Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:34, 29 January 2015

City nicknames

I would like to thank you for the effort....but you will find many of the edit will be reverted by other. There are a few problems with the edits...first most will want to see source of some national or international recognition of the name. A local reporter that uses a name in passing will not be a source most will think is good. Secondly it looks like your copy and pasting sources from List of city nicknames in Canada ... many of them are dead...this "may" indicate you have not looked at them yourself...thus are not verifying your edits (dont want people to think this). So lets look at Ottawa for example... "O-Town" is a local saying (I am from Ottawa and it is used in an urban setting)...outsider would actually recognize "Canada's Capital" more so then O-Town. O-Town to most outside Ottawa means " Orlando, FL" or any city that starts with an O for that matter. To put it simply... "Everyone is encouraged to copyedit articles, add content and create new articles if they have knowledge about the topic at hand or are willing to do the necessary research to improve it". I will not revert anything else...let other do so if they fell a need ...instead I will help you here and in the articles. Do you have any questions so far?? -- Moxy (talk) 01:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok well how about C-Town for Calgary? Why should that be allowed,it could mean Cincinnati for all we know? Also, a source is a source no matter where it comes from, it does not matter if I used it from somewhere else. It is still a reliable one. I just wanted to cross reference between the two articles so there are no discrepancies. Also not to be rude, but who cares about the outsiders? It is a city nickname for a reason because the inhabitants of the city are the one's who know about it. How would an outsider know about Toronto's nickname "The Big Smoke", or even Bytown for Ottawa if they did not know about Ottawa's history? I am from Toronto and I have never heard this, but is apparently a nickname. That is what makes a nickname a nickname. Or even "Hub City", at least five Canadian cities have this nickname.

• Ok first will answer "a source is a source" as quoted from WP:USERGENERATED (a guideline) "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable". See more at WP:SOURCES.
• Second "cross reference between the two article" Misplaced Pages has many level of articles...some better then others...some better sourced then others. What we have to keep in mind is we want to have the best articles possible. this means not transferring badly or unsourced info from one article to another. Each article should have up to date sources that have been verified by those that add them (WP:PROVEIT). -- Moxy (talk) 02:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I dont see the reversions on my contributions, they all say current. which are they?

Ok, off of sourcing for a moment, I believe O-Town is a viable nickname that is used. Not to be rude, but who cares about what an outsider thinks. What makes a nickname a nickname is from the city inhabitants. If you and your friend were talking about Ottawa and one says "I'll meet you in O-Town" They will not think you are talking about Orlando. Also how about Toronto's, T-Dot? Maybe that means Tijuana? Or C-Town for Calgary? Maybe Cincinnati? Or Thompson, MB "Nickel City", that could be referring to Sudbury, ON? Or Owen Sound, "The Scenic City? That could literally be every city in the world. So I believe it is fine.

I do see your point,,,but dont agree...every generation has a nickname for their city. Onterrible is what Ontario is called by many diaspora in the West,,,but would you add this? You will just have to talk it out when your reverted... see Misplaced Pages:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle for what most do when reverted so there is no edit wars...thus blocks. I recently finished Misplaced Pages:Contributing to Misplaced Pages it may be helpfull in learning your way around. -- Moxy (talk) 02:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I see your point but there is actually a nickname on Edmonton's page and on the nickname list "Deadmonton" for Edomton's "boringness". So? Also I do not think I will be reverted, it is totally valid, there are so many things out there that have no citations or are dead wrong and do not get delete. There is no need for mine to be reverted, all of it is listed right on the nickname list! Reversion would be nonsense as they would just be trying to find something to randomly revert and I will undo it.

Thats horrible mostlikelly will be removed by someone in the near future. I see we have a bit of a misunderstand of what the parameter is for....its for "well-known nickname" not names of the day. We are looking to add encyclopaedic content not stuff TMZ would cover. Can you please read over WP:QUESTIONABLE and WP:RSOPINION. -- Moxy (talk) 02:53, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

why dont you take it off if you think its wrong?

There is no rush...others will see it and they can choose to remove it ....I am here to help you understand why I did revert one and why others may revert the additions in the future. -- Moxy (talk) 03:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I do not see any reversions on my contributions.

It's actually so funny how teachers and professors say not to use wikipedia because it is unreliable. If they only knew the sh*t that goes on in the editing and revision process. Why do they think that? We have people that go around all day just reverting things because they are "unreliable", and make no effort whatsoever to try to fix it, they just take it off and piss people off and leave a nice message. Wow...

Thus far 2 people have raised a concern by way of removal me and one other you have reverted. I am trying to explain why this has happend and may happen again. As for what people say about this wiki ...your right as outlined at Misplaced Pages:Researching with Misplaced Pages..but many of us are trying to fix this. -- Moxy (talk) 03:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I dont see any reversions on my contributions. they all say current. which are they?

• Vaselineeeeeeee and Moxy, this back and forth discussion has unfolded so quickly that it is a tad too tangled to jump in and sort out in one fell swoop, but I am about to try to help. Stay tuned. Hwy43 (talk) 03:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• I too appreciate Vaselineeeeeeee's efforts. I have not reverted any within my watchlist since one a few days ago involving Sundre, Alberta. We worked together to fix that and I've seen nothing but sourced additions since (though I've yet to look through all of them). Regarding Moxy's first comments, newspapers are reliable sources. It does not matter if a nickname is only known locally, provincially, nationally or internationally. If the nickname is widespread at any of those levels, it will be reliably sourceable. Being used in the media, such as done here, is confirmation that its usage is of widespread notability. I have no issues with adding "O-Town" to the Ottawa article. That being said, yes, we should be careful that references copied and pasted from other articles in fact verify the claim. And sure, some of these sources may now be deadlinked, but that doesn't preclude them from continuing to being used on Misplaced Pages. Also in the case of List of city nicknames in Canada, I can confirm that everything there is referenced by reliable sources. I was the one that removed all unreferenced and unreliably sourced entries a couple of years ago. This effort included verifying all the references that are there today. It was, but no longer, is a garbage article. Hwy43 (talk) 03:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Regarding Moxy's second comments, he is correct. However, as mentioned in my last post, the source provided was a WP:RS and was not WP:USERGENERATED (unless I'm wrong about what actually is). I've also yet to see badly or unsourced info transferred to other articles. The only problem is that some have sources that are now deadlinked.
  I now have a baby to feed and put to bed. I'll be back in an hour or two to continue on. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 03:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Regarding these comments, I have never heard of Onterrible before, and I am a westerner. Must be the generational thing Moxy spoke of, and no doubt this dated nickname could be reliably sourced. In any case, it is neither Misplaced Pages's place nor an editors place, to censor reliably-sourced, notable nicknames if they are disparaging. The Deadmonton issue has a history. It was most previously discussed here in 2011. Consensus was it should be listed as a nickname.
  Still wading through the entire discussion that unfolded above. I'll keep going, but looks like I'm nearly caught up. Hwy43 (talk) 06:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Regarding this, employing a "modus operandi" (MO) to edit war (i.e., reverting a revert) will not get you far here at Misplaced Pages. Persistently doing this gets editors permanently blocked, even if your edits are properly sourced. The key thing about editing here is communication. The best way to do this is to fill in the edit summary field with a brief description of your changes every time you save your edits. Effective edit summaries gives watchlisters a better understanding of why you are making these edits. Each article also has a talk page where discussions can be initiated about controversial edits to the article. I strongly suggest you review and consider engaging in WP:BRD, as suggested by Moxy, as an alternative to edit warring. Though not formal Misplaced Pages policy or guideline (it is an essay), it is a very effective tool in resolving differences of opinion in an non-hostile environment, so long as all parties engaged in the discussion are doing their best to adhere to the process properly. Hwy43 (talk) 06:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Regarding this, Deadmonton may have only been known briefly at the international and national levels for brief periods in 2001 and 2011 (and very sadly perhaps right now), but its usage is well-known and persists at the local and provincial levels for at least two reasons (perception of nothing to do and periodic high homicide rates). Hwy43 (talk) 06:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Vaselineeeeeeee, admittedly, I was disappointed to be mentioned here given I helped you out at the Sundre article, but see you have since removed that and apologized. I sincerely appreciate that.
  At Misplaced Pages, there is a guideline called assume good faith that I suggest you read. It may appear there are "people that go around all day just reverting things because they are "unreliable", and make no effort whatsoever to try to fix it" but that is not true of most editors.
  My own MO for dealing with unsourced additions usually comprises a revert with an explanatory edit summary. For a new editor, I often post a general note on the editor's talk page using templates that encourage the editor to ask me a question. As you know, this is how you and I crossed paths. As for helping others, my MO is to help those that help themselves. You answered the offer for help by asking for it and I was glad to assist. For those that ignore notes and continue to do the same, the notes on their talk pages escalate to cautions, then warnings, and so on. Do note however this is only my MO. Other editors definitely approach things in different ways.
  To get a true understanding of what editors who revert you truly do around here, check out their user contribution histories. Here are my last 500 (I counted 20 reverts of which one was reverting myself after I found a reliable source for your "Gord Miller from Sundre" contribution). Let me know if you would like help on how to check out the contributions of others. Hwy43 (talk) 07:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

you helped me with Sundre, after I asked you nicely, or else you would not have done anything... Not to be rude, but look at some other city pages and see if they have citations for notable people, almost none.

You are right. In most cases I would not have done anything if you didn't ask for help (refer to my own MO mentioned above). We are all volunteers here. We have jobs, families, other hobbies and commitments, and no one should take it upon themselves to correct everything they come across on here or we may soon very well not have these other things in our lives.
There are definitely other city pages that don't have citations for notable people. My usual approach in reviewing an edit that adds a new person to a notable people list comprises the following.

1. Was a reference (citation) included?
2. If no, does the article about this notable person mention the link between (s)he and the city?
3. If no, I revert the addition on the city article as being unsourced. However...
4. If yes, is there a reference within the notable person's article that verifies the link to the city?
5. If no, then I do #3 above, but...
6. If yes, I let the edit stand without the reference.

The truest might say #6 does not go far enough. They may be of the opinion that the editor must add a reference. Also, someone reviewing my approach may say "well, why don't you copy and paste the reference from the notable person's article to the city article then"? Again, we are all volunteers here and we each need to find our own balance. Frankly, had I been a subscriber to this additional step, I may have very well transferred all the nicknames from List of city nicknames in Canada to the infoboxes of each city article a couple years ago already and saved you this hassle! ;o) Hwy43 (talk) 07:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you for confirming my additions, I appreciate it. I thought you were going to say that it was garbage and would have taken it down after I worked hard on citing after you taught me and even added citations to those that did not such as Ottawa's page, Churchill's page, Saskatoon, Winnipeg, etc., I just didnt want it all to go to waste... I apologize. My sourced edits will not be reverted as Moxy said they would correct?

• You are very welcome and thank you for the apology. Note my position on your additions are my opinions rather than confirmations of the Misplaced Pages community's consensus, though I have a feel for what its consensus would be on your additions based on my past experiences and observations from the past five years. The fact that you found citations for those cities that did not have them is commendable. Keep up the good work! Coincidentally, I was actually planning to commend you for your good work on your talk page before this discussion broke loose.
  As your edits were made without edit summaries, there may be others like Moxy and Beatles1959 that will try reverting your recent edits. You'll just have to weather those storms as they come in, and if they do, I suggest you engage in discussion and other forms of communication to resolve. Starting to make use of edit summaries with effective descriptions of your changes will definitely bring calmer waters moving forward.
  I leave you with a couple final thoughts. Moxy is a very well respected editor here in Canada and is very helpful. I consider him one of my Misplaced Pages (WP) editors of influence. He has offered to be of assistance to you moving forward, and you should consider taking him up on it. I am also available to help, but do note that it may take some time to respond with the holiday season ending and my other commitments. Same will likely apply to Moxy. More than anything however, I suggest you approach the Misplaced Pages:Teahouse with questions and to become accustomed to the editing community's culture. WP's policies, guidelines, etc. are vast and can be convoluted and overwhelming (I'm sure all the above is). The Teahouse is the best resource available for new editors to find their ways. Finally, remember to WP:AGF and be open to learning from others when you get reverted or they approach you on your talk page. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 07:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for tweaking my edits and not getting rid of them totally. http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/archive/index.php/t-132760.html Is this cite acceptable to use as a reference?Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 14:09, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:Selfpublished, forums are largely not acceptable as sources. It is best to avoid them. Hwy43 (talk) 19:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Also FYI, a discussion about city nicknames has since been initiated at the Canadian WikiProject to determine a consensus on how many nicknames should be placed in infoboxes. Given your interest in these nicknames, you may want to consider contributing to the discussion, or at least observe how it unfolds and its outcome. If you decide to contribute to the discussion, consider advising that you are new to WP and trying to learn the ropes so the other more experienced editors understand where you are coming from. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, I see from your contributions that you have begun adding flags to articles (according to your edit summaries). Other editors might remove these per MOS:FLAGS. Consider reviewing MOS:FLAGS and undoing your flag-related edits (or don't be surprised if others revert them). Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• I was looking at the similar article for the United States state nicknames, and they indlude state flags, so I thought I would add the provincial and territorial flags to the Canadian article. I don't understand why a harmless action like adding a correct placed flag would cause someone to revert it? Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 19:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I see. List of U.S. state nicknames is not on my watchlist (neither is List of provincial and territorial nicknames in Canada). I guess the MOS:FLAGS enforcers haven't gotten to that U.S. article yet. Anyway, don't be surprised if your additions to List of provincial and territorial nicknames in Canada become controversial at some point. Hwy43 (talk) 05:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to ask you to please refrain from adding any more city nicknames until a consensus is reached at WP:CANTALK#City nicknames. Perhaps you would like to participate in the discussion since you have been so active lately in adding nicknames. Meters (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Re: Halifax, Nova Scotia. You made three reverts to the page here here and here within a 24-hour period with no explanation of why. Because you're new, I'll take this opportunity to point out that is usually enough to get you flicked for a minimum of 24 hours. (See WP:3RR) Then two more reverts today, but this time you DID put an explanation of why you made the change and this is a good thing. I understand your enthusiasm in trying to edit Misplaced Pages but care must be taken so as not to appear to be a fanatic or unwilling to collaborate with other editors here. Regards,  Aloha27 talk  22:48, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

FYI Halifax ..."Warden of the Honour of the North" even a book with this title from a few years ago. For us old people "East coast Canadian port" name used during WW2. Sources for both.....at...William Baillie Hamilton (1996). Place Names of Atlantic Canada. University of Toronto Press. p. 333. ISBN 978-0-8020-7570-3.... .but I don't think they should be added to the infobox...but to the nickname main page. My point is that the names change by generation...only the ones that have stuck historically should be there....not the name of the week.-- Moxy (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Yellowknife

It is not a nickname as a look at the article on nickname shows. It is an advertising slogan that other than the source, which is the NWT tourism site, is little used, due to the industry not really taking off, and I can't find it on the official city site. A nickname would be something that people would actually use, such as YK or The Blade. For example E-Town for Edmonton is a nickname but The City of Champions is a slogan and not a nickname. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

It needs a source to show that it is a nickname, that it is current use as such and not just and advertising/marketing slogan. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

So why don't you put a citation needed caption on other sources like Chatham, Oliver, Abbotsford, Edmonton for "City of Champions" etc. because they can also be deemed as advertising slogans. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 21:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Because I only saw Yellowknife this morning and didn't see the others at all. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Why should Yellowknife be any different? If Yellowknife is like that, they should all be like that, or none at all. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

They shouldn't and I just made a suggestion at Misplaced Pages talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#City nicknames to amend the infobox so that advertising slogans can be put in a different line. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok great addition to the board, I am going to remove the tag you added to Yellowknife and the list of nicknames until a census is reached. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 21:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

You found a source that it is a nickname? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

No for the diamond advert. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:56, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

No I wasn't able to find proper sources for either which is why I didn't add them back. When I thought about them they may be what others call it and not what people in YK call it. Somewhat like "Cam Bay" and "The Bay" for where I live, Cambridge Bay. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Patrolling

When a page is created, it shows up in the New Pages Feed, where new page patrollers look at a list of recently created articles, to check them for copyright violations, vandalism, spam, and so on. Once some experienced editor marks the page as "reviewed" or "patrolled" (I think the terms are interchangeable), it drops off that list.

I'm not a regular new page patroller, but I occasionally happen across pages that haven't been reviewed yet. If a page is obviously not a problem, I mark it as "patrolled". I figure it cuts down on the number of pages that the regular patrollers have to wade through. So the message you received just means that I checked over your user page and confirmed that it's not a problem.

Incidentally, you're the second editor in two months to ask me that question. Maybe the automated notice that people get when their pages are "patrolled" should be more self-explanatory. New editors wonder if "patrolling" is something to worry about, when it really isn't. A. Parrot (talk) 02:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 02:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Infobox flags in articles

You cited WP:INFOBOXFLAG as a reason to delete the flags there.

However, it also says:

Human geographic articles – for example settlements and administrative subdivisions – may have flags of the country and first-level administrative subdivision in infoboxes; however, physical geographic articles – for example, mountains, valleys, rivers, lakes, and swamps – should not. Where a single article covers both human and physical geographic subjects (e.g. Manhattan), or where the status of the territory is subject to a political dispute, the consensus of editors at that article will determine whether flag use in the infobox is preferred or not.

I will now remove the flags, but keep the country and first-level administrative divisions. Epic Genius (talk) 17:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

As User:Epicgenius quotes MOS:INFOBOXFLAG, flags are explicitly permitted on articles for cities and other such places; it's only those places where a city / place and a physical geographical feature overlap that there might be an issue. I see that you have encountered User:Magnolia677 in your travels, who has persistently misrepresented MOS:INFOBOXFLAG and its plain meaning that flags are permitted. He has no veto power over the use of flags, nor does he have any authority to demand consensus to support a status quo use of flags. He has taken this battle with me all across New Jersey, and headed to New York City and now Canada, but the argument is dead wrong. As Epicgenius has reverted these deletions, so will I. Alansohn (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I 100% agree with you User:Alansohn. I only did it because of him, as well as others User:Qed237, User:Meters etc. on Talk:Edmonton (please forward your input to this discussion as I need more support from people with the same opinion to keep flags). They insisted that the flags be taken down especially on Edmonton, Winnipeg, Yellowknife, Iqaluit, Whitehorse, Yukon etc. and threatened me with edit war and blocking violoations for adding flag icons when there is no set in stone rule. Would you mind adding the flags back to these cities, as I do not want to go over the 3RR. Thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 21:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

All I did was restore one article (Edmonton) to its status quo and give you a 3RR warning so that you would discuss the issue rather than continue edit warring. As I've said, I don't care if we use the flag icons or not, so clearly I'm not insisting that the flags be taken down. I have not been involved in the other articles. Please correct your above statement.

Asking someone to edit a page and support your view is dangerously close to WP:canvassing. Explicitly asking someone to make an edit for you so that you can avoid edit warring is likely to be seen as WP:MEAT. Meters (talk) 22:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh I did not know about that, I am sorry. User:Meters, it takes two to tango in an edit war. There is no rule set in stone that flags should not be added, and in Human geographic articles such as cities, they are looked up upon being added. So if editors remove the flag, they are the ones who are picking an edit war by removing correct and allowed information. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Despite being blocked for edit warring in the past you still dont seem to know what it is. It is not a matter of who is right or wrong. It is persistent editing back and forth without discussion (and editing during discussion). WP:BRD is a good read, if you are bold (B) and edit then gets reverted (R) you discuss (D) and make sure the editor knows why the edit you did was good. When discussion is over content can be re-added if that is what discussion leads to. You can not continue to edit over and over again even if you are "right". QED237 (talk) 22:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Qed237, so what your saying is that it is okay to remove right information and the editor to try adding the right information back is considered warring. That makes perfect sense. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Did I say that? Please read again I said that if you want to make a change that is not supported (and reverted) and keep editing the article you are edit warring (as well as the other editor might be). You were definately editwarring at edmonton. If you had waited a day or two for experienced editor to join the discussion maybe the decision would have beeen to add flags but you did not wait and discussed, you continued an edit-war. QED237 (talk) 22:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Why are you telling me this? I'm the one who correctly pointed out that MOS:INFOBOXFLAG allows flagicons for human geographic articles. You were deleting flag icons on other human geographic articles as recently as a few hours ago incorrectly using MOS:INFOBOXFLAG as justification.

As for edit warring, you just don't seem to get it. You made a bold edit. It was undone. Per WP:BRD you were then required to discuss it on the talk page. No-one "picked an edit war" by undoing you once. You started one by restoring your edit without following WP:BRD. You've been blocked twice for edit warring, once just days ago. Asking someone to make your edit for you seems to confirm that you are missing the point.

The flag icons may go in these articles. They don't have to be included. It's a content issue that needs to be decided by consensus when there is a dispute. Meters (talk) 22:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Qed237 How did I not wait?? I haven't added back the flags on Edmonton since yesterday. I am waiting to see the outcome of the discussion (if there ever will be any). Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 22:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Meters, the only reason why I did that to the US cities is because couple other editors insisted that they were not allowed. All I want is consistency between various articles. I still believe flags should be included. I also said I didn't know that was a rule, and said I was sorry. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 22:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

After you got your edit warring notice and case discussed at Edmontond talkpage you still went on to other article like iwth this edit it is still edit warring even if you continue on other articles, edit warring does not have to be on only one article. QED237 (talk) 22:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and that edit was also yesterday and have not added it back. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 22:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, you WERE edit warring. QED237 (talk) 22:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Wait what? Not adding the flags back is edit warring? Maybe I should add them back then? Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 22:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

No, thats not what I meant. You cant say you waited when you first removed edit warring notice 5:08 (so you saw it) and then still added flags at other articles like here at 5:38. That is edit warring because you continued even if it was at an other article. QED237 (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh yeah, that was my mistake. However, I have not added anything back on those articles since yesterday. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Which is why I said that you WERE edit warring (and probably should have been blocked since you have not learnt from previous blocks). I just removed my report to be kind and give you a break, but maybe I was wrong to remove it as you still have problems to know what edit warring actually is. QED237 (talk) 23:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure if you heard me, I have STOPPED adding stuff on those pages since YESTERDAY. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 23:08, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

But you did not stop DIRECTLY after your warning last night and should have been blocked then for continuing and if I had left my report I am sure you would have been blocked, especially since it is now obviuous there was no knowledge of what edit warring is even if you have been blocked for it in the past, you should know the rules by now. QED237 (talk) 23:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I realized this yesterday, which is why I stopped and have not added anything back since. Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 23:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

So if we put the flags aside you have been blocked for editwarring twice, last time with several unblock requests (all denied) with you arguing against decision and then two days after your block expires you editwar for a third time. Do you hear how that sounds? Despite how it may sound, me and others have tried explaining to you what editwarring is and that you should not edit war. One way for you to stop is to actually know what editwarring is. A third block will most likely be long (a month or so) and if you still dont learn you risk being blocked for even longer. I appreciate that you said you have not edited today even if you continued yesterday, it is going in the right direction. Can you tell me in your own words what editwarring is (you can read WP:EW and WP:BRD) so this editwarring wont happen again? You dont have to do it but it could be a way of understanding so history wont repeat itself. QED237 (talk) 23:27, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I know what editwarring is, and what I know is that it takes two to editwar. It is very unfair to say that I am the only one who is warring when there has to be a contrary. Especially since my additions are correct. Then you will say it does not matter if it is correct or not it is still editwarring. How though?? If I removed a correct detail on Juan Cuardado's page and you remove it and more vandals remove your revert, and there are dozens of vandals against one, does that make it right that the one against a dozen and the one gets banned??? This is exactly my situation. NO. Do you see where I am coming from? Vaselineeeeeeee (talk) 23:34, 29 January 2015 (UTC)