| Revision as of 23:04, 4 April 2022 edit142.105.159.178 (talk) Undid revision 1081007092 by Thewolfchild (talk) Undid unexplained page defacement. Now obviously vandalism and harassment. It's clear now where you're *really* coming from. Please specify what "it" is and how "it" works, as you say. That is, you're "unexplained". Last I checked, which was last night (for me), it IS how it works. Cited passage in WP:UP plainly states not applicable, which was cited in the edit summary.Tags: Undo Reverted← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 04:51, 20 April 2022 edit undo142.105.159.178 (talk) Removed faked "warning", which was actually only a trumped up power move made after just two ordinary BRD cycles. The responses induced by it would be left without context, so I removed them also. | ||
| (24 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| __NOTOC__ | |||
| ⚫ | == |
||
| <!-- | |||
| A few sha256 for future verifications:<br> | |||
| 0) <del>dcb0c4732f9116e52bdd69fbe4a27c69b04833753ec450f22e6a20d5911308e8</del><br> | |||
| ..."0)" has been used once on 5Apr2022 to verify user ZZ142. It can still be used to verify that user's association, but it can't be used again for any other verification<br> | |||
| 1) 10eb1ff6e79279c555a1ae7b17f7ac6c39dc940637a8af28eabb3750e4c34af4<br> | |||
| 2) 94ae7f08eb65ea62a98e683e3d1373f6df7fd235213d81d199734128b3343123<br> | |||
| 3) 817e3608d8f21d639c327ab870229c83a424f4e53b1de2b2a794b64fb005743d<br> | |||
| 4) 5403479384d9af7453bb72175f65d4b362b0f8ae18fc73062c02797601988461<br> | |||
| 5) 3a0e6abb1c002cd3db7a66cfa58e93fc0b6720f037c1492cb9aa3c06ca64ca03<br> | |||
| --> | |||
| ⚫ | == User ZZ142 == | ||
| User ZZ142 is the same single person as has operated on IP 142.105.159.178 from November 2020 until at least the present, which is currently 5 April 2021. So, beware: Edits here from "me" might end up being signed by either. ] (]) 02:18, 6 April 2022 (UTC) | |||
| ] You currently appear to be engaged in an ]  according to the reverts you have made on ]. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to ] with others, to avoid editing ], and to ], rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. | |||
| Yup! ] (]) 02:19, 6 April 2022 (UTC) | |||
| Points to note: | |||
| # '''Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;''' | |||
| # '''Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.''' | |||
| If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's ] to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an ] or seek ]. In some cases, it may be appropriate to ]. If you engage in an edit war, you '''may be ] from editing.''' ''<br> | |||
| === Added note=== | |||
| As you say in your looong and snippy , "pay attention" - we don't debate content disputes via back and forth edit summaries attached to repeated reverts. That is what the talk page is for. If you have an issue with an edit, discuss it on the talk page. Additionally, edit warring is not tolerated on WP. To justify all this disruption, and your non-collegial attitude, you're gonna need a very *good* reason to meet that bar. So you post it on the talk page buddy, and maybe someone will support you :-)''<!-- Template:uw-ew --> - '']'' 06:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC) | |||
| {{Block indent|''If this is a ], and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider ] for yourself or ] so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.''}}<!-- Template:Shared IP advice --> | |||
| ===A fair comment. :-) === | |||
| Yeah, "pay attention" was slightly aggressive. At the time, it was justified in my mind based on the fact that it didn't look like you were fully engaged in that particular edit. Maybe you were moving quickly to another edit or something. I don't know. But anyway, "Its sourced" struck me as kurt, dismissive, and contrary to my comment that the source was actually inadequate. "Its sourced", as your only reason for reversion, made it look like you were detached from what was going on right in front of you. I probably shouldn't have actually said it, but in the moment I thought you ''needed'' to pay some more attention. So, there it is. Sorry, man. | |||
| I like Wikipedian encyclopedic writing to be straightforward, ''tight'', on topic, and easy to read -- generally the way they like it in all that great guidance in ]. I guess I don't apply that to my edit summaries though, which are often looong like you say! Usually, I think all that explanation helps to ''prevent'' conflict, but sometimes not. So again, sorry about that. | |||
| I do understand how edit warring works and I wasn't going to go beyond the 3RR without going to the talk page. In fact, before I pushed the matter further I wanted to verify that I had my facts in order. I looked closer at that particular source and there was one place where it alluded a little bit to "female empowerment". I think that particular source is still quite vague about it and a real stretch to support such a bold claim, not to mention that the claim is currently in the lede section only, and looks a lot like POV-pushing. But, I digress. Lots of good stuff for the talk page. See you there! ] (]) 08:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC) | |||
| :This isn't really the place. The notice was placed here becuase it was about your editing behaviour, but anything to do with article content should be discussed on the article talk page. (fyi) - '']'' 08:21, 4 April 2022 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 04:51, 20 April 2022
User ZZ142
User ZZ142 is the same single person as has operated on IP 142.105.159.178 from November 2020 until at least the present, which is currently 5 April 2021. So, beware: Edits here from "me" might end up being signed by either. 142.105.159.178 (talk) 02:18, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
Yup! ZZ142 (talk) 02:19, 6 April 2022 (UTC)