User talk:Farangizsaifi

Discussion[edit]

What I want to let you understand is that no matter how old was a page without editions, if the text is not matching the source! In that page, it wasn't matching the source so it has to be corrected.

Btw, if you want you can delete this and your whole Talk page. I said to you that we can resolve it in a friendly mood but you don't want to hear. Anyways, admins will see if the page is correct or not. Regards... --TechnicianGB (talk) 12:14, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Self revert rule"[edit]

Wikipedia:Edit_warring#Exemptions

Self reversions are exempt from the edit-warring policy, Wikipedia rule.

I just noticed that you reverted my changes 4 times in less than 24h, breaking the Wikipedia:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule (3 revert rule). As I said before to you, I see that you have few edits on the Wikipedia and I will be gentle.

About the other things, I did exactly what you wrote there. I changed the edits of an IP and then you reverted my changes, instead of opening a consensus on the talk page. And again the 1st thing which you have to do is to look at the sources, it doesn't matter the "stable" version if it's contradicting the source! as well as that change was inserted like that months ago by an anonymous IP with no sources, and no one changed it or noticed it. After that, I requested the page for protection.

But i'll gladly thank you if you don't put such things on my talk page, and less such warning images which are used for users doing vandalism. I'd recommend you to read this entire guide: Wikipedia:Edit_warring to differentiate from edit warring and reversion rules. Thanks! --TechnicianGB (talk) 11:13, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TechnicianGB you have reverted 4 times (excluding self-reversions) in the last 24 hours:

I kindly ask you to self revert before I take this to admin noticeboard. It is a futile battle which just weakens your own position by violating wikipedia rules. Best,Farangizsaifi (talk) 11:20, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that you don't know at all how those reversions work, and you also don't want to hear.

First forget about that. The text was contradicting the sources, which is a must to correct, as we are here to improve Wikipedia.

Second, you probably didn't get already what is a reversion. That means 3 reversions between one user to another, not counting 3rd party users.

This edit: *https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=African_admixture_in_Europe&diff=803641325&oldid=803616534 can't be counted, it's not between me and you. And my last edition:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=African_admixture_in_Europe&diff=803745940&oldid=803745847 was before requering a protection on the page, to let administrators know the reasons and to see that the data is contradicting the source.

Besides, you reverted 3 times my changes:

You are still in a "just my own version" mood and you don't see that you are reverting changes which contradict the source. Don't start with the disqualifications of "it weakens your position" and all of that because you change factual editions (supported by the sources) to what the sources don't say... And wasn't me who started the reversion thing.

Actually I can't edit the page, is protected only for administrators to resolve this issue. Anyways, I wouldn't change it as i'm just writing what the sources say. Let the administrators take part of this. --TechnicianGB (talk) 11:30, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TechnicianGB Im not involved, this is not my version. I just noticed you violating wikipedia rules. Farangizsaifi (talk) 11:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Farangizsaifi: you are involved since you revert my 3rd edition, while I reverted 2 of yours. Above is the proof, as I said, 3rd party reversions can't be counted.

Again, you don't understand it. Why are you so insistent with this if I shown you that I only corrected some false data which is not mentioned on the sources? How do I have to explain again for you to understand it well, that a text can't be sourced with a source which doesn't match the text!!

I'm also completely sure that you didn't know about wikipedia rules before I warned you. And you also started with a slight personal attack on me. Ayways, I won't continue this discussion anymore, it just touched the point of senseless. Administrators are dealing already with that page and are checking the sources to correct the page.

goodbye. --TechnicianGB (talk) 11:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC)--TechnicianGB (talk) 11:37, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Important[edit]

I'm here to hopefully clear up a few points for you. First, I arrived here by seeing your post to the Admin Incident Board. I was particularly struck by this diff. Thankfully another admin has protected the article so you both may avoid a block in this instance. By continually "reverting persistent edit warring" you are, in fact, edit warring. Edit warring is not defined by going past 3 reverts in a 24 hour period. That is only one way to edit war. You should read WP:Edit warring. Additionally, if editors continue to revert each other while discussion is ongoing, that could be construed as edit warring as well. Personally, I would not arbitrarily block editors while they were discussing their differences unless they had been warned first. You may consider this your warning. Please see WP:BRD. An edit is executed, the edit is reverted, discussion takes place. Not edit, revert, discuss, revert, discuss, revert, discuss, etc. Now, there are exceptions to the 3RR rule that will not incur sanction but I caution you to be very sure when depending on those exceptions. I will watchlist this page in the event you have any questions. Tiderolls 13:42, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tide As I mentioned clearly. I am not involved in this edit war. I just want wikipedia rules to be respected as per WP:BRD i.e. Take to talk and seek consensus before imposing a change of a 2 year long stable version against the criteria of other editors (not my own I have no opinion on the matter). Surely you are aware of this. There is no warning required since I am simply following policy. Farangizsaifi (talk) 13:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am convinced that you were doing what you thought best. That is why I did not block your account. What you need to try to understand is that your most recent post here does nothing to mitigate the edit warring. Again, please read the policy (WP:Edit warring). You will find nothing there that states it's okay to revert endlessly to maintain a "stable" article version. You will see the sentence "An editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether their edits were justifiable: "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense." Again, feel free to post questions here and I will endeavor find you answers. Tiderolls 14:10, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tide May I ask you why you have "warned" me and not the editor who has actually initiated the edit war and repeatedly violated policy? I find it odd to say the least. I think you have missed what actually happened here. There was no discussion by the offending party in question despite numerous requests until he managed to get the page protected on his non-stable version. Farangizsaifi (talk) 14:07, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have contacted the other party. I think it best if we concentrate on your behavior here. Once you have a handle on the edit warring principle we can move on to other subjects. Tiderolls 14:10, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tide Ok then you guys sort it out. I don't want to be involved further. I tried to mediate and I'm clearly getting burned for it. Won't make the mistake of tackling procedural/policy issues again - that is a job for you admins.Farangizsaifi (talk) 15:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually explaining how you could avoid blocks in your future here. If you define that as "getting burned", then I do see the potential for mistakes. Anyway, if you have any questions my user talk is at your disposal. Tiderolls 15:48, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tide rolls: hello, this user has been confirmed as a troll/sockpuppet account of Gaditano23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Regards! --TechnicianGB (talk) 10:21, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]