User talk:154.176.154.163

January 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on New Cairo. 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. 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. R Prazeres (talk) 05:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

You've been warned four times to stop edit-warring, yet you continued to do so even after commenting on the talk page. Please revert your last edit ([1]) and work towards a consensus there. Please read the policies linked above which explain this process to you. Ask questions if some part of the policies is unclear to you. However, if you continue your current behaviour without listening to Wikipedia policies, then the only option left will be to report you to administrators. R Prazeres (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

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. R Prazeres (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. 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 review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Daniel Case (talk) 20:13, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand why changing it to the right fact is considered edit warring but reverting to the false claim isn't. In the talk page i said why i am doing this and no one replied 154.176.39.212 (talk) 22:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

I have just extended the block on this IP for another 24 hours, as well as blocking 154.176.0.0/16 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)), the range you've been using, from editing New Cairo for a week.

You are still free to use the talk page there, which leads me to answer your question above.

Basically, I refer you to our page on edit warring. For the most part, it isn't what you do, it's the way that you do it. Editors are supposed to avoid edit warring to settle a content issue. It doesn't matter whether you're right or wrong (outside of a few limited exceptions, none of which apply here). It doesn't matter if the facts are right or wrong. It matters very much whether what you do is right or wrong.

You do not get to edit war because they reverted you first. You do not get to edit war because you think their source is dubious (and it is not asserting controversial and negative information about a living person, per last link). You do not get to edit war because they called you nasty names in edit summaries. All we as reviewing administrators look at, generally, is whether you kept on doing it when you should have stopped. Or, in your case, you kept on doing it over a couple of days.

We want to see (actually, if things go as they should, we won't see) people working this out on the talk page, as someone did attempt to at that article. We do not want to see people, finding things not going their way at the talk page, basically kicking over the table and reverting back to their preferred version ... as you did. That doesn't impress us.

If you think the other side is reverting too much, you do have the option of asking for page protection (although as an unconfirmed IP, you'd be unable to edit any protected pages, so maybe you don't want to do that). It's preferable to getting blocked for edit warring.

Think about this way ... if we just let people edit war on and on because they both thought they were right, what kind of Wikipedia would we have? Should inclusion of facts in articles, their sourcing, their phrasing, really be determined by one user's tenacity, a sort of might makes right? How would the non-prevailing party in such a dispute feel about later collaborations with the prevailing party? And who would want to start editing except people who enjoy getting into crossfires? Better to have these things emerge from consensus among editors, so as to promote collegiality and harmonious working relationships among people from different cultures, speaking different languages, who never (or rarely) actually see each other in person.

Don't knock discussion. Sometimes I've been at the beginning of little tug-of-wars like this, but then I've bothered to look at the other editor's source or argument, and lo and behold, they're right and I'm apologizing.

Look, I understand that, as a Cairan, you may well feel your experience reflects a different take on what New Cairo is in relation to Cairo. And you may well be correct. But that lived experience alone can't be sufficient grounds for inclusion. If it truly is a district of Cairo, and not a satellite city, there should be sources that back this up, and the burden is on you to find them. Daniel Case (talk) 06:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

---