User talk:NEDOCHAN/Archive 1

Welcome

Hello, NEDOCHAN, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

---

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

• Table of contents / Department directory

• The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)

Need help?

• Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
• Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
• Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations

• Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
• The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
• Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

• Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

• Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

• Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.
• If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills without changing the mainspace, the Sandbox is for you.

NEDOCHAN, good luck, and have fun.  Cheers!

Gareth Griffith‑Jones (The Welsh Buzzard) 13:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks but NEDOCHAN (talk) 15:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

English

This isn't a warning or anything. Just a reminder that when you're editing MMA bios, use American English for American fighters. Reason I'm sending this is because you used "recognising" on Jon Jones' page instead of "recognizing". TBMNY (talk) 18:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Apologies that was a mistake. NEDOCHAN (talk) 08:00, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit summary

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! MX (✉ • ✎) 13:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Would like your input on this.

If you wouldn't mind, could you give your vote on this? Thanks. TBMNY (talk) 05:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, NEDOCHAN. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Bute

OK - per your User page - what's this about? Ben MacDui 18:26, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

'While' is more appropriate language for an encyclopedia, as it's an international English word. Also, in a factual description of the geography of an area, the literary, wistful 'whilst' stuck out like a sore thumb.

I can't agree - WP:ENGVAR applies. According to Wiktionary the word is "Mostly restrained to use in British English" and this little thread here also suggests the same. The thread isn't very specific but the word is also more commonly used in Scotland than England and certainly has none of the characteristics there that you suggest. See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Scotland/Assessment/FA. ('While' also means 'until' in some British dialects, although that is not a reason to avoid using it.) Ben MacDui 19:09, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Purcell

What the hell are you doing restoring an anon vandalistic edit? DuncanHill (talk) 10:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Patience- I was fixing it- sorted now. The issue was that the blanking was not the only problem with the previous edit, and that was all that was undone. So I needed to go back to the way it was before the pointless and destructive edit.NEDOCHAN (talk) 10:48, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Then use better edit summaries, and it would heve been easier just to call up the diff between the last good version and the current one and click "restore this version". DuncanHill (talk) 10:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

OK- mend your words a little, please, I have not been aggressive. It would have been easier simply to revert the entire anon edit in the first place, too. NEDOCHAN (talk) 10:54, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Michael Page (fighter)

• Michael Page (fighter) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello NEDOCHAN. If you want to submit an edit warring report, please follow the instructions at the top of the board. Your complaint had to be removed because it was malformed. And if there is a war on this article, it's hard to see why both parties aren't in violation. Consider using the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:32, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Ed. Yes I am not quite sure what the due process is as regards reporting. I believe the difference is that I have attempted to resolve the issue on the article's talk page and that of the anon ed in question. I have repeatedly attempted to discuss it. Please could you advise?NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Try giving an explanation of your concerns at Talk:Michael Page (fighter). I.e., use the article talk page. People are not required to respond to your comments, but often they do. If you can't get an answer there, you could post on a project talk page, such as WT:WikiProject Boxing. If you are reverted by an IP that is not enough reason for admins to take action. You are expected to discuss with IPs. EdJohnston (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	It's the small things that make a big difference. Thank you for serving Wikipedia. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 23:25, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Sting

Regarding your revert on the Sting article (discussion before reverting would be preferred in future), the template guidance asks for:

• For individuals: groups of which he or she has been a member
• Acts with which this act has collaborated on multiple occasions, or on an album, or toured with as a single collaboration act playing together

Can you please explain how Eric Clapton (appeared on same charity effort), Dire Straits (added vocals to one track), Phil Collins (the odd charity effort, backing vocals on a couple of album tracks), Peter Gabriel (only toured with), Paul Simon (toured with), and Shaggy (one album with him) meet these criteria, or remove them from the list. The album with Shaggy maybe applies, the others probably not. Thanks. --Michig (talk) 17:07, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Can you not see the contradiction here? You say discussion would be preferred, I agree. Yet you deleted all the associated acts bar The Police without discussion. I reverted to the way it was before. Anyway 'toured with' clearly fine. Unsure why 'only toured with' is relevant. So given the tours with Simon, Gabriel and Shaggy they're in. Sting is credited on Dire Straits biggest hit and receives half of the royalties. Definite association. I agree that Clapton probably shouldn't be there so would recommend taking that to the talk page rather than deleting them all without discussion and then complaining about a lack of discussion.NEDOCHAN (talk) 21:58, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

The touring criterion is not 'toured with', it's 'toured with as a single collaboration act playing together'. This means they are performing as an act together, not just appearing in the same concerts. The collaboration criterion requires 'multiple occasions' - appearing on one track clearly doesn't satisfy this. I'm not sure why you are not getting this. --Michig (talk) 07:10, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

You mean like the Sting and Paul Simon tour? Called 'On stage together'? Or the Sting and Peter Gabriel tour? Where they played together? Or the Shaggy tour? Where they played together? The guide is pretty clearly saying that a support act for instance wouldn't mean an association but a tour where both acts collaborate would. It's really obvious. So the tours above, which are tours of both acts, clearly count. Look them up.NEDOCHAN (talk) 07:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

MMA title box

Hi, you reverted my edit of the title box. I feel I clarified the 'mixed gender' description. Saying 'separate' in isolation does not qualify that the practicing of the sport involves mixed gender training, but it is the events which are separate genders. However, saying 'Yes, separate male and female events' does give this information. The term 'separate' in isolation is too brief and potentially misleading.

Where is it stated that unified MMA rules can only be practiced in indoor venues? The descriptions I have read make absolutely no mention of it. Besides, the page is not exclusively a page for unified rules MMA- which fluctuate anyway.

Fighting ring is an excessive description; it is usually the same ring as in boxing or kick boxing- both of which are referred to as 'rings'. I am not aware of any modifications which would warrant the name change. Could you please allow my edits to stand?RickyBennison (talk) 14:10, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

No problem- appreciate the communication. NEDOCHAN (talk) 14:20, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much.RickyBennison (talk) 16:54, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Khabib Issues

Hey,

Appreciate what you're doing with the Khabib artile but I just wanted to point out that the reason I put "Having never lost a fight in his career" bit in the sentence that follows: "Khabib is a two-time Combat Sambo World Champion and currently holds the longest undefeated streak in MMA, with 27 wins" is because often in MMA (but mostly in UFC), commentators and fans discuss undefeated streaks that are current. For example, Joe Rogan often says "Tony Ferguson has a x undefeated streak". This means Tony has been undefeated for x amount of fights but that doesn't mean that he hasn't lost before. Do you see where I'm getting at? By adding the "Having never lost a fight" bit we can make sure that it is clear to the readers that he has never ever lost a fight, not that he is currently on an undefeated streak, as some readers can take it to mean as such. Imperial HRH2 (talk) 10:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

You do need to calm it all down a bit. You have twice been pretty rude, although calling me an 'amateur' is accurate, unless you get paid for this, which I think unlikely. I have changed it for clarity, as we don't know whether he has lost a wrestling match or anything else. Also, your adverbial clause (having never lost a fight) did not relate to the main clause, so there were various things wrong aside from the fact that it did appear tautological.I have changed it to a compromise and I'd be grateful if we could leave it at that. Simply reinstating your own edits ad nauseam isn't the right way to go about things.NEDOCHAN (talk) 12:15, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

A Clockwork Orange

I would very much appreciate if you, didn't revert edits based solely on your opinion and without prior discussion, and, correctly reviewed any grammar you decide to critique, as "The images leave Alex nauseous" is as grammatically correct as "Alex becomes nauseated by". I would also advise against an edit war.

My Favourite Account ^Talk 22:23, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I reverted an edit which made changes that did not improve the article. I should point out that you made the changes to the article without discussion. I restored it to how it was before. I did not actively critique the grammar, but rather reactively restored the article to how it was before your changes. Nauseated is the correct adjective. Even if, in your opinion, they're the same, then that still means there's no justification for changing an article. If you're correct, then you simply made a synonymous edit. If you're not, then I restored the correct version. Either way no improvement was made. As for an edit war, I would remind you that you changed a perfectly good article and I restored. It's on you.NEDOCHAN (talk) 23:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

The contentious issue appears to be in the following change

"Alex becomes nauseated by the films, and then recognises the films are set to music of his favourite composer, Ludwig van :Beethoven. Fearing the technique will make him sick upon hearing Beethoven, Alex begs for an end to the treatment."

to:

"The images leave Alex nauseous and he begs for an end to the treatment, fearing the soundtrack will leave him feeling the same :upon hearing the music of his favourite composer, Ludwig van Beethoven."

Having requested that you did not revert the edit, again, without prior discussion, I will attempt to address the following :concerns.

"No improvement and a couple of errors (i.e. nauseated correct))" (Initial reversion edit summary)

"I should point out that you made the changes to the article without discussion"... I make edits in good faith, your :reversions assume none. Wikipedia encourages bold edits, however, only major changes to an :article needs prior discussion or consensus.

"I did not actively critique the grammar", "Nauseated is the correct adjective"... How is "a couple of errors" not an active :critique? and just how was it helpful?

"My edit was clearly explained"... How? By implying edits are mistakes you alienate and drive away potential editors, making :yourself the disruptive element

"Nauseated is not the same as nauseous. However, even if it is, it's the same meaning, so why did YOU change it?" (Second reversion :edit summary)... You seem so assured, at first, that I had introduced at least one grammatical error?

"So the onus is on you to demonstrate improvement", "It's on you"... here goes

For clarification and to make sure the wording is accurate, it needed stipulating that it was just the :images from the film that were causing nausea, not the soundtrack. There was unnecessary repetition in both sentences, of :Beethoven and terms for 'make sick'.

It was neatly reduced to a single sentence.

From reviewing your contributions, it appears you like to revert, so often contentiously and based on opinion.

My Favourite Account ^Talk 21:44, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I find it interesting that you criticise me for 'opinion' when that is all you seem to be offering. Also, that your edits are good faith but mine assume none. I should also point out that there has already been consensus that agrees with me. Your other bone of contention seems to be that saying 'Alex becomes nauseated by the films' is ambiguous, as it was the images of the films that made him feel nauseated. That is a strange thing to say. 'I went to see a scary film' is not ambiguous. It would not invite the response, 'What was scary, the images?'.

As for your saying I like to revert, then I would respond by saying that I revert unexplained changes which do not improve articles. You'll notice that I rarely get in arguments. And I don't blank my talk page. And this is not 'my favourite account' but my only one.NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:25, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure why you need me to explain the meaning of each comment. It was not a criticism of you for "opinion", simply that yours is not superior. My edits are made in good faith, your reversions suggested otherwise. You have incorrectly assumed that I am an American and that your English is impeccable. Both are untrue, evident in your last 2 edits to the article on 9 September, among others. Still, you argue my usage of "nauseous" is wrong, even after writing earlier, "even if it is". Either it is or it isn't. If you aren't sure, why are you arguing? Each scary film is accompanied by a soundtrack composed specifically for that film, often quite scary in their own right. The works of Beethoven were not composed for the same purpose and are far from scary unaccompanied by images. Your recent contributions reveal several repeated reversions that came close to edit warring, one of which you also consider the opinions of two constitute a consensus, and your talk page history reveals some bickering over edit wars, reversions and aggression. As for blanking my talk page, had you chosen to research properly, you would have seen I removed a single comment from an editor who had committed a string of acts of vandalism and was blocked shortly after, and finally, this too is my only account.My Favourite Account  ^😊 13:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

First, I did not assume you were American. I said your misunderstanding of the difference between the words might be as a result of its use in US English. Read it again. Secondly, I did not make any edits on 9 September, so not sure what you mean there. Thirdly, read this. 'Nauseated is the correct adjective. Even if, in your opinion, they're the same, then that still means there's no justification for changing an article.' This is not demonstrative of uncertainty. The point was that the words are not the same. Even if they were/are (which they're not), then it's still a synonymous edit, which are pointless. Fourthly, another editor agreed with me. None has agreed with you. So that's a lot more consensus than you got. Blanking talk pages is blanking talk pages, which is discouraged. Finally, if this is your only account, you seem to be awfully keen to argue for a new editor. Now, the main point. I sought to compromise. I changed it to include your edit as to the ambiguity you felt was there. I was civil and assumed good faith. You reverted my compromise. You offered no compromise, which is odd considering I'm supposed to be the one being argumentative. NEDOCHAN (talk) 14:30, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

So tired of explaining every sentence to someone who shows such little effort. [Edit 1 09:37, 9 November 2018], [Edit 2 09:42, 9 November 2018‎]. I'm sure you tried so very hard to find these two. You say I made no compromise? Did you even look?. Wow! One person agreed with you and you're trying so hard to make something of it, are you really usually so starved of support. 26 June 2017, you're hardly a veteran on Wiki, as if that even matters in this case. Enough with all your BS, I'm done. My Favourite Account  ^😊 04:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank goodness for that.NEDOCHAN (talk) 08:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Take part in a survey

Hi NEDOCHAN

We're working to measure the value of Wikipedia in economic terms. We want to ask you some questions about how you value being able to edit Wikipedia.

Our survey should take about 10-15 minutes of your time. We hope that you will enjoy it and find the questions interesting. All answers will be kept strictly confidential and will be anonymized before the aggregate results are published. Regretfully, we can only accept responses from people who live in the US due to restrictions in our grant-based funding.

As a reward for your participation, we will randomly pick 1 out of every 5 participants and give them $25 worth of goods of their choice from the Wikipedia store (e.g. Wikipedia themed t-shirts). Note that we can only reward you if you are based in the US.

Click here to access the survey: https://mit.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_0xE0vVW1MclX1d3

Thanks

Avi

Researcher, MIT Initiative on the Digital Economy --Avi gan (talk) 02:07, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, NEDOCHAN. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

hi

NEDOCHAN,

what u remove my edits for?

Kawhilaugh42 (talk) 01:31, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I believe I explained the edit quite clearly. The incident which you wrote about had already been dealt with in the article. Your edit also did not display a neutral point of view.NEDOCHAN (talk) 09:33, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, NEDOCHAN. You have new messages at TBMNY's talk page.
Message added 16:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TBMNY (talk) 16:51, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Method change on a fighters record *reply

I see that you've criticised me for changing the result of Frank Mir's loss to Javy Ayala. The reason why i do it, is solely because there's no such thing as a TKO submission. It's either a TKO or a submission. It can't be both. That's why i change it. All respect to you, but i don't care what Sherdog says. If it's wrong i'll correct it. Daniboy0202 (talk) 22:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

It's not about me it's about consensus and sourced material. Your opinion and original research don't matter. NEDOCHAN (talk) 23:23, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

RS

Means wp:RS, please read it.Slatersteven (talk) 13:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I have it's just the small s threw me off. It's unusual to use the RS argument when the content isn't sourced. That is not the main point though. The point is anti-Islam is clearly more a neutral term. Read this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view NEDOCHAN (talk) 14:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

It is, in both the body and the info box, with multiple RS.Slatersteven (talk) 14:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

It is in the info box, yet so is Anti Islam. My point is that Anti Islam is more neutral. Seems obvious.NEDOCHAN (talk) 14:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure what the difference is. But it is sources, so you need to make a case at the articles talk page.Slatersteven (talk) 14:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. NEDOCHAN (talk) 14:54, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Minor

Please read wp:minor, a minor edit is not one that shifts emphasis or tone.Slatersteven (talk) 22:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Show me one edit that I have marked as minor which shifts emphasis or tone. The edits marked as minor are all grammatical corrections.NEDOCHAN (talk) 22:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

you said they were minor edits, I am telling you they are not. And no they are not grammatical changes, they alter tone, not just grammarSlatersteven (talk) 23:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

One example, please.NEDOCHAN (talk) 23:17, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

If you mean an example of you saying some were only minor edits [[1]], many of which were not, thus it is hard to see which ones are only minor edits.Slatersteven (talk) 23:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

The clue is those which I marked as minor. Try again.NEDOCHAN (talk) 23:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

You did not mark anything in that edit as minor, you just reverted everything.Slatersteven (talk) 23:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I made individual edits. I UNDID edits which reverted ALL edits. I didn't revert everything, everything I did was reverted. I see you're struggling to come up with a single edit marked as minor which changed meaning or tone. Might that be because there aren't any?NEDOCHAN (talk) 23:44, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

[[2]] changing both the month and the year is nether a minor edit, nor a punctuation alteration (in fact I am not seeing any punctuation change at all, except 1 necessitated by your textual alteration).Slatersteven (talk) 23:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

That was a mistake made when making a grammatical edit. I'll change it. Thanks.NEDOCHAN (talk) 23:59, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I was removing the semi-colons. And the reason you don't see much change is why I marked it as minor. Is it not a big enough minor edit? NEDOCHAN (talk) 00:05, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

And how many more are there, can you not see why making so many (often unnecessarily pedantic) changes is a problem? Indeed why did this mistake even occour if all you were doing was removing a semi-colon, that should not have required any textual alteration. Even if it did why did you need to alter the year and month anyway? Its not as if you could not have copy and pasted it.Slatersteven (talk) 09:46, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

March 2019

Your recent editing history at English Defence League 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 BRD 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. you should know this -----Snowded ^TALK 23:11, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Reverting dozens of separate edits is warring. NEDOCHAN (talk) 23:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC) Talk page. NEDOCHAN (talk) 23:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Read wp:editwar and wp:3rr.Slatersteven (talk) 23:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

You might want to delete the personal attack on the talk page of the article. Carry on like this and you're going to be blocked or get a topic ban. You're dealing with a group of very experienced editors - try and work with that -----Snowded ^TALK 20:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I think the actions of the editor are clearly personal. They have been following my edits. I wasn't rude. And it certainly wasn't an attack, much as your post isn't a threat. Experience has nothing to do with anything and you ought to know that. What with all your experience and everything. NEDOCHAN (talk) 20:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Right - I've mass reverted. You have three editors who do not agree with you. The vast bulk of these changes are not needed but based on your own idiosyncratic views. You have tried to change the meaning with misleading edit summaries. You are not listening. You are breaking policy on personal attacks. Get agreement on the talk page on any changes you want to make please. -----Snowded ^TALK 20:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

It's quite clear. If you continue to force into the article, the edits you want, without first gaining a consensus for those edits at the article talkpage? then you will end up being 'blocked'. It's not a matter of what you think is right or wrong. The result will be that you'll get blocked, if you continue in the manner of editing, that you've been doing. GoodDay (talk) 21:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

It is being discussed on the talk page and we're approaching a solution. NEDOCHAN (talk) 21:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Not as long as you carry on edit warring it isn't. I just added to the 3RR notice board as you've gone way over any normal limit -----Snowded ^TALK 21:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't want my hours to be wasted when I am attempting to discuss edits on the talk page and have agreed to every request bar none. Please. NEDOCHAN (talk) 21:40, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

You're obviously determined to be blocked. GoodDay (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

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. Slatersteven (talk) 23:28, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

March 2019

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at English Defence League. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:50, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Advice

Hi Nedochan, if you disrupt any more pages with inappropriate copy editing, you may end up being reported to WP:AN/I, which could mean you'll be topic banned from copy editing altogether. The situation on Talk:English Defence League is not acceptable. If grammar really is your passion, as your user page says, please consider a different approach. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Sarah. I have not reverted back and have followed procedure. The situation to which you refer has been resolved and I have followed procedure to the letter. Please do accept the points I have made without prejudice. NEDOCHAN (talk) 22:15, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

You're wasting other editors' time with minor points that are often wrong, and forcing them to engage in long discussions about your grammar preferences. Rest assured that someone will open an AN/I if you don't stop. Also, please invest in some good style guides that you can check before commenting. I would recommend The Chicago Manual of Style and Hart's Rules. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:25, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I think I have been civil and will leave it at thatNEDOCHAN (talk) 22:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Anthony22

I'm glad somebody has the energy to keep up with some of this guy's bad edits; he long ago wore me out and I'm not inclined to make a personal project of following him around to revert his bad edits. I see your username on his UTP from last year, so you're aware of at least some of the history.

There are plenty of incompetent editors, that just comes with the territory, but there aren't many who are that prolificly bad while repeatedly lecturing other editors in their edit summaries. In my view Anthony22 needs to be kept away from highly visible content, and I would support some kind of topic ban to that effect. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

It's so tiresome. We have been here before. I shall be warning them again. It's getting absolutely ridiculous now. About 1 in 30 of their edits are good, ten in 30 are totally unnecessary, and 19 are just flat out wrong.NEDOCHAN (talk) 15:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I shall be warning them again - Yeah, that's kind of my point. I think it's abundantly clear that warnings will not be effective, and we're past that. At one point the warnings were so strong from so many editors that he disappeared for something like six months, then reappeared and picked up where he left off. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Tell me about it! It's actually quite hilarious. It's as if nothing has changed. Even the belief that all words ending in 'ing' are in the present tense and must be changed! NEDOCHAN (talk) 15:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

O.J. Simpson murder case is on my Watchlist. After observing yesterday's edits, your history, and Anthony 22's history, I'm amazed that you haven't used WP: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Unless you have some good reason not to do so, I plan to post a report there about Anthony 22. Tapered (talk) 03:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I haven't raised the issue as I feel bad about it. I don't blanket revert and I do attempt to judge each edit on its merits. I just wish the editor in question would pay attention to the concerns many others have expressed.NEDOCHAN (talk) 10:38, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Info and update: I still plan on bringing Anthony 22 to the attention of the Admins. I'll admit there are still worse editors roaming Wikipedia, but he's using up way to much Editorial oxygen. I'll do it as circumspectly as I can. Now for the interesting stuff—as a productive grammarian, are you aware of User:Giraffedata, "Mister Anti-comprise," as I'd label him? If not, check him out. Regards Tapered (talk) 02:52, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I've filed an Incident report. You're mentioned and cited in it. Are you a member of the Guild of Copy Editors? Cheers Tapered (talk) 05:08, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Parenthetical commas

Parenthetical commas are used to separate words or phrases that are not essential to the sentence. Without the word "Leeds", the sentence would read "After this incident Atherton and England headed to Headingley for the second Test", which would be fine as a sentence. However, the word Leeds is a qualifier of the word "Headingley". It's not part of the phrase "for the second Test" (which is not a clause because it has no verb in it). Do you follow my reasoning? Deb (talk) 18:35, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

You are not correct at all.NEDOCHAN (talk) 18:49, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

The corollary of your argument is that the adverbial clause should read "Leeds for the second Test", which would be completely meaningless.Deb (talk) 18:53, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Again, no. 'After this incident Atherton and England headed to Leeds for the second Test.' There's your sentence.

Main clause 'Atherton and England headed to Leeds'. Adverbial clause of purpose 'for the second test'. You're confused by Headingley, which is not part of the essential clause. Pretend it's not there.NEDOCHAN (talk) 19:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Puzzled by your change

How can "Their version of the song, which was inspired by the fact that it had featured on Gavin & Stacey" be correct? If their version of the song had already featured on Gavin and Stacey, how could it have been inspired by that appearance? Or, when you said "their", did you mean that the Comic Relief version, featuring Tom Jones, was inspired by the version sung by Rob Brydon and Ruth Jones that had previously appeared on Gavin and Stacey? I suggest this improved wording: "The Comic Relief version of the song, on which Tom Jones featured, was based on a version sung by Brydon and Jones in an episode of Gavin and Stacey." I'll put this on the article talk page as well. Deb (talk) 15:08, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you, which is why the edit 'Their version of the song, which also featured in the BBC's hit sitcom Gavin & Stacey, was released in aid of Comic Relief ' was unsatisfactory. This is why I said that 'The song, inspired by its having featured in the BBC's hit sitcom Gavin & Stacey, was released in aid of Comic Relief' was a better edit. I didn't say 'their'. Because if you say 'their version' it confuses the issue, as their version wasn't featured on Gavin & Stacey but rather the release of this version was based on the fact that the song itself had been.

I sought a compromise as that's always the aim. Grammatically speaking, I assure you that the reverted version was sound but if you're not happy with it let's figure something out. NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, "the song" was certainly not inspired by anything remotely to do with the programme, because it was written in 1983. So what is wrong with my wording as suggested above? Deb (talk) 16:09, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I think it's overly verbose and repeats 'version'. The subject 'song' in the original is the one that 'was released in aid of comic relief', as is made clear after the non-defining relative clause. I have to admit I'm still nonplussed as to why you changed it in the first place.NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:21, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

No. The song is the the words and the melody that were written in 1983, not any individual recorded version of the song. The latter could be called a recording, a version or a recorded version, if you like. Or even a single, in the case of the Comic Relief version. Deb (talk) 17:19, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

I have made a suggestion on the talk page that fits.NEDOCHAN (talk) 17:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

August 2019: A case study of gross disproportion, threats and how not to use ANI

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Prostitution, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. General Ization ^Talk 12:58, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I restored the template. You reverted my revert and restored the disruption. I also used an edit summary.NEDOCHAN (talk) 15:49, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Prostitution; 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. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:37, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Check again bud. I just restored to the original pre all the added names. I'll forgive the template but it leaves a slightly sour taste.NEDOCHAN (talk) 17:39, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't matter WHAT you were doing. Edit warring is not permitted, even to restore a consensus version. Again and we'll discuss at WP:AN3. General Ization ^Talk 17:43, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Ffs. I'm not warring. I'll leave the important addition of a load of names into the opening paragraph. NEDOCHAN (talk) 17:47, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

We can let the community decide that at AN3, if you're bound and determined to continue. Shall we? General Ization ^Talk 17:48, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I am not continuing and have not. Why are you continuing to threaten me? NEDOCHAN (talk) 17:49, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

You're right. I won't threaten. I will act. In the meantime, please review:

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of the rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period may also be taken as evidence of edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior. See below for exemptions.

- General Ization ^Talk 17:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

No 3rr and no edits post warning. You threatened me. I stopped. You threatened again. I didn't restart. You reported me.NEDOCHAN (talk) 18:02, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

See the following at WP:EW3: Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times. Your attitude here makes clear you believe you have done nothing that violates policy. As I suggested (and which you wasted as an opportunity to advise that you would desist), we'll let the community decide. General Ization ^Talk 18:05, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I did desist. That's sort of the point. Yet you continued.NEDOCHAN (talk) 18:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Any further conversation on this topic should now occur at WP:AN3. General Ization ^Talk 18:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I didn't return to the page. And I wasn't warring. You reported me for discussion. And the links that you provided as evidence were from talk pages. Not great. And unsurprisingly unsuccessful. Whatever happened to 'letting the community decide?NEDOCHAN (talk) 18:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:NEDOCHAN reported by User:General Ization (Result: ). Thank you. General Ization ^Talk 17:58, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

'Stop warring.' 'I wasn't but ok.' 'I said STOP WARRING.' 'I haven't returned to the page.' 'Do it again. I dare you.' 'Haven't. Why the threats?' 'That's it. I'm reporting you. Let's let them decide.'

Report concludes the obvious.

Argues with the conclusion.NEDOCHAN (talk) 20:49, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Formal proposal 3 modification

Hi. I wanted to let you know the proposal has been modified and Mandruss notified me I should do this. The proposal, similar to the old one is:

Anthony 22 is limited to making 1 edit per article per 24 hours in the main space. Self-reverts and edits that have been self-reverted do not count toward this limit. Talk page discussions do not count toward this limit.

This is just a notification. Thanks.

Regards,

---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

• Well, another modification has occurred. Rather than only a modified proposal there is now an "original" proposal and an "alternate" proposal. Just letting you know. Thanks. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:04, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Co-operate

The script I am using changes cooperate → co-operate. By searching on the Internet I found that cooperate is the most used form in American English, but in other forms of English it's preferred co-operate. Since A Clockwork Orange is written in "EngvarB", that means "non-specific but not N. American spelling", I thinks it's correct to change to co-operate. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 13:25, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I have begun a discussion on the talk page that includes links to UK dictionaries. The hyphenated word is always a variant but not preferred.NEDOCHAN (talk) 13:28, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

O J Simpson article

Hello! I read your comment and edits and I wanted to say that I really do appreciate your help with my additions. Im new to wikipedia so I'm still trying to figure out all the different ways to edit and communicate with the other editors of the articles. Initially in my draft article for the DNA evidence I used excerpts from the trial transcripts but I got dinged for copyright infringement so now Im using paraphrasing but then you run into the issue of violating the synthesis. Im working really hard on this and in either case I wanted to let you know that I appreciate your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samsongebre (talk • contribs) 17:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

No worries. Watch out for apostrophes.NEDOCHAN (talk) 17:47, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for helping out with the article. I couldn’t figure out how to thank you any other way other than here. I’ll ad more citations and publish it soon. Samsongebre (talk) 23:05, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks.NEDOCHAN (talk) 23:28, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

...

Was there a reason you just mass reverted ALL of my edits, and not just the ones adding the wrestling content? I mean, he's more than likely going to be confirmed to perform at WWE's next PPV on Monday anyway, but whatever. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 02:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

You didn't use a single edit summary and it looked like all the edits were on the same section, which you added without discussion, consensus or explanation. Or WP:RS. 'More than likely going to be announced' not the best reason for addition to an encyclopedia.NEDOCHAN (talk) 07:55, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

PWInsider is considered an RS by WP:PW, and I didn't actually include any speculation, but nice try. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 09:38, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

'I mean, he's more than likely going to be confirmed to perform at WWE's next PPV on Monday anyway' sounds like speculation to me. And personal attacks aren't a good way to make your point. Edit summaries help, too. NEDOCHAN (talk) 10:03, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

I was obviously referring to the article. I did not add any speculation there. GhostOfDanGurney (talk) 12:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I didn't say you did. Well done for starting a discussion. Now establish consensus before restoring. NEDOCHAN (talk) 13:44, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Worldwide John Lennon's solo career album sales erased in John Lennon's introduction article

Hello,

you reverted my edit as being too detailed. Why not ? But in this case you should also move the following section : "By 2012, Lennon's solo album sales in the US had exceeded 14 million units. He had 25 number-one singles on the US Billboard Hot 100 chart as a writer, co-writer or performer." English wikipedia is not "USA Wikipedia". The USA aren't the alpha and omega of the earth Biosphere. The USA are just a little part of the landmass. There are many other countries in the world, some larger and some more populated and perhaps (debatable) one even more powerful, China. Therefore privileging the USA to the entire human world is a total ineptitude in an article introduction. In that case why the Canadian or the UK or the Italian sales have not been displayed. English wikipedia is the version of Wikipedia written in English but certainly not the version of Wikipedia restricted to the USA or to the USA views, angles, opinions. So, using your logic, I will move the ""By 2012, Lennon's solo album sales in the US had exceeded 14 million units. He had 25 number-one singles on the US Billboard Hot 100 chart as a writer, co-writer or performer." section (to the Discography section) which has no reasoon to be written here in introduction and I will replace it by something much more accurate : my old section with no details because it concerns all the countries.

You said in your headline revert that the contents of my edit was indicated "elsewhere". I would really appreciate to know where worldwide sales of John Lennon's solo discs are indicated. If it is the case then let me tell you that it is very well hidden.

About the Website that counted worldwide sales, their method is much better than the method used by the RIAA to count US sales. In other words, the "worldwide" 72 million units is a result much more trustful than the "US RIAA" 14 million units. First of all, the RIAA doesn't count sales but certifications. For instance in the US, more than 925,000 "Walls and Bridges" physical albums (vinyls and CDs) have been sold. It has been certified gold by the RIAA when the 500,000 mark has been crossed. Since the 1,000,000 has not, the album is not certified as platinum therefore with no new certification, RIAA credits this album with only 500,000 sales instead of the real 925,000 figure. 800,000 Milk and Honey physical albums have been sold in the US but the RIAA figure is only 500,000 (Gold certification). Double Fantasy is RIAA certified "only" 3×Platinum whereas the 4 million mark has been crossed (4,050,000) because RIAA simply lacks time to count album sales (there are many albums by many artists sold) : perhaps Lennon album sales will be scrutinized by the RIAA in ... ten years. In fact Lennon has sold more than 22 million physical albums in the US and not 14 million as stated by the RIAA. Of course this underrating is also true for any other artist.

However in the end if you consider that my original edit was too detailed for an introduction (and finally I agree with you) therefore the US RIAA sales and the #1 singles in the US Billboard charts have absolutely no reason to be indicated in this introduction whereas the WORLDWIDE sales are much more adequate. Besides as I wrote before are not indicated, to my knowledge, elsewhere. In fact there are no "solid" worldwide disc sales indicated in any Wikipedia article, be it in English or in any other language. --Carlo Colussi (talk) 11:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi- as a featured article, the lead is very well-scrutinised. I would suggest seeking consensus on the talk page for the inclusion of the sourced material elsewhere in the article. It simply doesn't work as the final sentence of the lead.NEDOCHAN (talk) 11:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

NATO Tiger Association

Thank you for removing all my hard work! There was no up to date information since 2016. UNCOOL!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidsmith2014 (talk • contribs) 14:56, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

BOLD, revert, discuss cycle

Hi. You removed a wikilink at Lennox Lewis. I reverted your edit and invite you to discuss the change you would like to make on the talk page as encouraged by WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 20:36, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Salisbury limerick

You reverted my edit about the second limerick playing on the shoretened form of Hampshire (Hants) saying it doesn't. Could you explan how it doesntt? Meanwhile I have reinstated it. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:18, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

no probs. It's just that technically it doesn't use the shortened version, it says Hampshire, so the wording isn't clear. Anyway I think the whole limerick section should be removed and will start a discussion at some stage. I have put a necessary comma in btw.

NEDOCHAN (talk) 12:00, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Cheers, I'm not totally convinced about the limericks either, though it is a bit of comic relief. Perhaps it should be relegated to the popular culture section. NB thanks for the comma. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:04, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I have tweaked a bit further just to ensure that it's clear that it's Hants, as that might not be obvious to the reader. I agree that it's quite amusing and interesting but it does seem a bit odd to have two old comic limericks feature so prominently in an encyclopedia article on a city.NEDOCHAN (talk) 12:08, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

a passion for grammar and accuracy

Perhaps you might like to review Special:Diff/934429188 per dictionaries such as https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fianc%C3%A9e, https://www.dictionary.com/browse/fiancee, https://www.thefreedictionary.com/fiancee. Sun Creator^(talk) 15:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I had thought consensus tended to favour not using them, hence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Use_diacritics having failed. However, as per MOS:DIACRITICS it seems that 'The use of diacritics (such as accent marks) for foreign words is neither encouraged nor discouraged.' NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:20, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

New message from CASSIOPEIA

Hello, NEDOCHAN. You have new messages at Talk:Jon Jones.
Message added 06:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:17, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Reverting edits

Hi you recently reverted my edit on Conor McGregor. This I believe was unnecessary as per WP:DONTREVERT. In my original edit summary I explained why I added the information. I have restored my original edit and opened a section on the talk page so that we can find consensus. Please remember that reverting is usually reserved for disruptive editing and not simply that you do not agree with what was written. Cheers. --Dom from Paris (talk) 13:54, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I didn't revert but rather edited down a section to make it more concise. This is not an example of WP:DONTREVERT. The fact that you reverted is, however. As per BRD you should have discussed, not reverted. The article is too long as it is. Feel free to gain consensus for inclusion.NEDOCHAN (talk) 14:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Checking again I see it was a revert so should mention I was wrong to say it wasn't. Nonetheless, adding more detail that doesn't affect the facts is needless and makes the already too long article worse. We are working on shortening it at the moment. Just because a source says something doesn't mean it has to be included, unless the edit somehow misrepresents the source, which this doesn't. It's just detail that we don't need. It says the case was dropped. It was. That's enough.NEDOCHAN (talk) 15:21, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Would you mind explaining who "we" is? --Dom from Paris (talk) 12:14, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

It was identified as an article that needed to be cut down a long time ago (it was VERY long). We is a group of editors who work as part of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mixed_martial_arts. NEDOCHAN (talk) 14:06, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

January 2020

Your recent editing history at Conor McGregor 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Dom from Paris (talk) 14:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Do these rules not apply to you? Would you care to discuss the points?NEDOCHAN (talk) 14:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

You carried out multiple reverts without entering into discussion. You posted your opinion and immediately reverted without allowing me to reply and find consensus, you then tried to justify what you did by quoting Status Quo. This all show a rather belligerent attitude especially as you seem to finally agree with me that the section did not fairly represent the sources. I believe you have been warned several times about reverting without discussion and have already received a 24 block for these kind of problems. To be perfectly honest what went on at McGregor's page was absolutely unnecessary. Reverting should really only be used in very exceptional circumstances. I looked at your recent editing history and nearly 30% of your contributions are reversions. This is way too high IMHO and I think you should read the essay WP:STATUS QUO in parallel with Wikipedia:Edit warring and WP:BLP as it states During a dispute discussion, until a consensus is established, you should not revert away from the status quo (except in cases where contentious material should be immediately removed, such as biographies of living people, or material about living people in other articles). (my bolding). The article as it was written posed some quite potentially serious legal ramifications as the information had been cherry-picked to paint the fan in a negative light which was my reason for modifying. WP:BLP policy applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, categories, lists, article titles and drafts. and this includes the fan even if he is not the subject of the article. I hope this helps you understand why I reverted and warned you about potential edit-warring. Cheers --Dom from Paris (talk) 15:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I changed the edit to address your concerns about fairness and you restored. You made no attempt to compromise and added tags to the article and templates to my talk page. And I addressed very specifically your concerns about cherry picking in the discussion, going so far as to quote the source. I note that you didn't actually discuss, you just accused me of warring and reverting, while you warred and reverted. Many of these things work both ways. Anyway, compromise was found so let's leave it there.NEDOCHAN (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

OK I thought maybe my friendly advice would have been taken on board but it doesn't matter. The text still needs tweaking and the "credibility issues" are contentious and inappropriate as there is no context and are not in multiple sources. I shall edit as per the sources. --Dom from Paris (talk) 16:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

This is what the Florida DA said: "Based on the witness's credibility issues, his unwillingness to respond to a subpoena and the inability of the witnesses to testify as to his subjective mindset, the State of Florida cannot prove the charges against Mr. McGregor beyond a reasonable doubt," Madani wrote."NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

That's 3-0 in compromises. To me.NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't need your advice. You are not superior to any other editor. Another fundamental principle that you misunderstand.NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:38, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

This is the opinion of the Florida DA. It is not really very important but I would suggest you look at this link [3] especially the video in it and make up your own mind to decide if McGregor really did what he did. What it looks like is that McGregor lost his cool probably because of the flash, destroyed the phone and then settled to avoid prosecution. The fan then recanted after having received the money and changed his version to ensure the charges were dropped. Of couse there are credibility problems because he changed his version so the charges would be dropped. If this is what you want to put forward then go ahead I really can't be bothered to split any more hairs with you so long as there is mention that the charges were dropped at the request of the fan following a settlement. If you want to put a more positive spin on it for McGregor that's up to you the essential information is in there. Just please try and take on board what I said about reverting because it may get you into trouble later on. The best thing to do is to discuss especially when the edits have been made by experienced editors as they may help you with your editing skills. You may think you do not need advice but I beg to differ which is why I gave it. No editors are superior to others but some are more experienced and may be able to help you, but if you think you know all there is to know about editing wikipedia fill your boots! Cheers. --Dom from Paris (talk) 16:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh, so I should conduct some original research in order to refute the 'opinion' of the DA? I'm glad you can no longer be bothered. I only wish you hadn't been bothered in the first place. I am pleased you consider yourself such an experienced editor. I also consider myself one. And as such, I would suggest you read WP:OR and advice on warring and compromise. May help you with your editing skills.NEDOCHAN (talk) 16:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

You may have skipped over the introductory paragraphe of WP:OR which says This policy of no original research does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards. or you may have misread what I wrote. Reading and especially understanding policy and guidelines comes with experience. I am glad that you consider yourself an experienced editor I do not consider myself "such" an experienced editor myself but I think I have been working in enough policy and guideline based areas such as New Pages Patrol and Articles for Creations to offer a little friendly advice but as they say, you can lead a horse to water... anyway happy editing. --Dom from Paris (talk) 17:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

You seem a decent fellow and I'm sorry we got off on the wrong foot. I think you attributed an agenda to me beyond the one I have, brevity. I should have focused on that. Wires do get crossed and I'm sure you're a good chap and editor, as I am. Till next time.NEDOCHAN (talk) 17:41, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

No problems, I am sure you don't have an agenda now but the removal of sourced information that gave a balanced, non partial view of the incident that is required in BLPs was a bit worrying so I may have overreacted myself for which I apologise. i understand the need for brevity but BLP is a very delicate area and sometimes you have to be a bit verbose to avoid problems. I honestly only gave you my point of view in a spirit of collaboration and also to share some of the experience that I have gained in different areas of editing especially as I saw that you had fallen foul of the 3RR rule once as it is so easy to do especially when one is a bit of an expert in a subject. I didn't come to preach and am sorry if it seemed that way. Cheers. --Dom from Paris (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2020 (UTC)