User talk:Grammophone

Grammophone, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Grammophone! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join other new editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from other new editors. These editors have also just begun editing Wikipedia; they may have had similar experiences as you. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from your peers. I hope to see you there! Doctree (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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:Grammophone reported by User:NatGertler (Result: ). Thank you. Nat Gertler (talk) 16:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Galerie Gmurzynska

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days for edit warring, as you did at Galerie Gmurzynska. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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.

The full report is at this AN3 complaint (permalink). If you don't change your approach, there is a risk that you may be indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent post on my talk

Hello Grammophone. Please see WP:SIGN for how to sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 22:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for resumption of edit warring at Galerie Gmurzynska. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 00:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on this page continued by Art&Design3000 using alternative ID - Andemw3 Grammophone (talk) 12:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resumption of Edit Warring at Galerie Gmurzynska

Hello Grammophone, so still resuming the old edit war in your biased point of view? Your only effort on Wikipedia is related to this gallery and some people associated with it. If you will not stop trolling I will try to inform the administrators to block you on these topics. Thanks, Art&Design3000 (talk) 15:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.Xandyxyz (talk) 08:40, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

September 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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. Drmies (talk) 00:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That you'd revert even tiny cosmetic edits is telling, and speaks to what appears to be a penchant for edit warring; Bbb23 and EdJohnston have noticed this before. Your persistent addition of the word "commercial", as if other art galleries are non-profits who do l'art pour l'art, speaks to the non-neutral nature of your edits. Finally, the removal of sourced content and sources (in the previous edit, in this one, and in this one, where the article from the Neue Zurcher Zeitung does in fact verify the material you tagged with "citation needed") speaks loudly to pure and utter disruption. It's a lovely Friday evening and all is well, which is why I didn't block you indefinitely, but that is where you're headed if you keep this up. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 00:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Grammophone (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

First of all, I mistakenly took you Drmies to be another gallery insider, given the types of edits you made. Removing 'OBE' from Geraldine Norman's name is not "tiny" or "cosmetic". It underlines her reliability as a source and so it should remain. Bbb23 seemed to agree with me that the citations provided did not, in fact, support the claims made, which is how it still appears to me, which is why I removed it. As I understood it based on Bbb's comments, unsourced material could not be included. Your reversion has restored a malicious reference to an article on Asher Edelman, designed to discredit him and his (legally upheld) claim against the gallery. Far from engaging in "disruption", at the time of this block, I was engaged in talk with Bbb23 about the best approach to take on this page and your position as editors and adjudicators in the ongoing edit-warring was not clear. Your block has cut off that discussion.Grammophone (talk) 00:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your statements above are a significant misinterpretation of my comments to you. Generally, material in articles should be sourced, but I stated clearly that removal of unsourced material is not a defense against edit-warring. I was taken aback by the fact that you returned to the article and reverted again. The block is justified. Bbb23 (talk) 00:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I assume you were talking about this edit, and the Forbes article? I doubt that Edelman needs your protection, and while one could argue that the reference and the not-well written sentence that pulls it into the article aren't really relevant, you didn't, in fact, argue that anywhere. Edit summaries are quite important, as is talk page discussion. You could also have taken it up on WP:BLPN, for instance, but you did none of those things--you just went straight back to the article to continue edit warring after escaping a block on the narrow charge of WP:3R. Drmies (talk) 00:59, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I say, I took the latest edits by Drmies to be another insider edit - I can't keep up with how many accounts they have used. With regard to " I stated clearly that removal of unsourced material is not a defense against edit-warring", this was posted about five minutes before the block. You are mistaken in saying that I did not justify my removal of the irrelevant Edelman reference - see 15:21, 22 September 2015‎ Grammophone (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (7,482 bytes) (-204)‎ . . (→‎Controversies: Malicious reference with no relevance). It is obvious to me that putting this reference in is meant to imply that Edelman took action against the gallery because he was desperate for money at the time. To repeat, since all the Drmies edits were on one side and because I had not seen this user name before, I took it to be another gallery insider hatchet job, hence my straight reversal. I am trying to help produce a reasonable and informative page and I am quite happy to discuss edits with genuine, disinterested monitors before making any further changes. I also meant to say that it is entirely accurate to describe this gallery as a commercial one in so far as its exhibitions are of works for sale, it buys and sells, it participates in art fairs, its publications are in-house and not academic or peer-reviewed (and note 5 on the references does not uphold any claim otherwise), it does not educate or receive money from the state, all of its activity is concerned with making profit, which is why the dubious claims it makes under "history" need to be taken with extreme caution. Grammophone (talk) 01:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Grammophone (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Your comment "removing unsourced material is not an exemption from edit-warring.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:10, 26 September" - was posted and read by me only after my latest edits. I took Drmies to be a gallery employee and made the changes on that basis. I see that (s)he is not and am therefore happy to engage with them about a suitable form for the article. I refer you to our previous exchanges on this and ask if you think this sounds like someone looking to "disrupt" Wikipedia, e.g. Sept. 18th "I wonder if you would kindly intervene in this page again..."

Thanks for reaching out, Grammophone. I don't think we've spoken outside of Talk:Galerie Gmurzynska, but nice to hear from you. I haven't been around much today, so just now noticing all the edits you mentioned. It looks like you got to most of it, but I did find a promo paragraph added back to Hist. by this user and one of the longer quotes in Contro. added back too. I'll cut those and keep a close eye on this one too. Thanks. Jppcap (talk) 21:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC) Thanks for this. I have made one further minor edit in order to clarify the date of the Khardzhiev smuggling operation. I trust this is sufficiently non-POV. As you may have noticed, the insider editing of this page, as well as censoring episodes like this, seems to think that references are an opportunity to secrete links to irrelevant promotional material, as opposed to verifying claims made. It still has an overall feeling of "advertorial" to me, but I am generally satisfied, so long as sock-puppetry and blatant insider whitewashing of documented facts is kept at bay. As you say, this will require careful monitoring. Grammophone (talk) 23:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

It seems rather unfair that insiders are not accused of edit warring because they have multiple accounts, whereas I am blocked for acting transparently. I am happy to seek advice in advance on any further edits. I have no intention of disrupting, only of ensuring that the page is accurate and informative. Grammophone (talk) 02:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is your third block for the same thing, gotta know by now that what you were doing is inappropriate. Also, due to your personal attacks on Drmies your right to edit this page has been revoked for the duration of your block. Max Semenik (talk) 02:10, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Your ability to edit this talk page has been revoked as an administrator has identified your talk page edits as inappropriate and/or disruptive.

(block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. If you have already appealed to the Unblock Ticket Request System and been declined you may appeal to the Arbitration Committee's Ban Appeals Subcommittee.
Please note that there could be appeals to the unblock ticket request system that have been declined leading to the post of this notice.