User talk:172.78.51.90

Your recent editing history 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. KidAd  talk  22:15, 3 October 2020 (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 Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. KidAd  talk  22:21, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

1. You and your associate should understand that as you started the Controversies section removals and continual scrubbing of the Victoria Spartz page, it is you two who are, in fact, pursuing an edit war.

Paraphrase, don't copy
There are several reasons why it is not acceptable to copy and paste entire paragraphs of text in "hit-and-run quotes" to an encyclopaedia article. Paraphrase the content, don't copy it verbatim. Newspapers are written in a register that is not appropriate for an encyclopaedia, for one thing.

And you have to stop edit warring. --bonadea contributions talk 23:07, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

1. You are deliberately mischaracterizing the Controversies section.

2. You are entirely incorrect on using factual content.

3. As I did not start the removals, it is you and and your associate, KidAd, who are, in fact, pursuing and edit war by continually scrubbing content that is factual, quoted, sourced, and used under Fair Use Guidelines.


 * Fair use has nothing to do with it, and I have not commented on the content. Please read what I wrote above. And do not edit war. --bonadea contributions talk 23:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

1. Fair Use certainly does when using factual, quoted content - and especially in a Controversies section. Paraphrased content would be improper and unethical. Facts, quotes, and sources are preeminent for such a section.

2. You deliberately commented on the content and mischaracterized it as 'hit-and-run quotes'.

3. Once again, as it was KidAd and you who started the removals, you two are the ones doing the edit war.


 * The expression "hit-and-run quote" is commonly used in academic writing, but maybe not in your country – apologies for using obscure terminology. It has nothing to do with content, rather, it refers to a quote that has been dropped into a text without any context or framing. I have no opinion on whether the content is relevant for the article or not.
 * As pointed out above, there are several reasons why your additions are inappropriate; they are in fact directly against Wikipedia policy.
 * You have mentioned "fair use" several times, but it does not appear that you have in fact read Wikipedia's fair-use policy and the guideline on acceptable use. Adding several paragraphs of quoted text with no in-text attribution is a policy violation. If you had provided a short, neutral summary of whatever the controversy was about, that could have been illustrated with a brief quote if necessary. Take a moment to read this information carefully.
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and Wikipedia articles have to be written in an encyclopaedic register, or tone. A newspaper register is not appropriate in Wikipedia.
 * When one editor adds text which is subsequently removed by other editors – especially when several different editors contest the addition – it is not only fruitless but actually against Wikipedia guidelines to repeatedly restore the contested text. Make sure that you read this policy.
 * --bonadea contributions talk 08:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

1. Hit-and-run quotes are inserting text without attribution, usually unrelated to the subject. That is NOT what the Controversies section is - which proves again that you and your associates are simply scrubbing the page.

2. (a) they are very short quotes; (b) very few quotes, only those necessary to clarify the controversies; (c) the attributions are included; (d) in case you and your associates are unaware, Fair Use includes use for research - of which the Controversies section is.

3. All your 'several different editors' is you and your associates using a bullying technique and exploitation of the rules well known on Wiki and used by certain cliques. That is exactly what is going on here.

4. You and your associates are simply scrubbing the page and pursuing an edit war to do it - against policy and completely unethical.


 * It would be a good idea for you to stop it with the "associates" drivel, which does not reflect very well on yourself. Cheers, --bonadea contributions talk 13:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I have now looked at the actual content of the text. The sad thing here is that I believe I would probably agree with you on the content question – wetlands conservation is incredibly important, and this kind of issue is relevant. I don't know whether the question is WP:UNDUE or not in terms of this person's entire political career, but I urge you to please rephrase this as a one- or two-sentence summary and present it on the article talk page, once your block is lifted. Please do that, because continuing to edit war the inappropriate text into the article is a way to almost guarantee that the information won't be included at all. Regards, --bonadea contributions talk 13:24, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

October 2020
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Victoria Spartz. ''In addition to the pointless edit war, you are actually violating copyright. Stop it, now. bonadea'' contributions talk 13:12, 4

1. It is actually you and your cohorts that are 'vandalizing' and pursuing an 'edit war' by continually removing a legitimate Controversies section from the Victoria Spartz page.

2. It is NOT a violation of Copyright because the content was, and is, used under Fair Use guidelines - complete with attributions.

October 2020 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. 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:. 331dot (talk) 13:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

If you refer to "cohorts" and "associates" again, I will remove your access to this page for the duration of the block. 331dot (talk) 13:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Why? It's patently obvious what is, and has, been going on here - the bullying, abuse of the rules, and covering up for certain editors all being done over a simply Controversies section on the Victoria Spartz page. You primarily don't want it spoken of publicly

You don't know me, but I have a voice, the facilities, and the ability to expose the corruption here - and express public criticism of it.

So do whatever you think will serve your agenda, but don't think your deliberate unfairness here will be without repercussions.

I ask Administration to look into your actions and the actions of the editors involved here. All of you should be removed from Wiki - especially as you're serving your own interests and not those of Wiki. ; )

"Clear edit warring going on and likely WP:BLP violations"

1. The only clear edit war being pursued is by KidAd, Bonadera, and another person in a united effort to scrub the Victoria Spartz page of the Controversies section.

2. As with all their fraudulently claimed objections, your "likely WP:BLP violations" are also fraudulent and all those 'objections' have been repeatedly pointed out as non-factual in basis with no cogent rebuttal by any of you.

3. Again, there was nothing in the section but facts, not opinions, all quoted, sourced, attributed, and used under Fair Use guidelines. Nothing that violates any Wiki guidelines nor was specifically pointed out or proved to do so.

4. Ergo, the only reason this situation came about is because KidAd et al considered that Controversies section with negativity and wanted it scrubbed from the page instead of the legitimate information it was and contained and could not under any stretch of the imagination support or defend any of their claims of impropriety or violations concerning the content.

5. KidAd et al then deliberately abused and bent the rules to create me as a vandal and pursue their agenda of scrubbing the Spartz page. If that's not corruption and abuse of the rules and the process, I don't know what is.

6. When you block someone and allow such abuse to happen you are deliberately promoting corruption here.

 Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive. ([ block log] • [ active blocks] • [ global blocks] • [//tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/autoblock/?user=&project=en.wikipedia.org autoblocks] • contribs • deleted contribs • [ abuse filter log] • [ creation log] • change block settings • [ unblock] • [ checkuser] ([ log]) )

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If the block is a CheckUser or Oversight block, was made by the Arbitration Committee or to enforce an arbitration decision (arbitration enforcement), or is unsuitable for public discussion, you should appeal to the Arbitration Committee. Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice. 331dot (talk) 15:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC) There is no conspiracy here, and your efforts to paint one here when there isn't one are disruptive. Talk page access removed. If you wish to request unblock before it expires, you may use UTRS as described above. If your combative attitude and attacks continue, the blocks will be longer. 331dot (talk) 15:20, 4 October 2020 (UTC)