User talk:Crashed greek/Archives/2022/January

"Workation" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Workation. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 September 17#Workation until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:08, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

"Moral supremacy" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Moral supremacy. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 18#Moral supremacy until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 21:20, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

"Work from office" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Work from office. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 18#Work from office until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:13, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

January 2022

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Battle of Peshawar (1758). If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Bbb23 (talk) 14:10, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Unless you file a report at WP:SPI, accusing someone of being a sock constitutes a personal attack. A few months ago you attacked the other editor of vandalism, which also constitutes a personal attack. Real vandals should be reported to WP:AIV.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:11, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Stop engaging in disruptive behavior as you did on article Battle of Peshawar (1758) by removing citations. You may be blocked from editing without further notice. Do not revert changes till an ongoing discussion reaches a conclusion on talk page of the article or on WP:RSN. MehmoodS (talk) 13:52, 15 January 2022 (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. MehmoodS (talk) 16:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Note you have been warned and you are still reverting to your preferred version.Slatersteven (talk) 12:10, 18 January 2022 (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.Slatersteven (talk) 16:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring at Battle of Peshawar (1758)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. 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 ~~~~}}.

Continued warring after a prior complaint at WP:AN3. With this edit of January 18 you removed the 'failed verification' tag on Pradeep Barua's book. This represents a continuation of the original edit war as reported, and it unilaterally adds the claim that this source backs up your opinion about the reality of the battle. Whether this source backs it up or not is a matter that needs editor consensus and can't be unilaterally decided by you. You were warned at 18:05 on 17th January not to revert again without getting consensus first. EdJohnston (talk) 19:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

That failed verification tag was added after the nomination, by another user, it was not there at all earlier. It was not part of the edit war at all. The edit war was for another book by author Abhas Verma, see Talk:Battle_of_Peshawar_(1758)#Unreliable_sources. Barua book was published in 2005, the wikipedia article was not present back then, so no plagiarism issue there. You have been confused between the two sources. I have removed failed verification tag after verifying it with google book search, and after adding exact page number and exact quote. And now maliciously User:MehmoodS_ has removed other sources too, though edit war was only regarding Abhas Verma book. Take a closer look EdJohnston Crashed greek (talk) 04:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Also User:MehmoodS_ has now reverted to his new version, despite being warned for edit warring, and no third user has done supported him. The third user had User:Slatersteven had placed the failed verification tag for the first time, it was not a matter of edit war. That failed verification tag I removed after quoting exact page number and quote of an undisputed source. Crashed greek (talk) 04:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Which did not say there was a battle.Slatersteven (talk) 13:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Also you need to read wp:editwar, it does not have to be the same user you revert, it is the reverting that matters, not who it is you do it to.Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

You need to read wp:rs wp:v and wp:or. A source must explicitly say what you are using it to support. You can't use a source based on your interpretation of what it says.Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)