Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

    This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

    You must notify any user you have reported.

    You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

    Additional notes
    • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
    • The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
    • Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
    • Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.
    Definition of edit warring
    Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
    Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
    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. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

    Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Click here to create a new report

    User:Mypthegoat reported by User:Left guide (Result: Blocked indefinitely after an ignored 48-hour block)[edit]

    Page: Luka Dončić (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Mypthegoat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [1]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. Original addition
    2. 1st revert
    3. 2nd revert
    4. 3rd revert
    5. 4th revert


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [2]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This type of edit has been the subject of editorial controversy across multiple related articles in the NBA project, so there is open ongoing discussion at WT:NBA#Conference finals mvp to resolve the content dispute, which I mentioned in both my edit summary and the user's talk page.

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [3]

    Comments:
    User continues to edit-war in the NBA Conference Finals MVP award into the infobox even though they have been reverted by a total of three different editors. Left guide (talk) 23:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Then don’t revert the edit I made what’s so hard to not understand. I already made my explanation. The player has won the Conference Finals MVP and award should be included in Career Awards and Achievements part. I checked the talk page and consensus been saying yes it should be included too. Jaylen Brown has already that award in their bio too. I mean there’s a sentence which says for Luka Doncic in his wiki page that he won the award yesterday but we can’t show it on his career awards part. Make it make sense. Mypthegoat (talk) 23:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    ToBeFree or any other admin, can this be reviewed again for a possible second block? The user fresh off their first block has immediately returned to restoring the same exact edit they were blocked for edit-warring over. Left guide (talk) 01:22, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Not even an edit summary from them either. It doesn't seem they understand edit warring yet. —Bagumba (talk) 01:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you very much for the notification, Left guide.  Done.
    • Blocked indefinitely ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Seems reasonable to have them request an unblock, given the other warnings on their page. —Bagumba (talk) 09:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:FeldmarschallGneisenau reported by User:Glide08 (Result: Indefinitely blocked)[edit]

    Page: 1989 Polish parliamentary election (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    FeldmarschallGneisenau has already been reported and suspended for a week for edit-warring in this article. The target of the edit-warring is the vote figures; he removed them from the Infobox persistently, citing the fact they exceeded the adult population of Poland as a reason, while ignoring the fact that the electoral system used at the time is multiple non-transferable vote, a system which allowed a voter to have more than one vote.

    Comments:
    The edit war was over the formatting of the lede. I conceded that. My block over that has expired. It did not refer to reverting your changes in the infobox. And the WP is clear: any unsourced statements may be removed by editors at will. I am following Wikipedia Policy.FeldmarschallGneisenau (talk) 14:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Out of the seven reverts listed in the initial report, only one (#6) concerned the lede. The remaining six (#1, #2, #3, #4, #5, and #7) concerned vote figures in the infobox. Glide08 (talk) 14:16, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:103.156.142.125 reported by User:StephenMacky1 (Result:IP blocked for 24 hours.)[edit]

    Page: Ramayana (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 103.156.142.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 12:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC) "/* Movies */ StephenMacky1 Edit war may be from your side think again. Please don't consider anything personal. But whatsoever change is needed. Adipurush will not have any place in The Great Ramayana page. I have provided several links before too but none considered. I request you to remove Adipurush from this list."
    2. 12:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC) "Undo changes. I request "StephenMacky1", "Joshua Jonathan", "NXcrypto" to not make any changes further here as this movie is not at all related to The Great Ramayana. Ref: "https://www.rediff.com/movies/review/adipurush-is-not-ramayan/20230620.htm""
    3. 06:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC) "/* Movies */ आदिपुरुष महान रामायण का हिस्सा नहीं है। आदिपुरुष ने महान रामायण और हिंदू धर्म का मज़ाक उड़ाया है। आदिपुरुष ने बहुत विवाद पैदा किया है और हिंदू लोगों की भावनाओं को ठेस पहुँचाई है। Person holding indian citizenship can make changes to this article. I suppose some outside the indian region are making undo changes on this article. Kindly refer original Ramayana with research on the topic whether Adipurush to be considered as a part of Ramayana or not. Adipurush is not a part of Ramayana"
    4. 05:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC) "/* Movies */ आदिपुरुष महान रामायण का हिस्सा नहीं है। आदिपुरुष ने महान रामायण और हिंदू धर्म का मज़ाक उड़ाया है। आदिपुरुष ने बहुत विवाद पैदा किया है और हिंदू लोगों की भावनाओं को ठेस पहुँचाई है।"
    5. 04:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC) "/* Movies */ Adipurush is a controversial film in India region. And it is not a part of Ramayana. I kindly request the authorities to remove this name from the list."

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 12:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Ramayana."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    IP editor has made more than three reverts by now, despite being reverted by multiple editors. StephenMacky1 (talk) 12:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:YZDMAC reported by User:Woodensuperman (Result: Sock blocked)[edit]

    Page: Template:Foreign relations of Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: YZDMAC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [4]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [5]
    2. [6]
    3. [7]
    4. [8]
    5. [9]
    6. [10]



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [11]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [12]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [13]

    Comments:
    User has continually been reverting removal of flags in navboxes (which go against MOS:FLAG) by myself and others on this and other pages, pretty much the only thing they have done since they joined. --woodensuperman 14:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Look. Wooden Superman you have absolutely no right to remove the flags on Foreign relations template. The flags help people identify a specific country. Mr. WoodenSuperman has no clue what he is talking about. Period. YZDMAC (talk) 14:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Per MOS:WORDPRECEDENCE, the countries are identified by the name of the country, not the flag. --woodensuperman 14:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn’t explain why they are on Foreign relations templates. On Foreign relations they are easy to identify. So you don’t know what you are talking about Wooden Superman. That’s it for now. YZDMAC (talk) 14:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They shouldn't be in navboxes, per MOS:FLAG, WP:NAVDECOR, etc., etc. That is why myself and other editors have removed them. --woodensuperman 14:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Has no interest in working collaboratively [14]. Wikipedia not for them.Moxy🍁 15:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indefinitely blocked as a sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:202.166.137.148 reported by User:Theknine2 (Result: Already blocked 24h)[edit]

    Page: List of iPhone models (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 202.166.137.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [15]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [16]
    2. [17]
    3. [18]
    4. [19]


    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [20]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [21]

    Comments:
    "List of iPhone models" uses [22] (official Apple information) to indicate the specific iPhone models that have been designated as "vintage" or "obsolete" by Apple, and is indicated as such on the article. Despite this official information, User:202.166.137.148 continuously reverts changes made by various users, claiming that it is incorrect, despite being proven wrong with a simple check of the list on [23]. I have already sent this accurate source + a warning onto their talk page, but this user has still been reverting edits since. Theknine2 (talk) 08:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Already blocked  for a period of 24 hours by Drmies Daniel Case (talk) 20:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, thank you for the first block. However, after this 24 hour block expired, the user just casually continued to revert edits on the same article again: [24] and [25] (diffs of the user's reverts). I need further action to be taken, thank you. Theknine2 (talk) 06:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retracting since the above issue has been resolved (for now). Theknine2 (talk) 13:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Quiltedcastle73 reported by User:MrOllie (Result: Blocked for 60 hours)[edit]

    Page: Masayoshi Son (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Quiltedcastle73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 20:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1227451579 by MrOllie (talk) it is not a license, but in this case, it is clearly appropriate. again, look at BLP."
    2. 20:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1227451039 by Viewmont Viking (talk) Does not address the problem. Again, taking bold action because living person policy takes precedence."
    3. 20:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1227450311 by Viewmont Viking (talk) It is NOT acceptable to question a living person's sanity just because a source is "cited". Living person policy takes precedence in this case."
    4. 19:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1227449890 by Discospinster (talk) see: living person policy. also, see: edit war policy."
    5. 19:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1227449623 by Discospinster (talk) agreed, this should be discussed on the talk page. meanwhile, since this is a living person, the potentially libelous content should remain removed until it is settled. see: living person policy"
    6. 19:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1227448501 by Drmies (talk) seeing as you responded in less than one minute, you obviously didn't even look at the edit. again: removing arguably libelous content, living person so action needed to be taken quickly"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 19:59, 5 June 2024 "Warning: Three-revert rule."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 20:11, 5 June 2024 (UTC) "/* NPOV concerns */ Reply"

    Comments:

    Editor is trying to claim BLP stating claims about the individuals sanity violates that policy. However the editor is removing a lot of additional cited information that would not fall under the claim of questioning the individuals sanity. so the BLP claim does not hold water. --VVikingTalkEdits 20:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 60 hours Pretty clear-cut violation; more than the usual first block for making six reverts in a half hour or so (Is this a record? Not that we keep them, or should, but still ...) Daniel Case (talk) 20:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Nigerianhistorian reported by User:Danial Bass (Result: Blocked one week)[edit]

    Page: Usman dan Fodio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Nigerianhistorian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [26]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [27]
    2. [28]
    3. [29]
    4. [30]
    5. [31]
    6. [32]
    7. [33]
    8. [34]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [35]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [36] [37]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [38]

    Comments:
    User continues to re-include user-generated image of historical person based on no proper sourcing. Talk was conducted and no other users agree with the image to be included (no consensus). The image has been nominated for deletion [39] Danial Bass (talk) 22:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The issue is already on the talk page. All users agreed except for one, and I have given him an explanation. He thought the picture violated Wikipedia's policies, but it does not! Nigerianhistorian (talk) 22:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked – for a period of one week. Bbb23 (talk) 22:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Jd101991 reported by User:Cerebral726 (Result: Declined)[edit]

    Page: Jet Lag: The Game (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Jd101991 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [40]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [41]
    2. [42]

    Additionally, is not interested in gaining concensus:

    1. [43]
    2. [44]

    And has resorted to insults and silly warnings on my talk page

    1. [45]
    2. [46]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [47], with the reasons for reverts also explained here

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [48]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [49]

    Comments:

    • Declined They have not edit warred further since the warning was placed on their talk page. - Aoidh (talk) 00:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Rahio1234 reported by User:Ergzay (Result: )[edit]

    Page: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Buster Bubbles (Arcade) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and User talk:Shadestar474 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Rahio1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 11:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Ergzay (talk): You are now edit warring"
    2. 11:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by Ergzay (talk) to last revision by Rahio1234"
    3. 07:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1227579564 by Ergzay (talk) Stop now. You will be blocked from editing"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 10:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC) "General note: Refactoring others' talk page comments on User talk:Shadestar474."
    2. 10:53, 7 June 2024 (UTC) "/* June 2024 */"
    3. 11:01, 7 June 2024 (UTC) "Caution: Refactoring others' talk page comments on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Buster Bubbles (Arcade)."
    4. 11:02, 7 June 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Refactoring others' talk page comments on User talk:Shadestar474."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    User has repeatedly reverted comments put on others talk pages and then deleted warnings added to their talk page and placed warnings on to my own talk page for restoring comments that they were deleting. Ergzay (talk) 11:06, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Further they broke rules on deleting other people's comments on talk pages that are not their own. Ergzay (talk) 11:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This user has now additionally reported me here as well despite previous incidents where they fail to communicate and have been previously warned over misuse of this notice board. Ergzay (talk) 11:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User reverted my edits. Rahio1234 11:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Both editors have significant problems, Rahio1234 with competence and Ergzay with a campaign to get Rahio1234 blocked that includes repeated personal attacks. I advised Ergzay a while ago that they need to put their complaints about Rahio1234 in the proper context in the appropriate venue, which would be WP:ANI. Instead,Ergzay is using backdoors to do so. Meanwhile, the nomination of the draft by Rahio1234 for lack of notability is one more indication that they are likely not a net asset to the project.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      User:Bbb23 - I agree about User:Rahio1234 but will add a comment. Nominating drafts at MFD for lack of notability is a relatively common error that appears to indicate an inexperienced reviewer who has more enthusiasm than knowledge or common sense. I asked User:Rahio1234 why they nominated the draft, because I was wondering if better instructions for reviewers are needed to avoid this waste of time at MFD. User:Ergzay tried to answer my question, attacking Rahio1234, and was reverted twice. I will be looking for a report at WP:ANI, and will also be expecting more misguided nominations to delete drafts, and asking the nominators why they are making the nominations. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Robert McClenon Can you clarify what you mean by "I will be looking for a report at WP:ANI"? I don't quite follow. Is that a suggestion that I should create a report at WP:ANI immediately and that you want to engage in that discussion? Ergzay (talk) 15:18, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      User:Ergzay. I am not asking you to create a report anywhere. Either report Rahio1234 at WP:ANI, or don't report Rahio1234. When I look at WP:ANI, one of the things that I will look for, if I remember, will be a report about Rahio1234. Either report Rahio1234 at WP:ANI, or don't report them. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not sure if I'm supposed to be reading between the lines here given your wording. However as I stated in my other comment, I'll hold off writing a report at WP:ANI until I see additional problematic behavior. There is hope that Rahio1234 may change. Ergzay (talk) 16:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Bbb23 Can you point to where you previously advised me? I have not seen any warning regarding this directed toward me. Checking the previous conversation shows no warning directed at me. Are you sure you advised me? Ergzay (talk) 13:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      But I'll take this statement itself as advice to avoid personal attacks. I'll keep an eye on Rahio1234 and report them to WP:ANI if they continue their behavior. Ergzay (talk) 13:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Ergzay: I can't find anywhere I warned you, either. I know I thought it, but that doesn't count for much, my apologies. Thanks for taking the advice/warning to heart. I think your plan is sound.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:05, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ravenofpoe1 and User:JeremyWilsson reported by User:Macaddct1984 (Result: Both pblocked)[edit]

    Page: Aaron Frenkel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Users being reported:

    Previous version reverted to: [50]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [51]
    2. [52]
    3. [53]
    4. [54]
    5. [55]
    6. [56]



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I am an uninvolved party, but there was a lengthy discussion 15 days ago at Talk:Aaron_Frenkel#Neutrality. @Ravenofpoe1 also reached out to @JeremyWilsson on their talk page, User_talk:JeremyWilsson#Edits_on_Aaron_Frenkel_Page

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [57], [58]

    Comments:

    This appears to be a re-ignition of a edit war that was improperly filed ~2 weeks ago between the two parties. MacAddct1984 (talk | contribs) 13:04, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've blocked both new WP:SPAs indefinitely from editing the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:20, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm concerned that this is effectively granting "JeremyWilsson" his edit. I do not understand why these points regarding Aaron Frenkel are being left out, as they are well sourced and widely documented outside of Wikipedia. I'm glad that there has been outside involvement, to ensure that a balanced conclusion can be met. Ravenofpoe1 (talk) 13:42, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I've reverted back to (from what I can tell) is the last stable version back in February before you two got into this asinine edit war. Does it favor one of you? I don't know and I don't care. See WP:WRONGVERSION. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 15:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think this is correct and it's not about favoring one person or the other. The 'last stable version' had previous complaints of being written by PR Agents, and excluded many widely reported facts which are relevant for an encyclopedia. Many of the corrections I made were agreed upon in the talk page, and weren't in dispute. Ravenofpoe1 (talk) 15:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ada Kohlmaier-Sims reported by User:Theroadislong (Result: Indefinitely pblocked)[edit]

    Page: Laure Prouvost (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Ada Kohlmaier-Sims (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [59]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [60]
    2. [61]
    3. [62]
    4. [63]



    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [64]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [65]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [66]

    Comments:

    • Indefinitely pblocked from editing the article. Some of the user's edits are vandalism, even if not intentional/malicious. They are doing the same thing at fr.wiki, but no one seems to be monitoring the article there.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:13, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Louise Williams reported by User:QuietHere (Result: )[edit]

    Page: The Waeve (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Louise Williams (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 16:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC) "Undid revision 1227560711 by QuietHere (talk) I saw. I also listened to the track. And listening to it confirmed it's a 39-second snippet of another song. My adjustment is accurate (my source that it's a snippet is the one at the link, all one has to do is listen to it), but if you really feel the need to make an inaccurate adjustment (it is NOT a single just because DSPs say it is), you go right ahead."
    2. 13:19, 6 June 2024 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 13:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on The Waeve."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. 13:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC) on The Waeve "User:Louise Williams, did you not see what I wrote the last time I undid this same edit? Please bring this to the talk page if you're insistent on it, or at least provide a new source that verifies the claim if you're gonna do it again."

    Comments:

    Was told multiple times to provide a source. Most recent edit summary shows blatant OR. Original addition here which is older than 48 hours. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:27, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1227753573"