User talk:Aoidh

This is Aoidh's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Please place new discussions at the bottom of the talk page. Click here to start a new topic. Please sign and date your comment by inserting four tildes (~~~~) at the end of the comment. Please indent your posts with a colon : if replying to an existing topic (or two colons :: if replying to a reply, and so on). For oversight requests please see Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Talk page archives (Auto-archiving period: 14 days ) 2011 • 2012 • 2013 • 2014 • 2015 • 2016 • 2017 • 2018 • 2019 • 2020 • 2021 • 2022 • 2023 • 2024

Hi @Aoidh :) !

I have a problem with the user named @Geom. This user has changed my work in two different wikis (the Spanish site and the English site), so I think he is making these changes to damage my texts deliberately and without any reason.

I would like a librarian to review the changes he has made and undo them if he thinks my article was fine as it was.

I'm new to Wikipedia, so I don't know how to proceed in this case. Can you please tell me where I should ask for help?

Thanks in advance. Nonickillo (talk) 17:17, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nonickillo: Each language is its own project on Wikipedia, and I am not familiar enough with es.wiki (Wikipedia en español) to be able to comment on that, but from what I can see on the English Wikipedia, the only time they have interacted with you is a revert to El amor de mi bohío. My suggestion would be to discuss the changes on the article's talk page. However, I have to agree in part with the revert, since describing the composer as "the great Cuban composer Julio Brito" is a MOS:PUFFERY issue and should be avoided. - Aoidh (talk) 21:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Aoidh, thanks so much for your kind response :) . Don't worry, I'm not concerned about Spanish Wikipedia right now, they have a lot of restrictive rules that makes near impossible to write there. My experience in the Spanish Wikipedia has not been entirely positive in terms of trying to reason and asking for help. That's why I have decided not to write anything more in Spanish. For this reason I don't want to deal with those users here too, I prefer a librarian to mediate in such "editing wars", if possible. Ok, I understand what you're saying about avoiding describing the author as "the great Cuban composer Julio Brito." I'll delete it right now, no problem. Is there anything else that you think I should be aware of? Thank you so much. All the best. Nonickillo (talk) 22:24, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hola, Aoidh. It seems that Nonickillo does not know the assumption of good faith. The Spanish version of es:El amor de mi bohío currently has a template equivalent to Template:Notability, but could be deleted in less than 30 days. That's why I removed the non-encyclopedic content on eswiki and did the same on the enwiki version.

• The first thing I did was connect the page to the Wikidata record that it didn't have.
• He said: "This user has changed my work". WP:OWN, Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed by anyone. No one can think that they have the right to appropriate part or all of the content of a page. I edited it today, but you must assume that anyone else will change, remove, or add the content at any time. And if the editing is correct, it should not be reversed.
• I made that edit on eswiki and here because that article is about the song El amor de mi bohío, not about its author, who already has his own page to put his photos and nicknames. This is an encyclopedia, not a blog.

I just did that and I think the revert and subsequent comments are unnecessary. Nonickillo has only edited about this author and his songs. With a single edition there can be no edition war or even any persecution, only voluntary and routine work. The one who could complain is me, who has had a normal edit reverted as if it were vandalism. As you have already mentioned, this is not the place to talk about this. Sorry for the inconvenience. Cheers --Geom (talk) 23:50, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, @Aoidh :)! By allusions, I must clarify that:

• There can be no good faith without dialogue, and that has been impossible for me in the Spanish Wikipedia.
• Of course I assume that articles can be changed, but what I don't think is necessary is to eliminate things like the fact that the author of the song is known by a nickname (a fact that is reliably referenced) or the image of the author, who was the first interpreter of the song. These changes seem unnecessary to me. As I understand it, the changes should improve the article, not destroy it.
• As for the template about the encyclopedic relevance of the article in eswiki, there is already a librarian who has stated that, in his opinion, this template is unnecessary, since the song is relevant enough to have an entry of its own.

In any case, as I said before: @Aoidh if in your opinion I should change anything else in the article to make it conform to enwiki's rules, I'll be glad to do it. Best regards :) !--Nonickillo (talk) 02:01, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Aoidh. Since our last discussion here involving the user Kalanishashika, they have gone back to edit warring on the Tamil genocide article and have once again gamed the system by reverting 1RR protected article outside the 24-hours limit.[1][2] They reverted before even engaging the talk discussion that I had opened. They were instead openly canvassing other users in another discussion. This is despite knowing that Sri Lanka is a contentious topic and being warned by an admin about gaming the system last time. I don't see this disruptive behaviour subsiding without admin intervention.---Petextrodon (talk) Petextrodon (talk) 14:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am very disappointed at this statement. As I have indicated in the page comment, my revert today have been to return the page to the content before the current dispute took place and engage in the talk page discussion, which I did. As I indicated in my comments, I have been clear that my intentions are to avoid an edit war like last time. However, like last time, Petextrodon seem to have engaged in personal attacks on me by reporting Sockpuppet investigation, leveling accusations which I clearly answered last time. Kalanishashika (talk) 14:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You intended to avoid an edit war by reverting for the second time while ignoring the discussion I had opened yesterday even as you were canvassing another banned user Kashmiri whom you were tag-teaming with in the past? I will let the admin decide.---Petextrodon (talk) 14:48, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Petextrodon and Kalanishashika: it may be time to use a form of dispute resolution such as WP:3O. - Aoidh (talk) 14:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoidh, yes please. In the meantime, I feel that both Petextrodon and Oz346 are trying to intimidate me in more than one way. Petextrodon has reported a Sockpuppet investigation claiming that I am a meatpuppet, only a day later Oz346 has reported another Sockpuppet investigation. I honestly don't feel that this was done in good faith, and this is exhausting, since [not the first time] (I found out only later). What's annoying is that's the same set of reasons that keep coming up, like the about BLP. I mean one wrong step (if it is a wrong step) and they come down on me like a load bricks. Kalanishashika (talk) 16:51, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I never notified you of the SPI request for you to consider it an intimidation. You obviously have gone through my edit history.

My complaint is about this user repeatedly gaming the system to force their version. How should I address this issue if it continues in the future? Even a warning by an admin has not worked.---Petextrodon (talk) 19:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Petextrodon, so you mean to say your intentions were not intimidation, but to get admins to sanction me? Is that what Oz346 meant by this comment? I must say that two SPIs within two days seems excessive to me. Kalanishashika (talk) 13:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Each time a user adds details on government crimes to the article you challenge it in some way and resort to edit war. My concern is that you're obstructing other editors by constant stonewalling. Would you like to state your conflict of interest if there is any, as after all you did vote to get the article deleted?---Petextrodon (talk) 16:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:New South Wales Police Force 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 12:34, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]