User talk:86.187.172.208

December 2017

Hello, I'm CLCStudent. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Mohamed Al-Fayed have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. CLCStudent (talk) 19:57, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Naeraberg - your request to have article deleted

Hello, the note pasted below was first left yesterday on the talk page of User talk:86.187.172.17 as I had not immediately spotted the difference in IP address editing in relation to the vessel Naeraberg. However, from the style of editing history to this article, it seems reasonable to conclude both IP addresses to be one and the same person, and that you're using a dynamic IP address. Hence why I'm leaving this post.

Assuming this to be the case, I'm afraid I am at a complete loss to understand what you're trying to achieve by your actions at the Naeraberg page and by putting a noteworthy vessel up for deletion. Could you help me by explaining, as I must be missing something? You (assuming you're also IP 86.187.172.17) seem to have unilaterally taken an article about a notable ship, removed all notable content on the grounds that information on two similarly named vessels had been conflated, then added uncited content, and have now proposed the page for deletion on the grounds of its non-notability.

Tell me if I'm wrong, but as I understand the situation:

• You (editing, I presume, on a dynamic address at IP 86.187.172.17) encountered this version of the page. It was a well-referenced article about a ship that would have clearly met our general notability guidelines, containing links to many news stories about its controversial fishing activities.
• You concluded the article was about a completely different vessel, or two different vessels both now named Naeraberg, so you deleted all the content and references about the notable vessel, leaving just a single sentence for the other one. (See here).
• I reverted your actions as still being vandalism, and IP 86.187.172.17 re-reverted my edit, again removing virtually all the content.
• Thinking you were still just being a vandal, I reverted your action. Having warned (at User talk:86.187.172.17) a couple of times against this, I began to consider you might actually be making a valid point via your edit summaries, albeit in a ham-fisted way- and tried to engage with you and encourage you to stop unilaterally deleting content, but to use the article's Talk page to explain your concerns, and to cite evidence. Having done that, and pinging two involved editors, I explained that I would reinstate the content you disputed so that everyone could all engage constructively over the matter. I added a 'disputed' template to the page, and removed the vandalism warnings from your talk page -both done in good faith. (See this)
• You ignored my approach to reach consensus first, and once again deleted the content and references again, still asserting that the article was about a different vessel.
• You added unsourced statements about that vessel of your own. (See this)
• Ten hours later you tried (see updated note above) to get the page deleted at WP:AFD on the grounds that it is a non-notable vessel, ignoring the fact that, (if as now seems likely) there are two vessels named Naeraberg that have been accidentally confused here, and that all pages titled with both ships' previous names (Dirk Dirk, Dirk Diederik KW 172, FV Geelong Star all redirect back to the page you now want deleting, namely Naeraberg.

This leaves me to conclude one of four things:

1. I haven't got a clue what I'm doing, and am missing something really obvious here; (OK, two IP addresses, but I'm concluding it's the same person)
2. You haven't much of an idea what you're doing (see WP:CIR);
3. You could have easily resolved the issue by inserting the right photo/details of the vessel in question and discussing your concerns on the article's talk page; or
4. You have a non-neutral agenda to remove an article about a ship whose activities have been the subject of serious environmental and political concerns in Australia.

I'd welcome you telling me which one seems most likely. I do accept that the original article would have benefited from greater clarity, but this in no way justifies such disruptive actions in my opinion. I'm quite happy for this to go to WP:AFD, but I would be !voting snow keep, citing the evidence given above. Either way, I'm thinking that a revert back to its original state and possibly a request for a degree of page protection might be in order to encourage proper engagement to discuss content concerns, and at a pace that suits all editors, not just yours. Would you agree? Kind regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 02:12, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Applying formal warnings which also help give standard advice

Your recent editing history at Naeraberg shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 article's 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 BRD 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 your being blocked from editing—especially, as the page in question is currently under restrictions from the Arbitration Committee, if you violate the one-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than one revert on a single page with active Arbitration Committee restrictions 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 one-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the one-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:40, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

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 notice boards.
• 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 Naeraberg, you may be blocked from editing. Placing your own unsourced content on an article then nominating it for speedy deletion without following procedure is very disruptive. The appropriate thing to do is to continue to discuss on the talk page and seek sources to confirm your points. Thankyou

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:40, 5 March 2018 (UTC)