User talk:AbuBer
Welcome
[edit]
|
Mappila
[edit]There is a discussion section now at Talk:Mappila. Please do not reinstate that rubbish unless you have read through all of my edit summaries. - Sitush (talk) 05:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Please do not remove such large portions of the article without any consensus. Discuss the details in the Mappila article talk page, reach editor consensus and then remove the parts of the article.
AbuBer (talk) 05:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
July 2020
[edit]
Your recent editing history at Mappila 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. Sitush (talk) 05:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Important Notice
[edit]
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.
Sitush (talk) 05:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Please do not remove such large portions of the article Mappila without any consensus. Please reach a consensus and then remove the parts of the article.
AbuBer (talk) 05:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- You have now said the same thing about six times across various pages. It isn't achieving anything, is it? - Sitush (talk) 05:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- And I have just reverted you at my own talk page and here. Please stop saying the same thing over and over. You need to address the issue, not repeatedly tell me about consensus. If you are not going to actually deal with the substance of your concerns, it seems like a WP:OWN situation and you will be sanctioned as per the above alert. - Sitush (talk) 06:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Please do not remove parts of any talk page discussions. You are welcome to engange in Mappila talk page discussions, but please do not remove other comments.
AbuBer (talk) 06:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Please stop stalling. You are not dealing with an idiot here & I suspect I know far more about how Wikipedia works than you do, so I do not need lessons from you, thanks. - Sitush (talk) 07:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- You are welcome to engange in Mappila talk page discussions, but please do not remove other comments.
AbuBer (talk) 07:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Warning
[edit]Please do not reinstate poor content without explanations, as you did at Mappila. Sitush's removals were made gradually, not all at once, and with explanatory edit summaries. You need to restore it the same way, if you are going to restore it: with separate explanations for each issue. There are two reasons why it's unreasonable to demand consensus before people edit the article: 1) It simply does not work that way; people are encouraged to edit boldly. Wikipedia would grind to a halt if editors were expected to get consensus before editing. 2) It's a fairly obscure article, with an inactive talkpage. The last time the talkpage was edited before Sitush did it today was in 2017. The article itself has also mainly been edited by bots/typ fixers over the past few years. Who would form consensus, the bots? The two of you who are editing and discussing actively need to come to terms. That won't happen with your non-substantial sealioning responses. This is a warning from an administrator. Bishonen | tålk 09:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC).
Best practice is to discuss, not edit-war (Reply to Warning)
[edit]- Please do not remove bulk data (around 30, 000 words within three hours) from an article (Mappila) without any consensus or talk page discussion.
- Please do not judge the quality of the content without any without any consensus or talk page discussion.
- Around 30, 000 words were removed from the article Mappila by User:Sitush within three hours (from 06:00 to 09:00) on 9 July 2020. I hope this not gradual.
- You are welcome to engange in Mappila talk page discussions.
- I hope that once a discussions is ON, more editos will join the debate.
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.
AbuBer (talk) 09:38, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
- Don't welcome me to discussions. I'm speaking to you (warning you) as as an administrator, as I've already told you, not as an editor of the article. That means I won't edit the article nor enter discussions on talk, or indeed seek dispute resolution — I'm not part of any editing dispute. There is no need to parrot policies etc to admins, nor to tell them to "request" page protection. You would do well to take what I said more seriously, because if you don't, you seem to be on train for a sanction per the discretionary sanctions you were alerted to above — most likely a topic ban. (Also, who edit warred first? You did. And now you have reverted three times to Sitush's two. You're not exactly in a position to be telling others about "best practice.") Bishonen | tålk 11:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC).
- You are still welcome to take part in the discussions. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war.
It is important not to remove such large portions of the article (around 30, 000 words within three hours) without any consensus. Discuss the details in the talk page, reach editor consensus and then remove the parts of the article en masse. AbuBer (talk) 12:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Blocked
[edit]I have blocked this account as you are using it disruptively. You are being obstructive at Mappila, Talk:Mappila and other places, and you are just repeating the same vague warnings and requests all over the place without partaking in any constructive dialogue whatsoever. Or, apparently, listening to the explanations you are being given. Other editors are explaining their side of the disagreement, and you are just stonewalling. Constructive editors who wish to take part in discussion and move forward can not do so when faced with your persistent obstruction. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then use the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)