User talk:SaibaK

July 2024

Your recent editing history at RRR 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; read about 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. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 14:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Isabelle Belato

Thanks for the revert. I've explained the issue in detail and opened a dispute resolution case here: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#RRR

Can you kindly help me understand why the information is being deleted despite following Wikipedia's policy of including 'notable' and 'verifiable' information in cogent manner that has taken a lot of time to research and cite? SaibaK (talk) 14:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Isabelle Belato,

Following the dispute resolution process here, I would follow the moderator decision that allows me to include back that para: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#RRR

Thanks. SaibaK (talk) 15:58, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Acting as an administrator, I don't have the final say on content disputes. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 22:51, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. Noted. The link was FYI only so my edit is not seen as edit warring.

Thanks for your administration work as a volunteer. SaibaK (talk) 10:02, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Isabelle Belato, the other user @Jayanthkumar123 has started another edit war on RRR page and is running away from the dispute resolution process (I had opened two dispute resolution processes and he refuses to participate in either one

Can you kindly block him from editing or our only recourse is edit wars since he refuses to participate in dispute resolutions? SaibaK (talk) 08:29, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Isabelle Belato, the RFC was raised for this on RRR talk page, which got closed on 2nd Sep by the wikipedia's Legobot after 30 days.

There is currently complete consensus that the edit I made should be included.

I'll include the edit tomorrow. Letting you know first, to convey that RFC consensus has been achieved and am not acting unilaterally. SaibaK (talk) 08:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Isabelle Belato,

Requesting your kind attention on the fact that even after RFC achieving the consensus, the user @Jayanthkumar123 continues to ignore RFC

I've now raised a formal complaint against him as per the suggestion of admin @Robert McClenon

In the meantime requesting you to block @Jayanthkumar123 from editing RRR page to prevent edit warring. He's trying to move away from the RFC consensus.

My thanks to you.

(P.S: Here's the link of the formal complaint that has been lodged against @Jayanthkumar123 : Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive editing by user @Jayanthkumar123 despite consensus achieved through RFC SaibaK (talk) 14:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Posting to my talk page

When you posted to my user talk page twice within the past week, did a banner pop up containing instructions? Did it include the instructions: Please put your message at the bottom of the page, using the New Section feature. Please do not post to the top of the page; I may ignore it.? Some inexperienced editors think that posting at the top of a page is a way to get the editor's attention. That is a misconception. Wikipedia talk pages always are added at the bottom and mostly read at the bottom. What is at the top is old material that will soon scroll off the top into an archive.

You posted to the top of my talk page, and I read the bottom of my talk page, as I usually do, and as most experienced editors do. I will look at your post within 24 hours. In the future, if a talk page says to post to the bottom, post to the bottom. If a talk page doesn't say whether to post to the top or the bottom, post to the bottom. That is how Wikipedia editors manage their talk pages. I will look at your post within 24 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I must have missed the banner. My apologies. Will wait for your thoughts.

Thanks. SaibaK (talk) 18:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]