Argh

} Hello, an edit that you recently made seemed to be vandalism and has been reverted. If you want to practice editing, please use your sandbox. --Nitraus (talk) 12:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Nitraus (talk) 12:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

That is not vandalism. Eino Leino is the national poet of Finland. But I assume you can abuse your position by making this vandalism claim. --Argh (talk) 12:28, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes it is as there is no source for that. Also you are edit warring, so stop that immediately. --Nitraus (talk) 12:32, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Neither is there a source for Runeberg being the national poet of Finland. So stop immediately reverting the correction of that sourceless claim and abusing this platform.--Argh (talk) 12:34, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Argh, even if what you're saying is true, there are two serious problems. One, the Three Revert Rule has been violated on the page by you, and by itself allows any uninvolved administrator to block you for revert warning now. I believe you didn't know about that, but it applies and you're already into blockable territory.

Two, you need to provide a reference (citation to book, magazine, journal, Finnish cultural website, etc) which justifies the claim. The other information is cited, that claim needs a reference too. You aren't supposed to re-add anything that's contested without citing it. Please stop fighting here, go get the information to justify the claim, and then come back and discuss the citation on preferably the article talk page to get consensus before you add it.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 12:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

That only proves what I'm saying. The users in question, like Nitraus, abuse the system by forcing an "edit war" while they have no source for what they claim. I will take into account the fact in the future that this three-edit rule can and obviously is used by these users to perpetuate falsities in the articles. They are attacking me instead of allowing the disputed claims to fall under scrutiny.

I'm doing my best with the consensus by talking, but these users have so far abused their position with bans and making false claims about my editing.

Also, explain this: how am I supposed to source something, when they don't source it either? There is no such thing as a voted or legalized national poet of Finland.

--Argh (talk) 12:44, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

There are a bunch of reference sources in the article, if you go down to the References section you'll see them. If one of those that's a reliable source says that, then it can be included, even if their justification in the source isn't up to your preferences. For example, if the New York Times called Maya Angelou the "Best American Poet Ever", we could use that information, even if the government hadn't done any sort of official best poet determination.

Lacking the ability to read Finnish, I can't dig deeper into references than that, but if you can take a look at what's there and discuss including those references in your discussion that will help. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 12:59, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

The main Finnish dictionary Kielitoimiston sanakirja says that Runeberg is Finland's national poet [1]. It is taught in schools and it's a commonly accepted fact despite not being written in the law (which is Argh's main argument against this). Argh's political views do not change this fact. --Paranaja (talk) 13:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Not once has that been taught in schools. It is an unverifiable opinion that does not exclude the status from other poets. USA, for example, has numerous national poets. As do many other countries. Not only is not written in law, it's not official in any way. Runeberg is as much a national poet as Eino Leino or Elias Lönnrot. This resort to authority and edit war by these users doesn't change these facts.

It's not only that these users are making an unverifiable claim. They are also claiming this opinion is the only one acceptable whilst other poets qualify just as well and better.

Also, it's not my "main argument". It's the main qualifier which is not produced here. Unless you can come up with a vote that excludes all others from being called national poet of Finland and declaring Runerberg as such, it's an opinion.

--Argh (talk) 13:29, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

There is just as much references for Eino Leino or even Elias Lönnrot. The status of national poet is dubious and can't be declared as such. It has no merit being in a dictionary, unless it includes a statement such as "considered as such by some". It's an opinion without verifiable measurement. These users are forcing this opinion and omitting it from Leino's article by abusing their status.

Runeberg didn't even live in the Republic of Finland. He wasn't even Finnish. He wrote nothing in Finnish. Those alone disqualify him, but factually speaking, I'm fine with either the clarifying that no one declaring him such and Leino is considered one as well. These abuser users have blocked even that from happening. --Argh (talk) 13:10, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Runeberg is the only national poet who is always seen as such, unlike Leino and Lönnrot who are only sometimes given this title. You simply can't rule out one candidate based on original research, it's prohibited. Runeberg is supported as the only national poet by sources, and you are completely disqualifying this based on nothing but your own opinions and your own biased research. --Paranaja (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Apparently these users are, at this point, are simply trying to troll me so they can manufacture more reasons to make unwarranted reports of misbehavior.

It is a completely preposterous claim that there is an "only national poet". Such a thing is not legislated, there is no authority to determine this and these users are using tactics that have nothing do with the actual scrutiny of this claim. You can try dictating to people that they have only one national anything and see how that goes. You can try that with your organized vandalism here, but that doesn't make it so. Sad how this platform allows disinformation to be spread by users like this and there isn't much one can do about that.

Runeberg wasn't Finnish, he didn't write anything Finnish. He didn't even live in Finland. Nothing stops you from claiming he was the "only national poet of Finland", but it's not only false, but ridiculous as well.

You have no sources or measurements how much any of these mentioned have been merited most as the national poet of Finland. It is an unverifiable claim and an opinion, nothing more. This is the reason you initiate this user-centered attacking.

--Argh (talk) 16:30, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

What was he if not Finnish? Russian? He lived in the Grand Duchy of Finland. The word Finnish or Finland is not an anachronism here. Stop repeating your false accusations. They mean nothing to me but for an outsider reading this they just cause confusion. Don't try to sound like you are onto something when you are not. Keep it simple. --Paranaja (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Surely you're aware of history enough to know that Finland declared independence in 1917. Runeberg died in 1877. Therefore, it was impossible to him even be Finnish. He didn't even identify as one before the republic was founded.

And forcing your opinion clearly means enough to you to stage this childish "editing war" and to try to attack me with false reports and coordinated abuse of Wikipedia user status.

--Argh (talk) 17:29, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

So he shaped the Finnish identity long before it was a thing? The concept of Finland was established at his time and he surely was Finnish and lived in Finland. Now tell me that Hitler was not German. Also, I have no formal status on the English Wikipedia. --Paranaja (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Elias Lönnrot shaped Finnish identity more than Runeberg ever did - and so did Leino. So did J.V. Snellman. Yet you saw fit to vandalize the page to remove even Lönnrot from the list (it had been there ever since 2012). So it's not only that you try to force your opinion about Runeberg. You vandalize all else.

This conversation is honestly getting stupid beyond belief. Hitler? Excuse me, what does he have to do with any of this? --Argh (talk) 18:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

February 2021

Hello, I'm Ashleyyoursmile. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, National poet, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Ashleyyoursmile! 17:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on National poet; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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 and 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 engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Ashleyyoursmile! 17:07, 7 February 2021 (UTC)