User talk:CurryCity/Archive 1

Warning about WP:HOUNDING

I'm going to WP:AGF and assume it's a coincidence that you randomly showed up at Talk:Uyghur genocide after our extended discussion at Talk:Peng_Shuai. You may want to familiarize yourself w/ WP:HOUNDING though. NickCT (talk) 23:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a popular talk discussion. I wasn't even talking about or disagreeing with you. CurryCity (talk) 00:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Important Notice

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 articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. 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.

–Novem Linguae (talk) 01:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Ghurid dynasty on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at 2022 Winter Olympics

Your recent editing history at 2022 Winter Olympics 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. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My edit with summary was reverted by someone else first. That reversion was done without edit summary. I changed it back, asking for reasons. That's only 1 reversion from me. CurryCity (talk) 22:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit with summary was a reversion, you appear to have removed content. That means you're at 2 reversions. See WP:REVERT if you're still confused. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removing content happens with many if not all edits. Whenever you add content, you might be undoing something that's been removed previously as well. This is a bit nuts. CurryCity (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, unless the edit just adds new content it is most likely a revert. Please note however that consecutive reverts only count as one, so you can make a dozen edits to a page that remove content or change it back to the way it was before but unless there are intervening edits they all count as one revert. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Important notice

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 the Uyghur genocide. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—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 these sanctions. 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.

––FormalDude talk 23:52, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Boycott

Your recent editing history at Boycott 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. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:37, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Go report us if you can actually prove your spams/accusations on everyone's talk page that you don't agree with. CurryCity (talk) 17:42, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Issuing a warning like the one above is actually required before you bring someone to WP:EWN. The hope is that instead of edit warring the user engages on the talk page like they're supposed to. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:46, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stop, your most recent edit [1] puts you at three reverts. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try omitting the fact that my edit put back [2] the content YOU wanted. CurryCity (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Its. Still. Edit. Warring. Also thats clearly not the content I wanted, I wanted to use the common name for the atrocities which is Uyghur genocide. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want me to engage in good faith, stop duplicating arguments on article's Talk page and repeat it here. WP:COMMONNAME is for article titles not for you to bypass WP:V and WP:NOR. CurryCity (talk) 18:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't bypass WP:V and WP:NOR, what on earth are you talking about? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article's Talk page. CurryCity (talk) 20:54, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 2022

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at 2022 Winter Olympics, you may be blocked from editing. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you have time to spam my Talk page, maybe you should give an actual reason for your reverts. CurryCity (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Uyghur genocide. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Please note that commenting out the substantial contributions of other editors, as you did here, is frowned upon, especially after other editors have already responded to the things that were commented out. — Mhawk10 (talk) 23:15, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To follow up, please undo any revisions that you have made that substantially edit other user's comments or remove parts of their comments. — Mhawk10 (talk) 23:16, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhawk10: If I obtain their permission can I reorganize their edits to make the discussion more clear? CurryCity (talk) 23:20, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CurryCity: Yes, but not after the fact. WP:TPO is pretty clear that you should never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning. Striking text changes meaning, so please self-revert your commenting out of the Xinjiang Year Zero source and the 2011 source and obtain permission from the user before you continue; it's standard that if anyone has already replied to or quoted your original comment, changing your comment may deprive any replies of their original context, and this should be avoided. Instead, you can use the <del></del> tags to note the redaction if you choose to remove part of your own comment. (Removing a comment that nobody has responded to is typically A-OK). — Mhawk10 (talk) 23:26, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhawk10: All of them should be back now. CurryCity (talk) 23:45, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Just as another note, you should probably move the sources you inserted on your own into that section into a separate box and sign your username on it. The current status makes the conversation harder to follow with timestamps and it reads as if some of the stuff you included in the big box was stuff that Aquillion chose to put there. — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:46, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done thanks. CurryCity (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at 2022 Winter Olympics

Just FYI thats 4 reverts[3][4][5][6], you should self revert to avoid edit warring sanctions. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are double-counting different edits into 1. CurryCity (talk) 22:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They don't have to be reverting the same thing... see WP:3RR "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 manually reverses or undoes other editors' actions — whether in whole or in part — counts as a revert. Violations of this rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period will usually also be considered edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This last one was not a revert; I added a tag with different param to indicate unresolved discussion. CurryCity (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It reverted HaeB's revert [7] of your addition of that tag. You appear to be well aware of this because you reference it in the edit summary "I did NOT remove link; there IS an ongoing debate; HaeB just because you are experienced doesn't mean you can say whatever you want about my edit in your edit summary" and warned HaeB over their revert[8]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a different param with ? to indicate ongoing discussion in Talk instead of surety. CurryCity (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They both look like synthesis inline tags to me. If you think its a revert you can not self revert and we can toss this up the food chain. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:34, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since you didn't like it, I changed [improper synthesis] to [improper synthesis?] without surety. CurryCity (talk) 22:37, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Its still a revert of HaeB's edit. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:38, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflicts) You had described it as a revert yourself just 11 minutes before claiming here it "was not a revert", after Horse Eye's Back pointed out this out inbetween.

In any case, such a minor variation in the wording of a template parameter (from reason=see Talk to reason=ongoing debate in Talk) that's not even visible to almost any readers (it only shows up on mouseover and only in desktop view) to circumvent 3RR is likely to be seen by many editors as a case of Wikipedia:Gaming the system.

Taking into account your extensive prior history of edit-warring about this particular topic despite warnings (as evidenced by this talk page) and refusal to self-revert, I believe this is a case for administrative actions. Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly didn't know the template comes with the language of revert. But in substance it wasn't a revert, because your reason for reverting me was false [9]. Additionally, [improper synthesis] to [improper synthesis?] is visible, so again you are not being completely honest.

"Yes, unless the edit just adds new content it is most likely a revert" from explanation above. But if you are saying removing is revert, adding a tag is also revert, that just makes everything into reverts??? CurryCity (talk) 22:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC) @HaeB: What version do you want then? Your edit summary objected to removing link, but I didn't remove any link previous to your edit, nor afterwards. What do you want? Omitting ANY indication of discussion in Talk page entirely? CurryCity (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you "honestly didn't know" what's in the template messages your are posting on other editors' talk pages, that's maybe a sign that you should refrain from such tactics, especially in light of Wikipedia:Casting aspersions. You also claimed that my editing "did not appear to be constructive" (you are of course welcome to disagree with it, but accusations of deliberately unconstructive editing may fall foul of WP:AGF) and pointed me to Wikipedia's welcome page to "familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines" (I've been editing Wikipedia since 2003, thank you).

Regards, HaeB (talk) 00:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noted for future. CurryCity (talk) 00:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:46, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Wikipedia proposals" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:30, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:A Discovery of Witches (TV series) on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Taiwan on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Martin Heidegger on a "Religion and philosophy" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Hunter Biden on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 01:30, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Partial block

You have been blocked from editing Peng Shuai for one month for persistent edit warring and battleground editing. You are free to edit the article's talkpage. 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 ~~~~}}. Bishonen | tålk 12:24, 21 March 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Flavan-3-ol on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:30, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Lee Soon-ok on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Charlie Moore (basketball) on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:National Recording Registry on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]