User talk:69.117.93.145: Difference between revisions
Callitropsis (talk | contribs) Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. |
→January 2024: Reply |
||
| Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
:The talk page was used to flush out concerns. It took awhile for me to get actual concerns out of the user but I addressed his concerns and made appropriate edits. Vandalism and deleting mass amounts of content you don't like is also not allowed on Wikipedia. I was not engaged in a edit war as I was providing valuable information that was being deleted incorrectly. [[Special:Contributions/69.117.93.145|69.117.93.145]] ([[User talk:69.117.93.145#top|talk]]) 06:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC) |
:The talk page was used to flush out concerns. It took awhile for me to get actual concerns out of the user but I addressed his concerns and made appropriate edits. Vandalism and deleting mass amounts of content you don't like is also not allowed on Wikipedia. I was not engaged in a edit war as I was providing valuable information that was being deleted incorrectly. [[Special:Contributions/69.117.93.145|69.117.93.145]] ([[User talk:69.117.93.145#top|talk]]) 06:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC) |
||
::It's good that you're discussing your edits on the talk page, but that should be your ''first'' step before reverting. The [[WP:ONUS|onus]] is on you to demonstrate that your proposed content is suitable, and so far you have not done so. Your quotes of Evans' works are very long and could be considered [[WP:COPYVIO|copyright violations]], and the sources you have cited are not [[WP:RS|reliable]] and many of them are [[WP:PRIMARY|primary]]—that is, they're closely connected to the subject.{{pb}}I understand that having your edits reverted can be frustrating and Wikipedia has a pretty steep learning curve, which is why I'm encouraging you to familiarize yourself with the policies and guidelines linked in the welcome message I left you rather than simply continuing to revert. As a final note, Nikkimaria's edits were not vandalism. [[WP:Vandalism|Vandalism]] has a very narrow definition on Wikipedia and refers only to ''deliberate'', bad-faith attempts to compromise the usefulness of Wikipedia. Nikkimaria's edits were made in good faith (and were improvements in my opinion), and weren't vandalism. Accusing other editors of vandalism is often considered a [[WP:PA|personal attack]] and may result in being [[WP:BLOCK|blocked from editing]]. To be blunt, you will most likely be blocked for edit warring and personal attacks if you don't promptly self-revert [[Special:Diff/1194684568|this edit]] and retract your accusations of vandalism. I'm about to go to bed, but I'd happy to answer any questions you might have and I should be able to get back to you no later than tomorrow evening. <span class="nowrap">— [[User:Callitropsis|Callitropsis]]🌲[[[User talk:Callitropsis#top|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Callitropsis|contribs]]]</span> 07:02, 10 January 2024 (UTC) |
::It's good that you're discussing your edits on the talk page, but that should be your ''first'' step before reverting. The [[WP:ONUS|onus]] is on you to demonstrate that your proposed content is suitable, and so far you have not done so. Your quotes of Evans' works are very long and could be considered [[WP:COPYVIO|copyright violations]], and the sources you have cited are not [[WP:RS|reliable]] and many of them are [[WP:PRIMARY|primary]]—that is, they're closely connected to the subject.{{pb}}I understand that having your edits reverted can be frustrating and Wikipedia has a pretty steep learning curve, which is why I'm encouraging you to familiarize yourself with the policies and guidelines linked in the welcome message I left you rather than simply continuing to revert. As a final note, Nikkimaria's edits were not vandalism. [[WP:Vandalism|Vandalism]] has a very narrow definition on Wikipedia and refers only to ''deliberate'', bad-faith attempts to compromise the usefulness of Wikipedia. Nikkimaria's edits were made in good faith (and were improvements in my opinion), and weren't vandalism. Accusing other editors of vandalism is often considered a [[WP:PA|personal attack]] and may result in being [[WP:BLOCK|blocked from editing]]. To be blunt, you will most likely be blocked for edit warring and personal attacks if you don't promptly self-revert [[Special:Diff/1194684568|this edit]] and retract your accusations of vandalism. I'm about to go to bed, but I'd happy to answer any questions you might have and I should be able to get back to you no later than tomorrow evening. <span class="nowrap">— [[User:Callitropsis|Callitropsis]]🌲[[[User talk:Callitropsis#top|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Callitropsis|contribs]]]</span> 07:02, 10 January 2024 (UTC) |
||
:::You are so missing the point. Vandalism is not ok. Anyone is free to edit but to completely remove almost the entirety of the article is vandalism. It is not an attack but rather a fact. Nobody wants to revert anything on my end however my had was forced at the gross vandalism. Blockquotes were used on my end and when it was pointed out to me that this resource, blockquote, is not acceptable, I made appropriate original summaries of said books and made updates. The sources I cited are extremely reliable and your claiming they are not is an indication of your ignorance in the matter. [[Special:Contributions/69.117.93.145|69.117.93.145]] ([[User talk:69.117.93.145#top|talk]]) 07:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
{{Block indent|''If this is a [[Network address translation|shared IP address]], and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider [[Wikipedia:Why create an account?|creating an account]] for yourself or [[Special:UserLogin|logging in with an existing account]] so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.''}}<!-- Template:Shared IP advice --> |
{{Block indent|''If this is a [[Network address translation|shared IP address]], and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider [[Wikipedia:Why create an account?|creating an account]] for yourself or [[Special:UserLogin|logging in with an existing account]] so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.''}}<!-- Template:Shared IP advice --> |
||
Revision as of 07:15, 10 January 2024
Welcome!
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia!
Someone using this IP address, at 69.117.93.145, has made edits to Michele Evans that do not conform to our policies and guidelines and therefore have been reverted. For more information on this, see Wikipedia's policies on vandalism and limits on acceptable additions. If you did not do this, you may wish to consider getting a username to avoid confusion with other editors. If you'd like to experiment with the syntax, please do so in the sandbox rather than in articles.
You don't have to log in to read or edit pages on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free, requires no personal information, and has many benefits. Without a username, your IP address is used to identify you.
Some good links for newcomers are:
- Help contents – the main help page.
- Quick guide – a "cheatsheet" listing the main editing commands.
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Contributing to Wikipedia
- Introduction to Wikipedia
Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and a timestamp. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask the Help Desk, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.
Again, welcome! — Callitropsis🌲[talk · contribs] 05:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
January 2024
Hello, I'm Callitropsis. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Michele Evans seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Please also read Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Overquoting. — Callitropsis🌲[talk · contribs] 05:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- A few other notes: Several of the sources you cited were court records and gossip sites. These sources are not acceptable for contentious claims about living people, so I have removed them and the material sourced to them. You have also made three reverts in the past twenty-four hours, which puts you close to breaching the three-revert rule and at risk of being blocked for edit warring. — Callitropsis🌲[talk · contribs] 05:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Michele Evans. 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:
- 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 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. — Callitropsis🌲[talk · contribs] 06:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- The talk page was used to flush out concerns. It took awhile for me to get actual concerns out of the user but I addressed his concerns and made appropriate edits. Vandalism and deleting mass amounts of content you don't like is also not allowed on Wikipedia. I was not engaged in a edit war as I was providing valuable information that was being deleted incorrectly. 69.117.93.145 (talk) 06:52, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- It's good that you're discussing your edits on the talk page, but that should be your first step before reverting. The onus is on you to demonstrate that your proposed content is suitable, and so far you have not done so. Your quotes of Evans' works are very long and could be considered copyright violations, and the sources you have cited are not reliable and many of them are primary—that is, they're closely connected to the subject.I understand that having your edits reverted can be frustrating and Wikipedia has a pretty steep learning curve, which is why I'm encouraging you to familiarize yourself with the policies and guidelines linked in the welcome message I left you rather than simply continuing to revert. As a final note, Nikkimaria's edits were not vandalism. Vandalism has a very narrow definition on Wikipedia and refers only to deliberate, bad-faith attempts to compromise the usefulness of Wikipedia. Nikkimaria's edits were made in good faith (and were improvements in my opinion), and weren't vandalism. Accusing other editors of vandalism is often considered a personal attack and may result in being blocked from editing. To be blunt, you will most likely be blocked for edit warring and personal attacks if you don't promptly self-revert this edit and retract your accusations of vandalism. I'm about to go to bed, but I'd happy to answer any questions you might have and I should be able to get back to you no later than tomorrow evening. — Callitropsis🌲[talk · contribs] 07:02, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- You are so missing the point. Vandalism is not ok. Anyone is free to edit but to completely remove almost the entirety of the article is vandalism. It is not an attack but rather a fact. Nobody wants to revert anything on my end however my had was forced at the gross vandalism. Blockquotes were used on my end and when it was pointed out to me that this resource, blockquote, is not acceptable, I made appropriate original summaries of said books and made updates. The sources I cited are extremely reliable and your claiming they are not is an indication of your ignorance in the matter. 69.117.93.145 (talk) 07:15, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- It's good that you're discussing your edits on the talk page, but that should be your first step before reverting. The onus is on you to demonstrate that your proposed content is suitable, and so far you have not done so. Your quotes of Evans' works are very long and could be considered copyright violations, and the sources you have cited are not reliable and many of them are primary—that is, they're closely connected to the subject.I understand that having your edits reverted can be frustrating and Wikipedia has a pretty steep learning curve, which is why I'm encouraging you to familiarize yourself with the policies and guidelines linked in the welcome message I left you rather than simply continuing to revert. As a final note, Nikkimaria's edits were not vandalism. Vandalism has a very narrow definition on Wikipedia and refers only to deliberate, bad-faith attempts to compromise the usefulness of Wikipedia. Nikkimaria's edits were made in good faith (and were improvements in my opinion), and weren't vandalism. Accusing other editors of vandalism is often considered a personal attack and may result in being blocked from editing. To be blunt, you will most likely be blocked for edit warring and personal attacks if you don't promptly self-revert this edit and retract your accusations of vandalism. I'm about to go to bed, but I'd happy to answer any questions you might have and I should be able to get back to you no later than tomorrow evening. — Callitropsis🌲[talk · contribs] 07:02, 10 January 2024 (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:69.117.93.145 reported by User:Callitropsis (Result: ). Thank you. — Callitropsis🌲[talk · contribs] 07:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)