User talk:ToBeFree: Difference between revisions
→Request: Reply |
No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit |
||
Line 48: | Line 48: | ||
:Hi {{u|Fade258}}, is this urgent? Why? [[User:ToBeFree (mobile)|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree (mobile)|talk]]) 04:16, 1 July 2021 (UTC) |
:Hi {{u|Fade258}}, is this urgent? Why? [[User:ToBeFree (mobile)|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree (mobile)|talk]]) 04:16, 1 July 2021 (UTC) |
||
It is not urgent but I request this rights to see how i improving my knowledge regarding rollback.If i do well then please grant me right to improve my knowledge. Thank you !([[User:Fade258|Fade258]] ([[User talk:Fade258|talk]]) 04:20, 1 July 2021 (UTC)) |
Revision as of 04:20, 1 July 2021
|
Hello!
Hello ToBeFree! How are you? I haven't talked to you in a while. Hope you been doing good during Covid-19. Best, Signed,The4lines |||| (You Asked?) (What I've Done.) 17:07, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- Hey The4lines, nice to meet you again. All is well; I hope you're fine too. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:38, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Returning vandal
You blocked 2409:4062:2E9B:9C73:16AC:BB1D:1FCC:9D4A on a range block but they have returned as 157.41.106.122 making the same edits to Aparshakti Khurana. Notfrompedro (talk) 21:45, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Help with heavy POV pushing
Hello, ToBeFree. You were of great assistance to me on the dispute that arose on Aromanians and other pages and I need help again with another user and page. On Bukovina (a region divided between Ukraine and Romania), a user has completely rewrote a page, giving it an evident Ukrainian POV. User has added undue information on the Ukrainians on history sections about Romanian states, continously accused the Romanians of Romanianization and even questioned the censuses of the country with completely exaggerated estimates (although the region, divided in a northern a southern part, is ethnically mixed, user claims that the north is "solidly Ukrainian" while claiming that half of the people on the Romanian southern part are Ukrainians). User sticks to one of the several viewpoints that exist on the origin of Romanians (and justifies this action becuase "the info is sourced") and has reverted my edits which were mostly simple wording changes and the adding of NPOV templates for being "vandalism". I've given examples at Talk:Bukovina#Some edits. The worst thing is that, even after this huge rewrite, the user rejects my NPOV templates and has added another one still accusing the article of being pro-Romanian. I am not asking for you to deal with this case but to take a quick look at it and tell me if I can take it to ANI or any other place or if I am just wrong. Thank you in advance. Super Ψ Dro 12:55, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
- Super when you accuse people, it's nice to let them know. In response to your accusations, I want to point out that I just had to add again the NPOV template you just deleted. As for your "simple wording changes", I thought you had removed 3/4 of lead, but I now see you just moved the paragraph, so I apologize. I see this is very important to you, but you criticized the way I edit, and accused me, among other things, of "demonizing" Romanians. You even made accusations in the edit summaries. What I did was expanding the article on Bukovina, which I perceived as markedly pro-Romanian, completely neglecting the history of Ukrainians in Bukovina and even making dangerous claims such as that "[Northern Bukovina] currently is part of Ukraine." I also found that the article made dubious--at the vary least-- claims and lacked sources; so I used the apt templates; without, that is, deleting such parts. I disagree with you when you say that all the additions that talk about Ukrainians and the sources I provided should be deleted. Instead, I invite you to use templates, so I can solve your doubts. I also invite you to expand the article with the Romanians' history, if you think it's being neglected. Just please remember to use sources. Thanks.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 14:37, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
- I will reply to this comment on the same talk page we were talking to not annoy external parties with this dispute. If ToBeFree wishes to be a third party observer into this, I'll be thankful, but if not, there's no need to extend this into here. Super Ψ Dro 17:16, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
- You posted on their talk page and now you don't want to annoy them? Anyway, I totally agree.--Haldir Marchwarden (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Bumping thread for 7d days. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:36, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Drill it
I continue to run across the same kinds of errors in judgment as before. Whether Di's error rate has improved I know not, but at least see this one, which I just noticed. And I assure you I'm not monitoring Di's edits, which would be a thankless job given the extraordinary leniency you've shown. I am, however, advocating an indefinite block.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:38, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
- There's a rather extensive discussion going on now at User talk:TonyBallioni (in case you haven't noticed).--Bbb23 (talk) 18:05, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Bbb23, thank you very much for following up on this. I didn't yet see the discussion at TonyBallioni's talk page, but now I have read through it. I have also noticed the partial edit warring block and Ritchie333's strict warning in Special:Diff/1031252618.
- I'm closely keeping an eye on the situation, and have done so intermittently before (Special:Diff/1031074439/1031077527). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:49, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Request
Hi @ToBeFree:, Please see my request for rollback . (Fade258 (talk) 00:54, 1 July 2021 (UTC))
- Hi Fade258, is this urgent? Why? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 04:16, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
It is not urgent but I request this rights to see how i improving my knowledge regarding rollback.If i do well then please grant me right to improve my knowledge. Thank you !(Fade258 (talk) 04:20, 1 July 2021 (UTC))