User talk:ThereWillBeTime/Archive 0
Season of the Witch Content Dispute edit
Your recent editing history at Season of the Witch (song) 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.
Do not revert further and follow WP:BRD. I already told you this. Ss112 08:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- Please do not revert my edits as well and discuss issues on the article talk page.ThereWillBeTime (talk) 08:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- I already have. You haven't responded. I'm reporting you. Ss112 08:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- I am in the middle of responding. You have to give editors time to type responses. Please stop behaving so aggressively towards me. ThereWillBeTime (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- Doesn't matter. You obviously have no concept of WP:BRD or edit warring rules. Also, calling things "bad faith" doesn't mean they are. You will just be reverted by somebody else. Ss112 08:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- You seem to have no concept of good faith, good manners, and being polite. Editors are supposed to discuss issues. I also believe editors on Wikipedia should be friendly to new editors. Are far as I can tell, you are doing neither, and appear to have sour grapes about my edit. If you'd like to discuss something on my talk page, please, let me know. If you just want to bombard me with condescending language, please go elsewhere. Thank you.ThereWillBeTime (talk) 08:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, and good protocol is to propose a major edit before making it, which you only did after with the reason of "I don't think it's notable". You've blatantly disregarded WP:BRD, broken WP:3RR and have been reported at WP:AN/EW. Ss112 08:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- I never made the claim of "I don't think it's notable.' This is what I mean by bad faith, you're misquoting and misrepresenting me entirely. ThereWillBeTime (talk) 09:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- You reverted me, saying it was a bad faith revert. It wasn't in bad faith, because I didn't misrepresent what you said whatsoever. You insisted that the notability of Del Rey's cover is "small". I directly quoted this. I know what you said, and I know you didn't say it wasn't notable whatsoever. I then told you the cover version had nine citations for its prose, which you ignored and chose to remove anyway. It passes WP:SONGCOVER and WP:NSONGS. You've been reported regardless. Before editing Wikipedia, you are expected to read up on our rules, which you clearly have not done, so ignorance is not an excuse. You instead went clear over WP:3RR and disregarded WP:BRD. Ss112 09:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- I will have to review the exact definition of bad faith on Wikipedia, and I apologize if I'm mistaken that reverting an article to its objected state during the beginning of a discussion about the state of the article is not bad faith. You even insisted that I simply hadn't responded to your comments, when I was in the middle of a response and did not even give ample time for me to respond before you reverted. Certainly, your misinterpretations, misquotes, and aggressiveness do seem like bad faith to me. I do think we have exhausted this discussion and we're going in circles here, so unless there is something you'd like to discuss, I would bid you adieu. Best ThereWillBeTime (talk) 09:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- I never "misquoted" you. I in fact directly quoted you. Don't misrepresent what I've done either, thanks. Ss112 09:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- Just for the record, this is you quoting me, you can see it above..'....which you only did after with the reason of "I don't think it's notable"' I never gave ' I don't think it's notable', as a reason for anything. Cheers.ThereWillBeTime (talk) 09:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- That was a sarcastic paraphrase, much akin to the use of sarcasm quotes, not an actual quotation of what you wrote anywhere, because both you and I know you didn't write that anywhere. Please learn the difference. Thanks. Ss112 09:23, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I'm afraid I will never be able to tell when someone is sarcastically quoting me. Honestly, that sort of behavior seems sort of out of place and uncalled for in a discussion on Wikipedia. BestThereWillBeTime (talk) 09:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- Then sorry, but you're going to have a bad time here when you realise experienced editors use sarcasm all over the noticeboards, and talk pages. We don't have to be 100% serious all the time. Ss112 09:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- And for the record, it seems inconsistent here that you're claiming that's a sarcastic misquote and a paraphrase, but in your report, you claim This user removed an entire section on Season of the Witch (song), claiming that it was not notable'ThereWillBeTime (talk) 09:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- I think I will have a fine time and you do not speak for the Wiki community. I have no reason to expect that new users should expect other experienced editors to summarize their view points in sarcastic quotes, misrepresent their statements, and talk down to them and I would wager that most experienced editors would agree. You don't have to be 100% serious, but you also don't have to be rude and misrepresent things people say. BestThereWillBeTime (talk) 09:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- Then sorry, but you're going to have a bad time here when you realise experienced editors use sarcasm all over the noticeboards, and talk pages. We don't have to be 100% serious all the time. Ss112 09:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I'm afraid I will never be able to tell when someone is sarcastically quoting me. Honestly, that sort of behavior seems sort of out of place and uncalled for in a discussion on Wikipedia. BestThereWillBeTime (talk) 09:29, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- That was a sarcastic paraphrase, much akin to the use of sarcasm quotes, not an actual quotation of what you wrote anywhere, because both you and I know you didn't write that anywhere. Please learn the difference. Thanks. Ss112 09:23, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- Just for the record, this is you quoting me, you can see it above..'....which you only did after with the reason of "I don't think it's notable"' I never gave ' I don't think it's notable', as a reason for anything. Cheers.ThereWillBeTime (talk) 09:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- I never "misquoted" you. I in fact directly quoted you. Don't misrepresent what I've done either, thanks. Ss112 09:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- I will have to review the exact definition of bad faith on Wikipedia, and I apologize if I'm mistaken that reverting an article to its objected state during the beginning of a discussion about the state of the article is not bad faith. You even insisted that I simply hadn't responded to your comments, when I was in the middle of a response and did not even give ample time for me to respond before you reverted. Certainly, your misinterpretations, misquotes, and aggressiveness do seem like bad faith to me. I do think we have exhausted this discussion and we're going in circles here, so unless there is something you'd like to discuss, I would bid you adieu. Best ThereWillBeTime (talk) 09:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- You reverted me, saying it was a bad faith revert. It wasn't in bad faith, because I didn't misrepresent what you said whatsoever. You insisted that the notability of Del Rey's cover is "small". I directly quoted this. I know what you said, and I know you didn't say it wasn't notable whatsoever. I then told you the cover version had nine citations for its prose, which you ignored and chose to remove anyway. It passes WP:SONGCOVER and WP:NSONGS. You've been reported regardless. Before editing Wikipedia, you are expected to read up on our rules, which you clearly have not done, so ignorance is not an excuse. You instead went clear over WP:3RR and disregarded WP:BRD. Ss112 09:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- I never made the claim of "I don't think it's notable.' This is what I mean by bad faith, you're misquoting and misrepresenting me entirely. ThereWillBeTime (talk) 09:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, and good protocol is to propose a major edit before making it, which you only did after with the reason of "I don't think it's notable". You've blatantly disregarded WP:BRD, broken WP:3RR and have been reported at WP:AN/EW. Ss112 08:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- You seem to have no concept of good faith, good manners, and being polite. Editors are supposed to discuss issues. I also believe editors on Wikipedia should be friendly to new editors. Are far as I can tell, you are doing neither, and appear to have sour grapes about my edit. If you'd like to discuss something on my talk page, please, let me know. If you just want to bombard me with condescending language, please go elsewhere. Thank you.ThereWillBeTime (talk) 08:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- Doesn't matter. You obviously have no concept of WP:BRD or edit warring rules. Also, calling things "bad faith" doesn't mean they are. You will just be reverted by somebody else. Ss112 08:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- I am in the middle of responding. You have to give editors time to type responses. Please stop behaving so aggressively towards me. ThereWillBeTime (talk) 08:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- I already have. You haven't responded. I'm reporting you. Ss112 08:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- I would say I agree with WP:Sarcasm.ThereWillBeTime (talk) 09:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- Oh dear Lord, you just don't know when to stop. You continue to misrepresent what I said while complaining that I'm doing so to you. I didn't say I speak for the entire Wiki community; I said you're going to have a bad time if, as you said, you think sarcasm has no place in a discussion on Wikipedia, because I'm telling you it happens all the time with editors here. There are experienced editors who peruse noticeboards just to leave sarcastic comments on posts not involving them; everybody knows them. I stand by the fact that I represented you pretty faithfully in saying you don't believe it's notable, even though you didn't specifically say that and I know that you said its notability is "pretty small". I stand by this because you removed the entire section about Lana Del Rey's cover. To most casual observers, regardless of what you say, it looks like you don't think it's notable at all with such a large removal, and clearly breaking WP:3RR to defend it. You say we're not going anywhere, yet you continue to focus on this point. Get over it. By all rights, I think you should be blocked for going beyond WP:3RR, and especially if you continue to edit logged out beyond this point. You can choose not to heed my advice because I'm "rude", "aggressive" and whatever, but I'm telling you regardless: be careful. If Season of the Witch (song) and neutering coverage of cover versions is the hill you want to die on, as it's the main thing you've edited on your registered account thus far, I really pity you, your narrow focus and question why you're even here. This limited focus indicates to me you may be a sockpuppet account for all I know, but the truth will out on that in time if you continue to focus on it. Have fun, because I'm actually done here. You were a timesink from the get-go. Ss112 10:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- 'I stand by the fact that I represented you pretty faithfully in saying you don't believe it's notable' - I just don't see how you can expect me to interpret your actions as good faith when I'm screaming from the top of my lungs that it's notable and should be mentioned in the Covers section. ThereWillBeTime (talk) 10:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- Revisiting this discussion, I have to say, I still feel your tone towards me is very aggressive and rude. I also think your attitude towards me is a clear cut example of WP:Wikilawyering . Instead of discussing edits with an editor who was clearly discussing them in real time with you on the talk page, you instead started reverting, attempted to justify these reverts wholesale by citing a bunch of rules, and when prompted to continue discussion before beginning to just revert, your response was to nominate for me to be blocked. I stand my my claims you have misinterpreted things that I have said. I think it's very simple to see that in the discussion above, where you go from insisting I claimed the cover wasn't notable, then claiming it was a sarcastic quote, and then clamming you know I felt a certain way despite clearly indicating I felt the opposite (i.e. I have stated I think the cover version 'notable'). I feel like you're guilty of a lot of breaches of wikipedia conduct here and that your initial report on me was really bogus. I am grateful that Wikipedia admins did not side your views on the matter and hope we can perhaps have more productive conversations in the future if we talk again. Best. ThereWillBeTime (talk) 17:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- Oh dear Lord, you just don't know when to stop. You continue to misrepresent what I said while complaining that I'm doing so to you. I didn't say I speak for the entire Wiki community; I said you're going to have a bad time if, as you said, you think sarcasm has no place in a discussion on Wikipedia, because I'm telling you it happens all the time with editors here. There are experienced editors who peruse noticeboards just to leave sarcastic comments on posts not involving them; everybody knows them. I stand by the fact that I represented you pretty faithfully in saying you don't believe it's notable, even though you didn't specifically say that and I know that you said its notability is "pretty small". I stand by this because you removed the entire section about Lana Del Rey's cover. To most casual observers, regardless of what you say, it looks like you don't think it's notable at all with such a large removal, and clearly breaking WP:3RR to defend it. You say we're not going anywhere, yet you continue to focus on this point. Get over it. By all rights, I think you should be blocked for going beyond WP:3RR, and especially if you continue to edit logged out beyond this point. You can choose not to heed my advice because I'm "rude", "aggressive" and whatever, but I'm telling you regardless: be careful. If Season of the Witch (song) and neutering coverage of cover versions is the hill you want to die on, as it's the main thing you've edited on your registered account thus far, I really pity you, your narrow focus and question why you're even here. This limited focus indicates to me you may be a sockpuppet account for all I know, but the truth will out on that in time if you continue to focus on it. Have fun, because I'm actually done here. You were a timesink from the get-go. Ss112 10:42, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- I would say I agree with WP:Sarcasm.ThereWillBeTime (talk) 09:46, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion edit
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. Ss112 08:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
- I will take the time to respond to this here. This report seems woefully inaccurate, I will detail my thoughts below;
- 'This user removed an entire section on Season of the Witch (song), claiming that it was not notable,'
- This is a completely inaccurate recount of what happened and I believe my edit comments and my discussion on the article talk page supports this. I never claimed the cover was not notable and am on record as saying it is clearly notable
- 'They have not claimed any significant reasons as to its removal, just an opinion.'
- I have claimed a reason and it is claimed in the talk page - this reason is not opinion based but based on facts regarding the popularity of the covers. I was typing up my reason immediately after the editor responded on the talk page and apparently I did not type fast enough for them.
- I was notified that the image I uploaded for the cover version of this song was orphaned, and thus contributed at the discussion and made clear my disagreement, especially in the absence of any reason other than "its notability is quite small", so reverted.
- Again, other reasons have been given and not addressed. They gave me perhaps a couple minutes to respond before reverting me and then reporting me.
- This editor then reverted me in two parts, and I reverted this, reminding them to "please follow WP:BRD", as I thought they weren't aware of the protocol considering they're a relatively new editor and may have missed this in my response, but was reverted again and had my reverts called "bad faith". I stopped, and made this report. The user is also editing in tandem with their IP address, 173.88.250.97, which they have declared is their IP address on their user talk page, but I have told them to not do this as it can be considered sockpuppetry. They have very clearly gone over WP:3RR, making more than five reverts if all their registered account and IP's reverts are taken into consideration. -
- 'I edited in tandem with my IP once, something which i publicly disclosed as to relinquish any claims of sock puppetry. This is a very new account for me, logging on to Wikipedia is a new habit for me to get into, and I recognized this mistake and made it public knowledge of my user page.ThereWillBeTime (talk) 09:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
And I would just like to make an additional note that I feel very overwhelmed and attacked in this situation. I do believe I've done my best to try to have a civil discussion with this user, but they are being very relentless regarding their opinion, and I feel like they're just trying to beat me down with various Wikipedia bureaucracy instead of discussing what I believe is a problem with the previous state of the article.
They already misquoted me in the report, insisting I claimed that the cover in question wasn't notable. They continue claiming this on the article discussion page, and on the talk page here. When I pointed out to them that I never made this claim, that I clearly agree with this statement, even going as far as saying that the cover is notable beyond reproach in the discussion page, they insisted it wasn't an inaccurate quote and that it was a sarcastic quote. They explained they never claimed I said the cover wasn't notable, despite it clearly being claimed by them many places, and that I'm going to have a bad time on Wikipedia if I don't do well with sarcasm like that. And then later on in the discussion, they turn around and insist that I don't believe it's notable again, and I quote, ' I stand by the fact that I represented you pretty faithfully in saying you don't believe it's notable,'. You can see this all in the talk page above.
I apologize if this is too much text, but I sincerely believe this user is attacking, misquoting me, and changes their position in every reply. If I'm being too sensitive, my apologies. ThereWillBeTime (talk) 11:38, 10 January 2021 (UTC)