Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 275: Line 275:
:::When you say "these are different edits", it leads me to believe that you haven't read the [[WP:WE|edit warring policy]], which covers reverts "involving the same or different material". I quoted that same portion to you in the last report at this noticeboard. Which of GR's diffs do you think are "not even reverts"? [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 18:06, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
:::When you say "these are different edits", it leads me to believe that you haven't read the [[WP:WE|edit warring policy]], which covers reverts "involving the same or different material". I quoted that same portion to you in the last report at this noticeboard. Which of GR's diffs do you think are "not even reverts"? [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 18:06, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
::::If you interpret "the same or different material" too widely, then I guess you can block anyone you. In this case it is clearly shown that no edit warring was involved. By the way, you are another overtly hostile user who somehow managed to find this discussion, maybe you are working in team or you are just same person with different accounts? [[User:ArsenalAtletico2017|ArsenalAtletico2017]] ([[User talk:ArsenalAtletico2017|talk]]) 19:42, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
::::If you interpret "the same or different material" too widely, then I guess you can block anyone you. In this case it is clearly shown that no edit warring was involved. By the way, you are another overtly hostile user who somehow managed to find this discussion, maybe you are working in team or you are just same person with different accounts? [[User:ArsenalAtletico2017|ArsenalAtletico2017]] ([[User talk:ArsenalAtletico2017|talk]]) 19:42, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
:::::{{tqd|"same person with different accounts"}}: I'm flattered, truly, at your suggestion that I might be GR. Other might take it as an unevidenced [[WP:ASPERSION|aspersion]], so I can't recommend it in general. FYI: your user talk page was automatically watchlisted for me when I first edited it, so I saw the noticeboard notice there. {{pb}}It seems you think we're interpreting the EW policy too "widely". Could you point to the edit or edits which you think are being misinterpreted? [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 19:49, 23 May 2022 (UTC)


== [[User:5.151.88.4]] reported by [[User:Praxidicae]] (Result: ) ==
== [[User:5.151.88.4]] reported by [[User:Praxidicae]] (Result: ) ==

Revision as of 19:57, 23 May 2022

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

    This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

    You must notify any user you have reported.

    You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

    Additional notes
    • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
    • The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
    • Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
    • Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.
    Definition of edit warring
    Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
    Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
    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. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

    Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Click here to create a new report

    User:Efbrazil reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: Page-blocked from the article for two weeks)

    Page: Donald Trump (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Efbrazil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. Consecutive edits made from 16:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC) to 16:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
      1. 16:45, 19 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Trade */ In another attempt at consensus, I made it clear that american companies are the ones who are importing goods. If you don't like the source at all then we need to delete this information entirely, but we should not be mischaracterizing the source. The source makes it perfectly clear that importers pay the tax."
      2. 16:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1088695359 by Praxidicae (talk) This is a simple fact that is well sourced to CNN. Are you disagreeing with facts? We are entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts. If you have a disagreement with the facts, please state what they are."
    2. 16:36, 19 May 2022 (UTC) "/* China */ Yes, it was widely criticized as a failure by liberal and business-oriented interests at the time. I added the fact that Biden maintained the tariffs along with a source to that effect."
    3. 16:25, 19 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Trade */ The article is very clear that it is not all american companies that pay, it is american importers of chinese goods. Simply saying "american companies" without clarifying that it is companies doing imports is obfuscation and bias. I added the quote from the article to make the context clear. If you want different wording, please include the key piece of information that it is importers paying, not all companies."
    4. 22:51, 18 May 2022 (UTC) "/* China */ Removing value judgments of Trump Tariffs, better to just stick to facts here."

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 16:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Donald Trump */ new section"

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    This user was warned about restoring edits that have been undone and that the article is under a clear 1rr restriction but still continued to restore their preferred content and revert after being given a clear warning and notification of the articles restrictions. PRAXIDICAE💕 16:52, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I think if you look at the edits it's clear I was on solid ground and was seeking consensus, not edit warring. I've taken the discussion to the talk page here:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_Trump#Removing_bias_regarding_trade_tariffs_from_the_article Efbrazil (talk) 17:39, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Except you ignored a clear and explicit warning about 1rr on the page itself, multiple times and my warning to you. Just because you believe you are right does not mean you can edit war. And I'm not the only one you've edit warred with. PRAXIDICAE💕 17:42, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, there's no 1RR restriction on that page, where it was replaced with the 24-hour-BRD rule. The diffs show a violation of that page restriction, but editors will need to determine whether this is the proper venue to review this matter. SPECIFICO talk 17:46, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    My understanding is that edit warring is when you revert edits or reimpose edits rather than seeking consensus. Each of my edits were attempting to address prior concerns with content.
    Anyhow, I'm not here to make an argument about the letter of the law, and it's kind of water under the bridge as this is now taking place on the talk page. In the spirit of the law, I'd argue Praxidicae is the one that erred by reverting this edit without reason:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Donald_Trump&oldid=1088695359 Efbrazil (talk) 18:12, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note Page blocked from the article for two weeks. Efbrazil has quite egregiously violated the 24-hour restriction, making 3 reverts inside 24 hours. Efbrazil, your understanding of what edit warring is, is flawed. No, seeking consensus on talk does not mean you are allowed to keep reverting the article. Moreover, you're nowhere near getting consensus on talk. It would be better to read our edit warring policy than to handwave at "the spirit of the law" (a spirit which you have, in my opinion, violated just as well as the letter of the law, by going right up against the 3RR rule on this controversial article). Bishonen | tålk 19:54, 19 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]
      Bishonen, what are 3 reverts I did? My changes were substantively different from each other, not the same thing repeatedly. I was making changes that attempted to address complaints people were having. The seeking consensus was not on the talk page, it was through my comments on the edits, explaining how they addressed complaints people were having. Please review the edits again and tell me 3 reverts I did. I honestly don't see it. Efbrazil (talk) 22:18, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Efbrazil, I think I may have exaggerated; only [1] and [2] are reverts. The phrasing "Widely characterized as a failure", which you changed here, was added as far back as September 2021, so changing it hardly qualifies as a revert. YMMV, but I don't think it does. Still, you made two reverts inside 24 hours, on an article where you're not supposed to make any revert without first waiting 24 hours. (PS; it's better to complain on your own page. It was by pure luck that I noticed your post here. You can also get people's attention by using the WP:PING feature, as I just did, by linking your name.) Bishonen | tålk 09:08, 20 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]
      Thanks Bishonen. In detail:
      The first "revert" [3] is not a revert. If you look at the edit, I added a reference to back up the statement. I was responding to a previous revert that said my edit didn't correspond to the source. The article used virtually the exact same wording I did, so I updated the reference to make that clear. I don't think it's a revert if you are replying to a complaint that an edit was unsourced, so you put the edit back in with the sourcing. Do you agree?
      The second revert [4] was a revert, and was arguably a mistake, but it wasn't baseless. The reason I did the revert is that Praxidicae had deleted my edit without giving any reason at all. I don't believe reversion without any stated reasoning is valid, so I reverted with a comment where I respectfully and asked them to state their reasoning for deleting my edit. I don't think that's out of line, but it's fair to say I should have taken a different path. Still, it's also clear to me that Praxidicae provoked the situation by backing out my edit without any basis.
      I hope you'll reconsider the ban. Arguably both myself and Praxidicae could have handled ourselves better, but banning just me seems to be way over the line for this situation. Efbrazil (talk) 15:55, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Praxidicae reported by 80.108.55.24 (Result: Filer blocked)

    Page: Talk:Great Replacement (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Praxidicae (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    This user (Praxidicae) keeps removing/reverting my contributions to a discussion on the talk page of the Great Replacement article, because I am criticizing people like him (leftist activists) ruining Wikipedia by using it as a propaganda platform. Keeps saying it "doesn't contribute to the article" when criticizm of obvious biases contributes to the improvement of any article, not just this one.

    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.108.55.24 (talk • contribs)

    User:Jude Didimus, User:TRHmTivl, and User:Esthappanos Bar Geevarghese reported by User:Pbritti (Result: )

    Page: George Alencherry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Jude Didimus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), TRHmTivl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and Esthappanos Bar Geevarghese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [5]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [6]
    2. [7]
    3. [8]
    4. [9]
    5. [10] (post-report, w/ additional source)
    1. [11]
    2. [12]
    3. [13]
    4. [14]
    5. [15] (post-report)
    1. [16]
    2. [17] (likely IP use by same editor)
    3. [18]
    4. [19]
    5. [20]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [21], [22]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [23], [24]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [25], [26], [27]

    Comments:
    I am increasingly of the opinion that this page and all associated with Saint Thomas Christianity in India should be protected. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Apologies, I should add that TRHmTivl received a 48h for edit warring this week that immediately preceded this. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:58, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    TRHmTivl is repeatedly removing sourced content from a large number of articles such as George Alencherry, List of major archbishops of the Syro-Malabar Church, Palliveettil Chandy, Augustine Kandathil, Kariattil Iousep, Antony Padiyara etc. Some examples are [28] [29] [30] [31] and many others. All these comprise of removal of title 'Metropolitan and Gate of All India'.Jude Didimus (talk) 03:11, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Jude Didimus, I have been observing changes in this page and the edit-warring. I do not support edit-warring if you or the other user does. But when you are saying "sourced content", you should add references/citations from official websites - either from the Church's official website: http://www.syromalabarchurch.in or from the Major Archbishop's official website : http://www.maralencherry.smcim.org/ . Also you can point to the Major Archbishop's circular's for proving that Major Archbishop officially using such titles/honorifics. Thanks ---John C. (talk) 03:39, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    John C. I don't think so. What we need is reliable sources. However it does not matter whether they are official or not.Jude Didimus (talk) 04:46, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Jude Didimus, I shared my views on this. That's all. Leaving this topic to you and other users and administrators to take a look on the reliability of the sources and their authenticity. - --John C. (talk) 06:29, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Meanwhile User:TRHmTivl is edit warring in article List of major archbishops of the Syro-Malabar Church (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and has already violated 3RR. Sourced content is removed without edit summaries and reasoning.

    1. [32]
    2. [33]
    3. [34] Jude Didimus (talk) 05:06, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Meanwhile, a brand new account Mathewkizhakkevila (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has started an edit war in List of major archbishops of the Syro-Malabar Church (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Their edits are identical to that of User:TRHmTivl.Jude Didimus (talk) 05:18, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Just now Mathewkizhakkevila (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) removed my latest comments. This is a clear violation of conduct.

    1. [35]
    2. [36]

    Jude Didimus (talk) 05:26, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Mathewkizhakkevila, @TRHmTivl, Do not engage in edit warring. Start a discussion in article's talk page (if that is not yet started), list your points and request other users and admins to intervene in that discussion and reach consensus. This is applicable for User:Jude Didimus also. I already shared my views above and hence nothing more to add from my end on this topic. Thanks.--John C. (talk) 06:29, 21 May 2022 (UTC) -[reply]

    User:Nattarintns reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: Blocked)

    Page: Kanawut Traipipattanapong (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Nattarintns (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. Consecutive edits made from 19:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC) to 19:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
      1. 19:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1089075298 by Praxidicae (talk)"
      2. 19:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Endorsements */"
    2. Consecutive edits made from 19:34, 21 May 2022 (UTC) to 19:46, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
      1. 19:34, 21 May 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1089072628 by Slywriter (talk)"
      2. 19:45, 21 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Endorsements */"
      3. 19:46, 21 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Endorsements */"
    3. 19:21, 21 May 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1089070825 by Slywriter (talk)"
    4. 19:06, 21 May 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1089068702 by Slywriter (talk)"

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 19:51, 21 May 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Kanawut Traipipattanapong."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    user has been excessively edit warring (along with several spas) to make the article an unreadable promotional mess and refuses to communicate with editors. PRAXIDICAE💕 19:56, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Result: User blocked for 72 hours, for more than just edit warring. This is also not the user's first block. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:14, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Nadusally reported by User:Apaugasma (Result: Blocked)

    Page: Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Nadusally (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 19:36, 21 May 2022 (UTC) ""
    2. 19:22, 21 May 2022 (UTC) ""
    3. 19:17, 21 May 2022 (UTC) ""
    4. 19:13, 21 May 2022 (UTC) ""

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 19:22, 21 May 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam University."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    Comments:

    I Asked to undo their last revert, but user went on to blank a section of an article listed at my user page. I guess that means 'no'. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – 31 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 02:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:67.82.112.107 reported by User:Geraldo Perez (Result: Page protected)

    Page: List of The Fairly OddParents characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 67.82.112.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:


    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    Long-term edit warring. Discussion ongoing on talk page. This edit is telling [37]. Resumed as promised after protect expired. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:41, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Now 5 reverts in last 24 hours. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:49, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The IP is also making regular personal attacks[38][39][40][41], with that last link also vowing to continue edit warring. — Czello 21:05, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Telenovelafan215 reported by User:2600:8800:3782:5D00:BCAA:73B1:F637:9DD (Result: Declined)

    Page: La casa de los famosos (season 2) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Telenovelafan215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

    1. [42]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [43]
    2. [44]
    3. [45]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]

    1. [46]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [diff]

    1. [47]

    Comments:


    2600:8800:3782:5D00:BCAA:73B1:F637:9DD (talk) 07:08, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    The IP user doesn’t understand that the nomination tables for Big Brother follow a style where only the head of household, automatically nominated housemates, and immune housemates are color coded. Housemates that are nominated in the regular nomination process are not color coded and are listed at the end of the table. Here are just three examples of the style that the table follows: [48], [49], and [50]. The IP user has said on my talk page that changing the table style will make the table "much more interesting", which I think is not a convincing reason to change it. – Telenovelafan215 (talk) 07:51, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • Declined The IP has made no attempt to discuss the matter at the article's talk page. This noticeboard is not a bludgeoning tool to get one's way in a dispute—especially when one is edit warring themselves to try to make the change. —C.Fred (talk) 12:13, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:ArsenalAtletico2017 reported by User:Generalrelative (Result: )

    Page: Imperium: The Philosophy of History and Politics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: ArsenalAtletico2017 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: [51]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [52] (slightly different language but making the same point after being reverted)
    2. [53] (slightly different language but making the same point after being reverted)
    3. [54] (partially reverting a different edit [55])
    4. [56] (once again, after being reverted [57])
    5. [58] (and again)
    6. [59] (and again)

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [60][61]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [62]

    Diff of ANEW notice posted to user's talk page: [63]

    Comments:

    This user already has two previous 3RR blocks on their record, one quite recently. They are shaping up to be a real nuisance. Generalrelative (talk) 16:44, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    For reference, here is the report on this noticeboard from earlier this month which resulted in ArsenalAtletico2017's most recent block. Generalrelative (talk) 17:12, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    These are different edits and some are not even reverts. This user is biased, has specifically confirmed before that they will "monitor" me on Wikipedia and now trying to ban me.ArsenalAtletico2017 (talk) 16:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    When you say "these are different edits", it leads me to believe that you haven't read the edit warring policy, which covers reverts "involving the same or different material". I quoted that same portion to you in the last report at this noticeboard. Which of GR's diffs do you think are "not even reverts"? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:06, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you interpret "the same or different material" too widely, then I guess you can block anyone you. In this case it is clearly shown that no edit warring was involved. By the way, you are another overtly hostile user who somehow managed to find this discussion, maybe you are working in team or you are just same person with different accounts? ArsenalAtletico2017 (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "same person with different accounts": I'm flattered, truly, at your suggestion that I might be GR. Other might take it as an unevidenced aspersion, so I can't recommend it in general. FYI: your user talk page was automatically watchlisted for me when I first edited it, so I saw the noticeboard notice there.
    It seems you think we're interpreting the EW policy too "widely". Could you point to the edit or edits which you think are being misinterpreted? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:49, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    User:5.151.88.4 reported by User:Praxidicae (Result: )

    Page: List of wars involving Turkey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: 5.151.88.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to:

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 18:31, 23 May 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1089415161 by Praxidicae (talk) Shadow4dark claims the sources on the War in Afghanistan page state it as a defeat but they do not. On the page they clearly state it as a withdrawal. Check https://www.cfr.org/timeline/us-war-afghanistan"
    2. 16:36, 23 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Wars */ Changed portion as suggested"
    3. 14:35, 23 May 2022 (UTC) "Undid revision 1089392228 by Shadow4dark (talk)"
    4. 14:06, 23 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Wars */ Joe Biden ordered the withdrawal from Afghanistan willingly. This does not constitute a defeat on Turkey's part. Wikipedia pages should remain true to their name. ISAF is not Turkey or run by Turkey."
    5. 13:56, 23 May 2022 (UTC) "/* Wars */ Does not constitute a defeat. Turkey is not ISAF. It is a withdrawal, not a defeat."

    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. 14:39, 23 May 2022 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on List of wars involving Turkey."

    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:


    Comments:

    I have made my case there. 5.151.88.4 (talk) 18:59, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1089437327"