User talk:Dealer07

July 2021

Regarding Eleni Foureira: Stop adding "Greek raper" to this article. You have not provided a source for describing this person as a "raper", and you have used misleading edit summaries to suggest that you are making different edits to the article. jp×g 01:34, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Johnnie Bob. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Eleni Foureira have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. Johnnie Bob (talk) 01:51, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Eleni Foureira 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. Johnnie Bob (talk) 02:18, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Eleni Foureira 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. Johnnie Bob (talk) 16:51, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Eleni Foureira, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Johnnie Bob (talk) 17:27, 26 July 2021 (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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Dealer07 reported by User:Johnnie Bob (Result: ). Thank you. Johnnie Bob (talk) 02:24, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Eleni Foureira

Hello Dealer07. You've been warned for edit warring at Eleni Foureira, per a complaint at the noticeboard. You may be blocked if you revert the article again without getting a prior consensus in your favor on the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 01:04, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston I wrote on the talk page it was a misunderstanding and none of the other editors bothered to correct me, read more considerately next time before imposing needless warnings. Dealer07 (talk) 00:27, 16 July 2021 (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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Dealer07 reported by User:Johnnie Bob (Result: ). Thank you. Johnnie Bob (talk) 16:53, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

July 2021

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2021 have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
For help, take a look at the introduction.
The following is the log entry regarding this message: Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2021 was changed by Dealer07 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.876789 on 2021-07-31T19:37:05+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 19:37, 31 July 2021 (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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Dealer07 reported by User:Jochem van Hees (Result: ). Thank you. —―Jochem van Hees (talk) 01:23, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zeca (footballer, born 1988)

Good morning,

from your contributions, you seem to be editing here for one year more or less. I have been here for 15 years, so i know the correct guidelines. I admit the first summary ("Again this?") was not very clear at all, but i had already experienced two similar situations in the last week so i was a bit nervous. In the second, i explained it clearly but/and you still reverted to the wrong version. The correct version in cases like this, i repeat, is to leave "...is a professional footballer who plays for..." in the first paragraph of intro then mention "Born in X, he/she represents the Y national team." in the end of the lede.

Situation has already been reported, have a nice week. --193.137.135.2 (talk) 11:19, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

yes, standard wording for situations like this is to avoid the nationality at the very beginning of the lede. Giant Snowman 11:36, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Zeca (footballer, born 1988). This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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. — Amakuru (talk) 16:18, 13 September 2021 (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. — Amakuru (talk) 20:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Zeca (footballer, born 1988). 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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 20:41, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Belarus in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 21:11, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jochem van Hees: Yeeeah, you probably merely skipped the fact the other editor started the edit war since my version existed for at least 3 months and he went to the talk page only after my recommendation and prior that was just constantly changing my version providing the same argument. So why should I am the one being notified there? ―Dealer07 (talk) 22:10, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't even bother checking if I also notified the other person. You just immediately assumed bad faith. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 22:48, 19 September 2021 (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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Dealer07 reported by User:Jochem van Hees (Result: ). Thank you. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 00:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Dispute already resolved"?

Okay I still want to ask because I have no clue what you mean. First you said "Dispute is already resolved as far as I can see from the Talk page" and then you said "New versions aren't to be added unless any possible dispute on the previous one(s) is 100% solved"? Do you now think it has been resolved or not? Because I thought you did (which is why I implemented the solution). ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 00:19, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other user agreed on keeping the previous persion (mine), read the talk page and don't resort to admins every time it happens to have a disagreement with another editor. Dealer07 (talk) 00:23, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, let me remind you of our dispute over the language issue where we "agreed" NOT to add things we aren't 100% sure about yet. Kazakhstan has not yet appeared in Esc, so that info would be just misleading. (ps the other editor probably deleted what I mention above) Dealer07 (talk) 00:27, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I reported to ANEW because you violated the three revert rule. Anyway, when exactly do you think either IvanScrooge or I say that we agree on your version? At least I didn't. I also can't find anything deleted in the page history. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 00:28, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And ofc did not even bother of reporting the other user too for having done exactly the same (pretends to be shocked but anyways). Nevertheless, I will not bother with this more but since the other editor's version is newer than mine you know how it has to be done (i.e. keeping the old one till ALL users agree on the new in case you don't) Dealer07 (talk) 00:35, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I reported you to ANEW because you violated the three revert rule. IvanScrooge did not. Can you please stop making up stories now. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 00:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also I still don't understand what you mean with "the other editor's version is newer than mine". You made the bold edit right? Before that there was no edit war. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 00:47, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My edit was about turning "Eurovision" into "adult" which had already existed in the past for a long time (till sb changed it), Kazakhstan was added quite recently as far as I can see (Ps yeah he did, the ip adress is mine. Just to know). Dealer07 (talk) 00:51, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't actually pay attention at all to the "Eurovision" vs "adult" thing – thanks for explaining. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 00:54, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Belarus in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest. 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 ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 13:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Logged out editing

This is a reminder of our policy on block evasion. It appears to me, and others that you have been editing logged-out. If you continue to do this - you will likely find your block lengthened significantly.

Blocks apply to the person, not the account, or the IP. Being blocked for two weeks means that you are not permitted to edit this website for two weeks, or until a successful unblock is filed. SQL ^{Query Me!} 11:01, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dealer07, after being given more warnings than you deserve, you evaded your block yet again. I have therefore increased your block to indefinite.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bbb23: Wtf, did you even notice that for the past 2 days I've been trying to unsuccesfully explain to 3 other users that when we talk about a country we use the prothema THEY and NOT IT? Probably not for having resorted to the block "solution". Anyways, wiki should and will continue to provide correct and precise info so don't even let the block action cross your mind as a detterent for me not to continue trying to correct to the right version. Dealer07 (talk) 23:12, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page access revoked.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:27, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, if you keep coming back on new accounts, and IP's, you will likely end up community banned sooner rather than later. This will make it far harder to get unblocked, requiring a community discussion instead of a single admin to get unblocked.

Meanwhile, continuing to push the same edits at the same pages will likely just result in escalating protections. You need to stop, and when you're ready to address the reasons for your block (sockpuppetry, Edit warring) you may do so via WP:UTRS, even if you don't have talkpage access. SQL ^{Query Me!} 05:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, between 17 and 20 October 2021, this user changed 5 IP socks ([1][2][3][4][5]). Vanjagenije (talk) 19:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh there's a lot more. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. There is also an SPI case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dealer07. I haven't reported them all because I don't think there's enough evidence for many of them, but I highly suspect these are all socks. ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 19:16, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]