User talk:Epicforest

City of Bradford

I thought I would approach you directly about your reverts, as in neither case have you provided justification for these, and as far as I can tell you and an IP (who may have been you) are the only editor(s) who have objected to my adding material to do with a) the problem of separatism identified by the Ouseley Report of 2001; b) the very high-profile incident of burning Satanic Verses. This is incontrovertibly part of Bradford's recent history, though of course any mitigating material may be added to this. But what is not acceptable is censorship (as removing this material effectively is) which, as you'll see from the link, breaches Wikipedia policy. May I remind you that our business on Wikipedia is to create factual articles, not (for instance) an up-beat travel brochure for Bradford.

I will reinstate the material one more time. You are very welcome to make any objections you have on the talk page, or to add further material so long as it is given reliable citation; but if instead you remove this material to do with Satanic Verses and the riots again I will have no hesitation to report you for edit-warring. Sorry to be blunt, and I hope you will see the sense of working collaboratively. Alfietucker (talk) 18:37, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi there,

Yes i usually edit occasionally but usually without logging in.

Looking at London, Belfast and Leeds pages...all with far more history of disorder than Bradford..there is no mention of that disorder on London and Leeds pages and very little on the troubles on the Belfast page. Your edit seems like over egging the actual disorder so i edited the page myself. I'll be reinstating my edit.Epicforest (talk) 21:04, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Am I right in thinking you are also User:92.22.148.207? If so, I've posted on your talk page there, but just to repeat here: I explained why I reverted your edits here. The relevant Wikipedia policy I referred to may be seen here, specifically: "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources. [...] Although Wikipedia articles are tertiary sources, Wikipedia employs no systematic mechanism for fact checking or accuracy. Because Wikipedia forbids original research, there is nothing reliable in it that isn't citable with something else. Thus Wikipedia articles (or Wikipedia mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose."

Please pay attention to comments which are left by other editors with their edits (they may be seen for the Bradford City article at City of Bradford: Revision history), most particularly if they revert any edits you have done. Generally editors remove or revert edits by another editor if they breach Wikipedia policies: make a point of finding out about these policies and then you will know how to avoid breaking them and also how to edit constructively.

Finally your point about London, Belfast and Leeds. No doubt the riots there should be mentioned in those articles, but things can't all be done instantaneously since all editors at Wikipedia AFAIK are doing the work voluntarily in their spare time. Meanwhile I would thank you not to remove material I am adding which is pertinent and thoroughly cited. Thank you. Alfietucker (talk) 21:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, yes you are right on the non log in. Thanks for the information on secondary sources, I'll certainly use them next time. I don't actually believe that to be the case regarding the other city pages...the recent riots in London would I'm sure have been added by now...as for the various riots nearer home in Leeds, it's pretty glaring having no mention of the WW1 anti German riots, the WW2 anti Nazi riots and various recent disorder on Leeds glossy page, how long does it take someone to get round to mentioning those slight oversights. The Belfast page is key, to have Bradford disorder highlighted is a mockery in comparison.Epicforest (talk) 21:32, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, rather than wait for other editors to get around to adding this material, do feel free to add to any of those other articles if you feel they are missing relevant information - bearing in mind, of course, that you will need to bring reliable secondary and tertiary sources for citations. Alfietucker (talk) 21:41, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

You seem quite good at it, knock yourself out, not literally of course.Epicforest (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Eh, I've only just started (so to speak) and can't do everything on my own. So, as you say, knock yourself out! Alfietucker (talk) 21:53, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm only interested in Bradford history, so good luck on your quest.. hopefully you'll get some professional help, I look forward to reading your edits on those pages if you get round to doing them. all the best.Epicforest (talk) 22:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Alfietucker (talk) 17:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Epicforest. Between you and your IP address you have now reverted eight times at City of Bradford. You're expected to get consensus for your changes and you are now well beyond what the community will tolerate. Be aware that admins can block people for violating the WP:Edit warring policy. There may still be time for you to respond at WP:AN3 and agree to wait for consensus. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi there..... the last thing I want is to cause any sort of problem. Obviously I believe in my edit rather than the one i've reverted both when logged in and otherwise. I've stated my reasons above, I believe the edit in question is intrinsically unfair to the City of Bradford ....I believe my edit is more balanced. Obviously I would bow to a consensus against, but that in my opinion would not stop such an edit being unjust. I must in the meantime continue to revert, to leave it as it is makes a mockery of the page when the particular incident in question, one nights rioting and an incident of book burning is put into context of content regarding conflict on other major cities pages such as Belfast, London and Leeds.Epicforest (talk) 18:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Epicforest - I have repeatedly suggested you might *add* information to the article to mitigate the impression that you believe is being made by the edits I've made (as I have just done myself, FWIW.), or to at least raise your objections on the talk page. What is not OK by me, or the community, is for you to bluntly revert material which an editor (in this case, myself) has spent some time researching and writing - which had included in my case giving full and proper representation of the BBC citations you provided. Among other things, your behavior has been disruptive, which again could be grounds for blocking you. One of the things I would urge you to consider if you wish to continue editing here is to respect other editor's work, and work as far as you can constructively rather than knocking down other people's work. Now I suggest you respond at WP:AN3 as EdJohnston has suggested. Alfietucker (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I guess it's too late for you to go to AN3 now - you've already been blocked. Well if you decide to come back after your block, feel free to ask me any questions on my talk page. Alfietucker (talk) 19:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Two different edits, to call it warring seems over the top to me. It doesn't look as though I know enough about the workings of wikipedia to have actually got my point across. Two edits, mine may be better suited to the City of Bradford page or indeed so could your edit. I see no consensus for either, talk to you and maybe others about this later. Just another quick look at your edit, personally I'd use the term South Asian, Asian isn't accurate, also be tempted to use the word conflict as is used on the Belfast page, but certainly your edit reads better, I take it you've edited the original post or maybe old age is creeping on regarding my memory. all the best.Epicforest (talk) 09:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Have a look (if you haven't already) at the WP:Edit warring policy. And note in particular the non-negotiable WP:3RR (three reverts maximum in 24 hours) rule. It may not have felt like a "war" to you, but technically your series of what I've described as "blunt reversions" is known as "edit warring" here. Alfietucker (talk) 10:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Still waiting for the consensus.....It's not a war of course, just a slight difference of opinion. Obviously my edits were also reverted, so not quite sure how that works. The City of Bradford history page now has six paragraphs two of which are about the two incidents in your edit....that has to be ludicrous (glaring omisions..eg..The Independent Labour Party, one of many) and something I'll try to fill out in the future, bare with me, I can do better.Epicforest (talk) 14:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

A significant point to take on board is that your repeated deletions were reverted by no less than three different editors: by reverting all their edits, you managed to break the WP:3RR policy. In any case your persistent non-constructive reverts - none of which involved discussion on the talk page, and none of which were supported by any other editor - were disruptive, and could be construed as vandalism (as indeed one editor did here). Rather than keep reverting to maintain your preferred version - most particularly if you are alone in doing this - you should, if you still feel you have a point, bring your case to the article's talk page (if you don't know where to find this, ask - though I've given you the link to Talk:City of Bradford in past messages); it is only by doing this that you can hope to break a dispute/edit war and reach consensus (which otherwise has no chance of being reached, no matter how long you wait). I suggest you spend a bit more time seeing how disputes are settled around Wikipedia: even if some of the things you'll come across will not be what might be called "good practice", you'll see that the surefire way of *not* achieving anything except a block is to simply revert edits you don't like without explanation or discussion on the talk page. Alfietucker (talk) 16:28, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Just letting you know I've put the two edits up on City of Bradford talk, basically waiting for comments on them, hopefully there will be a consensus for one or the other. Epicforest (talk) 09:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Good stuff - I noticed and thought I would wait before posting to see if anyone else did. I'll post my thoughts there in the next hour or two. Alfietucker (talk) 09:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Good work

Just to say I've seen your edits in City of Bradford - very much appreciated. When I've a moment I might "flesh out" your actual references (i.e. make it clear to those checking them their source, title, author, date accessed etc.). Let me know if you want anything explained after I've done that "house keeping". But meanwhile, thank you for listening and I appreciate you taking on board my advice and suggestions. Hope to see you around. Alfietucker (talk) 23:17, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Ditto, enjoyed the way folk go about their business on here including your good self, very civilised. Haven't noticed much interest in our quest to get consensus, hopefully some folk will comment on the talk page. all the best Epicforest (talk) 01:25, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Friederich Wilhelm Eurich.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Friederich Wilhelm Eurich.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 01:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Repeated removal of Shehzad Tanweer from list of people from Bradford article

Hi, I noticed your repeated removals of Islamic terrorist Shehzad Tanweer from the List of people from Bradford article, even though the reliable sources provided clearly show he was born in Bradford. These removals have all had no explanation, other than the most recent one which noted the were "no similar edits on the leeds page". While your point may well be true, and possibly something that needs addressing in itself, you need to understand that it is completely irrelevant in the context of the Bradford list. If similar Islamic terrorists who took part in the same atrocities (or any persons for that matter) are missing from the List of people from Leeds article then the solution is to add them there and improve that particular list, rather than making the Bradford list less complete. In fact, I'd be more than happy to add them to that list in future or would encourage you to do so if you'd prefer. Perhaps you'd also be kind enough to restore Tanweer to the Bradford list also now I've explained Wikipedia policy? Let me know if you have any further questions and thanks for starting to use edit summaries.--Shakehandsman (talk) 13:46, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

When you add the two Leeds born perpetrators of the attacks to the Leeds list simply undo my edit. Just found it odd that you added the person born in Bradford to the Bradfordian list but not the two terrorists that were born in Leeds to their list. Thanks for the clarification. Epicforest (talk) 09:47, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

That's simply not how Wikipedia works, and if you're going to adopt that stance it's not really going to be helpful to the community here. As I explained above, if content is missing from one particular article/list that doesn't make it acceptable to wrongly remove similar material from other lists, such deletions merely make Wikipedia worse. If you accept that your edit was an error and that Tanweer is indeed from Bradford then it would have looked far better on your part were you to self-revert. The current status of the Leeds list has absolutely no bearing on who is included in the Bradford one and any missing entries there are an entirely separate issue. In fact I'm already having to deal with wrongful removal of a Leeds terrorist from a separate article.--Shakehandsman (talk) 19:46, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

April 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bradford. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. 3 editors have now reverted your changes. The wording does not reflect the BBC source and is considered Original Research by wikipedia standards. Further reverts without discussion and I will have to raise a case with Admins against further disruptive editing. Koncorde (talk) 08:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC) Koncorde (talk) 08:48, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Three editors hardly seems a consensus. I could easily get three friends to back my opinion up but wouldn't that be a fraudulent way of doing things. Have you made the same point with the original editor who continually changed my edits? I'd like completely independent editors to look at this argument. There are too many negative edits allowed on the Bradford page. Epicforest (talk) 10:43, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Epicforest reported by User:Koncorde (Result: ). Thank you. Koncorde (talk) 11:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring at Bradford

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Per a complaint at the edit warring noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 21:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Care when reverting

When making cosmetic edits such as this one, please could you take care not to revert other significant edits? I had spent some time reordering that section to make the various religions more logical, and your edit reshuffled them again. Fortunately, another editor has undone your inadvertent changes. Dave.Dunford (talk) 19:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC) That religious section looks far better with the Hindu temple on the left. Having looked at other pages of major cities non seem to have such a lop sided section.Epicforest (talk) 11:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)