes that contradict embedded comments, others are the N+1th time of reverting the same previously-explained edit by various one-time IPs. In all cases, I am following the results of discussed WP:CONSENSUS for layout, avoidance of WP:OR analysis (including WP:BLP issues in some cases). For example, WP:FILM and WP:FILMBIO have generally agreed-upon standards, based on normal wikipedia content policies and guidelines, for film lists. Saying that a film is a "flop" is against their standard layout (WP:CONSENSUS and WP:MOS) and is at best an uncited analysis of numerous unstated pieces of uncited data. DMacks (talk) 03:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
@ Jasper, I don't see how undoing a deletion of information which left boxes blank is against consensus. No one claimed the consensus was to leave many pieces of a table blank. I fully understand you would think I was acting against consensus, as I would also assume an IP reverting an old editor is acting against consensus and vandalizing as well, but you should never leave out the possibility that maybe the IP isn't really that bad. Maybe.
@ DMacks, you explained some of your reverts, but you needed to explain why you wanted those boxes blank, or at least SAY that you disagree with what was put in them, assuming that you do. Not explaining those, well, makes your edit look disruptive. Because people looking at edit histories will not see that the IPs are once-editors, and easily assume that you are the disruptive person. If you see an edit history with one person reverting many edits leaving boxes blank, you will undo an revert as well unless the person does a good job explaining the IPs are 1-users and that he disagrees with the information put in. (talk) 03:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
There was consensus elsewhere about the way we should edit articles like this, and you violated it.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:17, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I'm sorry, yes, but you should understand it is not disruptive, vandalism, or edit warring to not see some consensus somewhere far. (talk) 03:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you are reminded not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Karl Marx. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. "…you are obviously a communist…". Please do not make personal accusations against other users. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Sean.hoyland (talk · contribs), why do you do reverting and get have other people to explain it for you? (talk) 04:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I have your talk page watchlisted. I saw that you had been warned. I checked why and removed your comment from the talk page with an edit summary explaining why. I see that you replaced your comment. It is still unconstructive. Sean.hoyland - talk 04:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Talk:Karl Marx. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. this diff Fifelfoo (talk) 01:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
considering you're planning to report me any second, fine. (talk) 01:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Actually I'm more interested in you changing your civility and contributing as an editor to the encyclopaedic process. If you could respond to the civility issues now, it means that the preventative steps of problem resolving won't be necessary. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


There is a discussion at ANI about your recent comments and you may comment here. TFD (talk) 02:01, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, as you did at AIDS denialism, you may be blocked from editing. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:20, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Apparently everything you don't like is disruptive editing. Instead of going to the talk page of everyone you disagree with and exclaim that they are disruptive and need to be banned, maybe you should be calm and discuss on the talk page of that article. This is what talk pages are for. If everyone who disagree with others go the their talk pages and give ad hominum attacks to the person, talk pages wouldn't exist. (talk) 00:34, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
Interesting talk page you have. I guess no one likes the way you edit. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:43, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
I donno why, but somehow I doubt you read my comment. My previous discussions have all been resolved, and have nothing to do with you. (talk) 00:45, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.