User talk:Susan belt74

November 2014
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Middle East Eye. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. 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. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:31, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I understand that certainly but the issue went far beyond a content dispute. Sometimes, I wasn't even done explaining my edits before the article was reverted and I never changed anything without explanation. I only start reverting when this editor was repeatedly undoing my edits without explanation and again with seconds of my changes. If you look at the history, another administrator had been undoing his reverts yesterday on the grounds of vandalism and as I understand WP policy, it is not "edit warring" to restore content which is being repeated deleted without explanation.


 * Honestly, I really need to know how to handle a situation where an editor changes an direct quotation from a newspaper article to language of their choosing?

Susan belt74 (talk) 17:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC).


 * What you shouldn't do (and what you should) is made clear in Edit warring. There is not an exception which states that because someone else is edit-warring, you can do the same... AndyTheGrump (talk)
 * Again, I understand this but the policy states "Reverting vandalism is not edit warring." If you will check the page history, the editor's exact same revert behavior had been undone at least twice by an Administrator on the basis it was vandalism:


 * (cur | prev) 15:48, 20 November 2014‎ AsceticRose (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (3,103 bytes) (+203)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by George john6868989 identified as test/vandalism using STiki) (undo)


 * So, I was honestly confused as I considered what I was doing to be on the same basis.Susan belt74 (talk) 08:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * AsceticRose isn't an administrator, and had only reverted the edit once (with what I consider an inappropriate edit summary in the circumstances). And you need to read Vandalism - "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". I think you would be hard pressed to prove that George john6868989 was intending to "compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". Instead, he seems to think his version of the article is correct. He may possibly be wrong, but that doesn't in itself make his edits vandalism, which requires intent. This is a content dispute, and content disputes aren't solved by edit warring. Come to that, neither is vandalism. If you hadn't been stopped, would you have gone on indefinitely? We have ways of dealing with actual vandalism - and ways to decide whether vandalism is occurring. These involve, like most other problem-solving methods on Wikipedia, getting outside assistance. Next time, ask for help. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:30, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
Ged UK  12:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Blocked again
Not even an hour after your previous edit-warring block expired, you resumed your edit war with Special:Diff/635668012. As such, I've blocked you again, this time for a week. Once this block expires, don't immediately go edit that article again. Discuss your proposed changes on the talk page first and wait for them to get consensus. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of House of Wisdom for Conflict Resolution & Governance for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article House of Wisdom for Conflict Resolution & Governance is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/House of Wisdom for Conflict Resolution & Governance until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Longhornsg (talk) 00:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)