If you've posted here and expect a reply, look for it here.
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. You and three other users are being reported for an edit war conspiracy. Together you reverted my contribution three times in a 24-hour period and gave no valid rationale. It's you alone who changed the rationale from the original false excuse "gallery is too much" to "too much content; not clear what it illustrates; collection seems random, no clear criteria for inclusion". Are you prepared to back yourself up? All articles belong to the Wiki org. and its readership, and to delete valuable information such as images illustrating the text makes it their business. The time for talk is over, because the proper procedure was to discuss possible deletion on the article's talk page with notice given to the author, and obtain a consensus prior to any action taken, not to start an edit war by one self-appointed deletion after another in a conspiracy, with no notice sent to author, followed by demands to discuss it on the deleters' talk pages after the deletion, accompanied by threats of abuse of editing privileges against the author just for undoing the deletes and following the procedures for violations of the 3-revert rule. Three editors don't make a consensus against the interest of the rest of Wiki's readers anyway, but three coordinated reverts violates the rule, so I'm reporting you all and letting the administrators handle it. Please wait for the process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2016
- I assume you mean this report here . You are confused as to how editing Wikipedia works. Contested changes are discussed on the article's talk page, and there's no requirement whatsoever to notify any authors. It's assumed that all editors interested in an article will keep themselves informed. There's been no discussion of this at all on the Jazz talk page. Willondon (talk) 18:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
your edit on Conditional (computer programming)
Thanks for fixing what I unintentionally did on Conditional (computer programming). I was trying to revert some vandalism across multiple versions, and it didn't do what I was trying to do. I should have checked the result, and I didn't. Thanks for fixing it. Dhrm77 (talk) 02:55, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- De rien. x := true; for occasion := 1 to last_occasion do if (action_result (me) != desired_result (me)) and !have (me, coin (5)) then x := false; if x then add_tag (wikipedia, retire). Cheers. Willondon (talk) 10:16, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- Very nice way of putting it... So, if I understand correctly, I should retire from editing wikipedia unless I make a mistake and I don't have a nickel (to pay for it?), for all edits. Right? Dhrm77 (talk) 12:50, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
- I assume you mean this edit here . I'm not messing with you, I'm messing with Wikipedia. Edits need to be backed up with sources, if necessary. I don't think those edits could be backed up, if required (see WP:VERIFY). Don't take it personally. Willondon (talk) 10:52, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- I guess this is a follow-up from my post here . Willondon (talk) 22:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- Sure you can. There are more reasons than vandalism for an admin to block editing access (see WP:BLOCK). If you want to get blocked, vandalism is probably the easiest and quickest way, though. If you don’t want to get blocked, the best way is to subsume the ego into Wikipedia, go with the flow, be civil and respect consensus. Become a small cog in the machine, and let Wikipedia flow over you like a steamroller. Cheers. Willondon (talk) 22:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Content disputes can't be vandalism?
- I assume you are referring to this version  of the WP:AIV page. Yes, hoaxes are vandalism, but there isn't any obvious indication that the editor has hoaxed. Assuming you're right, and I'm persuaded that you might well be, I'll lay out reasons why your WP:AIV report will probably fail anyway:
- WP:AIV deals with obvious vandalism, is tasked with many reports that aren't (especially content disputes), and if an admin researches the basic talk and contributions and doesn't see a no-brainer decision, they're likely to say "Next!"
- The diff you offered  points to "On 23 March 2016, it announced that the show will be revived for 6 more seasons." On the surface, it seems the editor is attempting to improve the article (even though the edit is unsourced, and leaves the reader wondering what "it" is). You might see "revived for 6 more seasons" as an outlandish and vandalous claim, but editors who are ignorant of television production (OK, me, but I am legion) do not see it as obvious.
- Some vandals make minor productive edits to provide a benign edit history cloaking real vandalism. The seventeen June edits I mentioned didn't show any hint of vandalism, apart from the diff you provided, now that you mention it, which is not convincing to those not in the know, or not looking more deeply into it.
- You reported "after multiple warnings", which referred to three warnings between May 6 and May 13. Those warnings would be stale to an investigator responding to a June 7 report. It might even prejudice them against you, if they thought you were trying to bring up old, irrelevant issues to support your current complaint.
I wasn't the one who referred to it as a content dispute , but I support that comment in that your report weighs down WP:AIV with tasks that are not clear cut cases of vandalism. Admins have special tools, and I'm glad to see that most wield them with caution. With this editor, you'll need to build a more solid case, and present it in a forum where admins are prepared to spend more effort in deliberating. Willondon (talk) 02:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for your well-reasoned arguments on this topic. I see your point of view, but I think we will have to agree to disagree. Perhaps it is indeed the fact that I edit so many TV-related articles, and thus see such edits far too often, that makes the difference. Mdrnpndr (talk) 20:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Good evening, publication is American as reported and certify these links:
The first is the official page of the book, the second, and the third, two albums of Led Zeppelin, so no vandalism, I think I made the right changes, which should in turn make it again, to give a correct description of the page . It's up to you, more so! I'm sorry I do not know sign, but I'm not one of those crazy people who goes around the net, especially on Wiki. Good evening, take care! 23:58, 7 June 2016, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk)
- Oops. Please accept my apologies. I didn't read carefully enough, and I thought you were asserting that the two Queen albums were of U.S. origin, not the publications which honoured them. ,  I've put back the corrections you took the time to add, and I've removed the notice I placed on your talk page. Thanks for bringing it to my attention in a way that assumed good faith on my part. Cheers. Willondon (talk) 22:51, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- I assume you mean these edits here , , and the others . We shouldn't edit war. I plan to revert the edit once again in a couple days. I've started a discussion on the List of Sony Music artists talk page. That's where you'll need to defend your edit if you want it to stick. Willondon (talk) 15:05, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
- P.S. Your edit also added Joey Bada$$ to the article. I should have been more careful, and not reverted that part, because I have no objection there. Sorry. Willondon (talk)
Repetition of article name in section headings
Hi, I thought this may interest you. Many Wiki articles tend to repeat article names in the section headings. Also there may be repetition of section heading text in lower level section headings. I have fixed hundreds of articles with this problem but obviously there are plenty more if you would like to keep an eye out for them - ref MOS:HEAD. Cutting out this repetition helps the reader.--Penbat (talk) 21:45, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
- I guessed you thought a reversion I made was mistakenly labelled as vandalism. Probably one of yours. I've corrected a lot of vandalism, and I've read the article you suggested at least twice, so I didn't think my understanding was the problem. More likely, I didn't read carefully enough. I was right. I managed to track down the edit I must guess you refer to.  I don't know what happened there. In addition to editing too hastily, I may have been prejudiced by the recent spate of vandalism on the article, and the large volume of text being changed. Embarrassing for me, though, that the edits had clear edit summaries. Oh, well. Thanks for fixing my mistake. Willondon (talk) 12:06, 8 December 2016 (UTC)