User talk:Mr. bobby

Welcome!

Hello, Mr. bobby, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting Third Opinion on Dispute below Hi Mr. Bobby. I hope you are well. We clearly disagree. Let's open this up and get a third opinion. Gladysc2016 (talk) 21:12, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is not the case, Mr. Bobby. Everything I add is well sourced and neutral. If you ever see anything that is not neutral, I welcome you to change the language, per the wikipedia guideline. I just fail to see how citing the Wall Street Journal for neutral facts about Dr. Karp's career is a problem. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:18, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All of your contributions in Wikipedia are solely advertisement for Karp. Wether you are karp or one of his staff members. You are simply trying to misuse Wikipedia for advertisement purposes. And I'll revert that. Mr. bobby (talk) 08:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Bobby, this is a biography of Dr. Karp. Dr. Karp is a pediatrician, he is a best-selling author, he is now a CEO of a smart technology company, so yes, a businessman. That last fact documented recently by the Wall Street Journal. These are all neutral facts. By your removals, you are in fact preventing this from being encyclopedic. Feel free to post information correctly cited to high-quality sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gladysc2016 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributions are nothing but advertisement. Karp may be founding a company, but the article on him makes him an "expert" in the theories of baby calming. He has not published scientific articles on his practices. and now you even add potentially dangerous products, again without scientific proof. All these things do not fit an ecyclopedia. The case with Musk is completely different. He is a businessman. Will you also metion the products of the macdonald's company here in WP? Mr. bobby (talk) 13:08, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Please explain why you object to Harvey Karp's page including information about his technology company and his invention/debut product, covered by The Wall Street Journal, Wired, Architectural Digest and over 15 other publications. Elon Musk's page mentions his technology company Tesla and his invention/debut product the Tesla Roadster. Neither are advertisements. I have moved this WSJ news into the career section; another user had put it in infant calming techniques. Gladysc2016 (talk) 23:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. To be more transparent, please respond with the exact links that remain on the page that you believe link to commercial sites, so they can be removed. Otherwise, please stop flagging the page and just add the well-sourced info you think is needed to improve this page. Thank you. Gladysc2016 (talk) 17:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Harvey Karp are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Sitush (talk) 11:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Sitush. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Harvey Karp, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Sitush (talk) 11:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the source of the addition is already mentioned, it is the article of frenken. Mr. bobby (talk) 11:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just wondering why did you revert my edit on Robert G. Bednarik? Lucky102 (talk) 00:51, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

bednarik is australian, and he is no architect. Mr. bobby (talk) 11:52, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a new section on the lucid dream talk page and explained my edits. I invite you to explain your reverts here. Scoundr3l (talk) 16:57, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mr. bobby. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Adorant from the Geißenklösterle cave, Mr. bobby!

Wikipedia editor Mduvekot just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thanks!

To reply, leave a comment on Mduvekot's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Mduvekot (talk) 17:47, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See my post to Johnbod. That's an undergraduate essay. Doug Weller talk 05:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Don's Maps requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. reddogsix (talk) 05:00, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I posted on Venus figurines of Gagarino's talk page in regards to your recent reverts. Please reply there and also read through WP:OWN. Meatsgains (talk) 21:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Venus figurines of Gagarino, Mr. bobby!

Wikipedia editor Blythwood just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

I've added a bit of information like where they are now to give context, and an extra book source. Hope that's OK.

To reply, leave a comment on Blythwood's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Blythwood (talk) 22:54, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Venus of Hohle Fels into List of Stone Age art. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 20:24, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Lucid dream. 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.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

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; 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. Jim1138 (talk) 23:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Mr._bobby reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: ). Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 18:51, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr. bobby. Per the result of the complaint you are warned you may be blocked if you restore the contested Tholey references again unless you have got prior consensus for them on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 14:44, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Lucid dream. 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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

You continued to add the contested Tholey articles to the Lucid dream page after my warning. In the mean time, even though you posted your reasoning on Talk:Lucid dream, nobody agrees with you there. The original 3RR complaint that led to my warning was on 21 September. This kind of a change needs consensus. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:28, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. bobby, please see help:talk pages, wp:talk page guidelines. Also, wp:Consensus, [wp:Be bold pages]], and wp:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle Jim1138 (talk) 18:21, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mr. bobby. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Mr._bobby reported by User:Doug Weller (Result: ). Thank you. Doug Weller talk 20:36, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia for edit warring on Venus figurines and gaming the three-revert rule.. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Malinaccier (talk) 03:46, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You did not format the Zlatko Sudac deletion page correctly. Please remember to create the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zlatko Sudac. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• All right, I can help you.

1. 1. Put {{subst:afd}} on the article. (You did get this part right last time.)
   2. Click on "Preloaded debate" on the deletion box that comes up on the article. This will bring up a page that you can edit, with some code in it that ends in "text=Reason". Replace the word "reason" with your explanation why you think it should be deleted.
   3. Put {{subst:afd3|pg=Zlatko Sudac}} at the top of this page, right underneath where it says "Add new entries to the TOP of the following list". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 01:18, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, something did not work. don't know what...Mr. bobby (talk) 20:29, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Mr. bobby. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your reversion of my edit here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adam_of_Macedonia&action=history

It's supposed to be comma, NEVER A PERIOD, see here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Grouping_of_digits

Please follow English Wikipedia style guidelines.

Also note that in English, "7.000" is seven with a degree of accuracy to three decimal places, never seven thousand. You can use whatever the style guidelines are in your own language's Wikipedia in the article on that Wikipedia. On this Wikipedia, it is 7,000.

hey, come down a bit.Mr. bobby (talk) 23:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello M. bobby. You've been reported for edit warring at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Mr. bobby reported by User:Rafaelosornio (Result: ). Please consider responding there. It seems you have already broken the WP:3RR rule, and it is claimed you have violated copyright on the book. Your best plan is to acknowledge the problem and agree to accept consensus. You have previously been blocked (in 2017) for issues like this so inexperience won't be a defense. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:08, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for violating both copyrights and the 3 revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

El_C 17:41, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

El_C mr. bobby has not violated the copyright, that was made up by another editor (maybe that editor simply does not know how to express himself in English and accidently accused mr. bobby of a copyvio). Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 18:29, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you base that on — this is a copyrights violation. El_C 18:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The text in the book is different from what mr. bobby wrote in the article. Simply compare mr. bobby's text with the text in the book. Just as an example, I tried it with the first sentence, and sure enough, no copyright violation: [1]. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 18:55, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be right and that would be my mistake. But the last block applied to this account was for gaming 3RR and it's length was one week. So for violating 3RR, a 2-week block is not unreasonable. El_C 19:04, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I worked out a proper and important addition to the article, based on a reliable source (Luzatto) on the central point of the article: the alleged stigmata and the alleged miracles. The church claims them to be supernatural and Luzzatto shows the hints to fraud. Then Rafelosornio reverts theses part first. I reverted it and told him again and again to have a discussion. Instead, he reverted. So, in my opinion HE was breaking the 3RR rule AND he was violating my work. And also he accused me falsely of things I did not do (f. i. copy-and-paste-working). I condensed all the stuff enormously and had proper quotations. So the block is not appropriate, and in turn Rafaelosornio could be blocked for avoiding the talk page where he could have told anybody his opinion which of course could be shown to be wrong. Mr. bobby (talk) 19:14, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, even if all that is true (which I have no reason to doubt), it is still not exempt from 3RR. Neither of you are. If Rafaelosornio fails to demonstrate copyvio exemption, they will be sanctioned as well for a 3RR violation — though their block log is clean, so the duration of their block will be shorter. El_C 19:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained (down below): I reverted what to me was pure vandalism and false accusations! Mr. bobby (talk) 19:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Mr. bobby (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I did not violate any copyright. I collected an enormous amount of information on the problem of the stigmata, and alleged miracles of Padre Pio. Luzzatto’s book is the most important book on Padre Pio, maybe the only important book written by a non religious/non catholic author. So, if I take the information on all these investigations from Luzzatto’s book, (and this book is based on primary sources), I have to tell the reader, that the information in the article is from Luzzatto’s book. I looked up all the information on the investigation, which is spread in the whole book, and put that into a proper text with proper sections. So where is the problem? (Most of the information in the article is directly from the Catholic Church - a fact, nobody seems to be critical of.) Concerning the 3RR rule: The user "Rafaelosornio" has broken the rule more often and earlier than me - without getting a punishment at all. In fact he is reverting my work, putting it at the wrong place in the article. He does not understand that he cannot create a chapter including only one sub-section. He did not use the talk page, although I constantly offered a discussion there. Therefore, I want to be unblocked, and I want to have the article restored in the way it was before. Anybody who is interested may condense the text that I have written. Rafaelosornio simply treated the chapter as if it was Luzzatto’s subjective view. This is of course not true. The whole part on investigations is a careful reconstruction of a historian, dealing with the documents. And I condensed it a lot. Also, it would be useful to have a third opinion by some users concerning my use of sources. Mr. bobby (talk) 18:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

While the question as to whether a copyright violation occured is ongoing, it is undeniable that you broke 3RR and clear that you would have continued reverting had you not been blocked. Despite your claims to the contrary, the edits you were reverting were not "obvious vandalism" and do not fall under any exemption. Please do not post further unblock requests citing vandalism as a reason to revert as it will be declined by any reviewing admin per WP:NOTVAND. Please also review the Guide to Appealing Blocks.Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Rafaelosornio was exempt from 3RR because they were removing copyvio. El_C 18:41, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will investigate the validity of Rafaelosornio's exemption presently. But you violated 3RR and, as mentioned, your last block for it (or gaming it, rather) was for one week, so I don't feel this block to be excessive or undue. El_C 19:06, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, isn't it pure vandalism, what Rafaelorsonio did? He took out some information. He took the chapter on the investigations at the end of the article (if it really was copyright violation, why did put it at the end?). He accused me in his course of reverting to violate copyrights. And so an. He did not get the article better. (f. i. In the chapter "Luzatto" now are the opinions of another (catholic) historian named Castelli (See the sources in the chapter "Raffaele Rossi, First Apostolic Visitation of 1921", footnote 106.) All this makes no sense at all. It is vandalism. Mr. bobby (talk) 19:24, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the edits simply do not constitute obvious vandalism. El_C 19:30, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he oviously made the articel worse and weakens the logic of the chapters (Castelli now in the chapter called "Luzatto"). I add, that Rafaelorsino was indeed already having editwars befor the case here (see his user page). And I also add - you can read it on his user page - that he adds catholic content, also in an impusive or not quite appropriate manner. it is the same with the article on Pio, which obviously is touching his catholic point ov view. So maybe he should be critisized for his way of dealing with the article on Pio, not me.Mr. bobby (talk) 19:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have not actually had a chance to closely read the article, so I am unable to comment further on content at this time. El_C 19:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK. But while im am blocked Rafaelosornio is deleting much of my information and continues his kind of vadalism in the article on Padre Pio. Mr. bobby (talk) 19:53, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's a problem. El_C 20:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I have another problem: If it was NOT my copyright violation but simply the wish of Rafaelosornio to have the articel more catholic, how can I handle that after the espiration of my block? If I start restoring my work I am in danger to have an ongoing editwar and might be punished again. But I am of the opinion that all changes by Rafaelosornio were wrong, worsening the article an were based on claiming unsubstantiated accusations. So what can I do? (This was not discuessed in the decline of my request above. Mr. bobby (talk) 20:06, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What you do is review your Dispute resolution options. El_C 20:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You told me: "Rafaelosornio was exempt from 3RR because they were removing copyvio." Now the accusation of copyvio is dropped. But the punishment stays the same. AND: Rafaelsornio was not exempt from 3RR because he was not removing copyvio. Or am I wrong? Wether my punishment must be reduced or Rafaelsornio should get his adequate punishment for exactley the same thing. With the specialty that he did attack my useful contribution to the articel while he was simply accusing me falsely. This is far from being fair. Mr. bobby (talk) 21:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As already said, they have a clean block log, so their sanction will be less severe. I have given them a chance to substantiate their copyvio 3RR exemption. I await their response. If such response falls short or if it isn't forthcoming, they, too, will be blocked for violating 3RR. El_C 21:39, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One topic on his talk page is "Stop pasting text from the Catechism." (so he did what he accuses me, but I did NOT do it.). There you also find "Your recent editing history at Rapture shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war." He obviously had the luck that he was not brought to the board here. Fair or unfair: He disruptied my contributions and was simply quicker than me bringing me to this board. He himself delivered not a single information on the topic in teh chapters. He simply is deleting sequences accornig to his catholic view - which is POV. Mr. bobby (talk) 21:49, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My opponent gets a 36 hours block for the same problem. Additionally, he is destructing my work, gives false accusations (alleged copyright violations), does not excuse himself. He was acting against consensus (as you can see on the talkpage of "Padre Pio"). He is acting according to a religious POV. And I get a 2 weeks block. That's how WP should not work: A user ist getting wild and starts senseless editing which clearly is vandalism. Vandalism, POV, false accusations, acting against consensus to my mind is not 36 hours. Mr. bobby (talk) 07:45, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @User:El_C, I remind you to change the reason for blocking me from "Copyright infringement" to the real reason (EW). Thank you. Mr. bobby (talk) 17:08, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. El_C 18:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:29, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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—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—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 12:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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. D🐶ggy54321 ^{(let's chat!)} 12:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Padre Pio) for a period of 1 week 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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mr.bobby,

I noticed you have gone through and removed a few of the sections I have added on Venus pages. Just wanted to discuss why in more detail is possible please? I know the comments were more general but as far as I was aware, it was still relevant to each venus figure for readers to know where the name derived from. As the information was relevant to each figure individually as their names contain 'venus', I did not think this would be an issue. But please correct me if you think otherwise?

Kind regards, Peapoddy

There are hundreds of paleolithic figurines with a name which includes the word "Venus". Maybe there are many more figurines from the neolithic age carrying that name, too. And so an. You have started to add your comment to some of these paleolithic ones. I do not think that this is useful. You might add something to the whole genre ("Venus figurine"). Additionally, your comment does not add any information on the figurines itself, but just on an aspect of historical research and naming findings. It is political, allright, but not the revealed truth. And last not least, in the article "Venus figurine" the thing with the "Venus " is already mentioned. That is surely enough on that topic.Mr. bobby (talk) 14:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Peapoddy: Although I agree with Mr. bobby that adding this to articles on individual figurines is impractical, please do consider adding this to the main article at Venus figurine#Name. Your text is more informative and better sourced than what's there currently. – Joe (talk) 07:34, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback both. While I'm on the topic, have you had the same issue with viewing the 'venus figurines' page on your dashboard? When I assign myself the article or add edits, they are not recorded because it says 'page not created'? Thanks Peapoddy

@Peapoddy: I'm not sure what you mean by dashboard... is it a WikiEd thing? If so it's not something most regular editors use, so you'd have to ask someone over there. – Joe (talk) 09:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Ignatievka Cave 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—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—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Padre Pio 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; read about 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—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—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
You've been warned about edit warring in the past, and should know better. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:40, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What can one do against a fundemnatlist user, who ignores otehr voices even he is alon and the opposing opinion has to opponents? Do you regulate this quarrel? Then do! 10:43, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Padre Pio) for a period of 72 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 read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:54, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:DR. At this point there is no strong consensus one way or another. There is a discussion open at WP:FTN, and a discussion at WP:NPOVN would likely be helpful if you want to open one there as well. There are specific points of contention right now, and with the limited participation currently in the talk page a WP:RFC on what you see as the most important issue would likely generate a firm enough consensus where it would be disruptive to edit against it. There are no concerns with the content as it stands that meet WP:3RRNO, so that's your best path forward. The article may be "wrong" for a month or two while everything is worked out, but that's fine. There's no deadline. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:00, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. Cullen328 (talk) 00:04, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr. bobby. Per community consensus at AN you have been topic-banned from articles and talkpages relating to religious articles, broadly construed. This means you are not allowed to edit any article which in some way relates to religion, nor are you allowed to start or get involved in discussions on talk pages of any article related to religion. If you do edit such articles you may face sanctions including being blocked. If you are unsure if an article comes under this topic ban you may post a question here on your talkpage using {{Help me}}. You may appeal this ban per WP:UNBAN, though you would need to explain that you understand the reasons for the topic ban, and that you would not be doing any of the edits or exhibiting any of the behaviour that led to your ban. SilkTork (talk) 12:05, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]