User talk:CurryCity

CurryCity, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi CurryCity! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Jtmorgan (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Warning about WP:HOUNDING

I'm going to WP:AGF and assume it's a coincidence that you randomly showed up at Talk:Uyghur genocide after our extended discussion at Talk:Peng_Shuai. You may want to familiarize yourself w/ WP:HOUNDING though. NickCT (talk) 23:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

It's a popular talk discussion. I wasn't even talking about or disagreeing with you. CurryCity (talk) 00:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

–Novem Linguae (talk) 01:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Ghurid dynasty on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring at 2022 Winter Olympics

Your recent editing history at 2022 Winter Olympics 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. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

My edit with summary was reverted by someone else first. That reversion was done without edit summary. I changed it back, asking for reasons. That's only 1 reversion from me. CurryCity (talk) 22:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Your edit with summary was a reversion, you appear to have removed content. That means you're at 2 reversions. See WP:REVERT if you're still confused. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Removing content happens with many if not all edits. Whenever you add content, you might be undoing something that's been removed previously as well. This is a bit nuts. CurryCity (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, unless the edit just adds new content it is most likely a revert. Please note however that consecutive reverts only count as one, so you can make a dozen edits to a page that remove content or change it back to the way it was before but unless there are intervening edits they all count as one revert. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Important notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date. You have shown interest in the Uyghur genocide. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

––FormalDude talk 23:52, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring at Boycott

Your recent editing history at Boycott 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. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:37, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Go report us if you can actually prove your spams/accusations on everyone's talk page that you don't agree with. CurryCity (talk) 17:42, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Issuing a warning like the one above is actually required before you bring someone to WP:EWN. The hope is that instead of edit warring the user engages on the talk page like they're supposed to. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:46, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Stop, your most recent edit [1] puts you at three reverts. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Nice try omitting the fact that my edit put back [2] the content YOU wanted. CurryCity (talk) 18:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Its. Still. Edit. Warring. Also thats clearly not the content I wanted, I wanted to use the common name for the atrocities which is Uyghur genocide. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

If you want me to engage in good faith, stop duplicating arguments on article's Talk page and repeat it here. WP:COMMONNAME is for article titles not for you to bypass WP:V and WP:NOR. CurryCity (talk) 18:59, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I didn't bypass WP:V and WP:NOR, what on earth are you talking about? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Article's Talk page. CurryCity (talk) 20:54, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

February 2022

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at 2022 Winter Olympics, you may be blocked from editing. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

If you have time to spam my Talk page, maybe you should give an actual reason for your reverts. CurryCity (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring at 2022 Winter Olympics

Just FYI thats 4 reverts[3][4][5][6], you should self revert to avoid edit warring sanctions. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

You are double-counting different edits into 1. CurryCity (talk) 22:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

They don't have to be reverting the same thing... see WP:3RR "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page — whether involving the same or different material — within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that manually reverses or undoes other editors' actions — whether in whole or in part — counts as a revert. Violations of this rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Fourth reverts just outside the 24-hour period will usually also be considered edit-warring, especially if repeated or combined with other edit-warring behavior." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

This last one was not a revert; I added a tag with different param to indicate unresolved discussion. CurryCity (talk) 22:14, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

It reverted HaeB's revert [7] of your addition of that tag. You appear to be well aware of this because you reference it in the edit summary "I did NOT remove link; there IS an ongoing debate; HaeB just because you are experienced doesn't mean you can say whatever you want about my edit in your edit summary" and warned HaeB over their revert[8]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

It's a different param with ? to indicate ongoing discussion in Talk instead of surety. CurryCity (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

They both look like synthesis inline tags to me. If you think its a revert you can not self revert and we can toss this up the food chain. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:34, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Since you didn't like it, I changed [improper synthesis] to [improper synthesis?] without surety. CurryCity (talk) 22:37, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Its still a revert of HaeB's edit. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:38, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflicts) You had described it as a revert yourself just 11 minutes before claiming here it "was not a revert", after Horse Eye's Back pointed out this out inbetween.

I honestly didn't know the template comes with the language of revert. But in substance it wasn't a revert, because your reason for reverting me was false [9].

"Yes, unless the edit just adds new content it is most likely a revert." See above reasoning. If you are saying removing is revert, adding is also revert, that just makes everything into reverts??? CurryCity (talk) 22:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

In any case, such a minor variation in the wording of a template parameter (from reason=see Talk to reason=ongoing debate in Talk) that's not even visible to almost any readers (it only shows up on mouseover and only in desktop view) to circumvent 3RR is likely to be seen by many editors as a case of Wikipedia:Gaming the system.

Taking into account your extensive prior history of edit-warring about this particular topic despite warnings (as evidenced by this talk page) and refusal to self-revert, I believe this is a case for administrative actions. Regards, HaeB (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2022 (UTC)