User talk:Sro23

Archives

My talk page

Thanks! Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:14, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nubailo

Dealt with see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Treat by User:Nubailo.--Moxy (talk) 01:07, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! I'm tired of you reverting edits without giving an explanation. Hawkeye75 (talk) 00:00, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to template me like a common vandal. You can feel free to talk to me, I don't bite (most of the time). I was simply undoing edits made by a blocked sock, apologies for not explaining that in the edit summary field. That's fine if you take responsibility for those edits in good faith. But I also note you've neglected to use edit summaries on the same page, other than Twinkle's standard vandal rollback summary, Hawkeye75. Sro23 (talk) 00:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying you reverted edits without knowing if they were against Wiki's policies or not? Hawkeye75 (talk) 00:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:BE. I did check before reverting, but the edits in question honestly didn't seem to be improvements, so in that case I decided it would be better not to let them stick. Sro23 (talk) 00:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye75: Which edits are you concerned about? Sam Walton (talk) 00:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Very minor, but these ones. Hawkeye75 (talk) 00:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Waring edits

Please do not redirect the page: King David Zilly Aggrey

Michaelgodstimeake (talk) 20:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. You can't just reverse the decision made on AFD for the article you created. Revert one more time and I'm reporting you. Otherwise your only other option is WP:DELREV. Sro23 (talk) 20:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Catcreekcitycouncil SPI

It's a good idea to request CheckUser evidence when filing an SPI because they are known to have sleepers. The last one that was vandalizing nine hours ago was created in November 2016. —MRD2014 📞 contribs 12:38, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

not trolling

hi, it is not trolling to request recall on an admins talkpage that they are perfectly able to edit, thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 14:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	I even saw a couple of that sock's edits and completely missed the impersonation. NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:39, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Thanks for having my back. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:37, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, two of these in one day. I don't deserve it. Sro23 (talk) 21:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are being contentious. {:>{)>

You did deserve it. And probably many times before that have gone unsung. In the broadest sense, we Wikipedians fail to recognize, and positively reinforce, your (and other's) helpful behavior. Unfortunately, we tend toward brickbats, not strokes. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 21:54, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Answer

No Nimzo321 (talk) 00:01, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Quenhitran. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —the one you made with this edit to Identity Evropa— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. —ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 03:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Quenhitran: I was reverting a disruptive IP edit-warrior. Was this message intended for User talk:108.6.166.60? Sro23 (talk) 03:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

Because I appreciate your helping with the IP issues on my Talk Page and everyone deserves a kitten for dealing with their trolling.

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 09:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"It honestly did not seem like an improvement to me"

Fair enough, but once you actually read the cite, you'll feel differently. I'll help you out.

"Kula Shaker, whom most people – other than Kula Shaker themselves, granted – considered a joke band..."

absolutely does not translate to:

...The Observer's Simon Price describing them in 2014 as a "joke band".

Price is not describing the band at all. He is noting the widespread opinion of them. Even if you don't want to use my prose, at least do the right thing for the sake of Wikipedia's integrity. The project is bigger than both you and I, and deserves article content that actually adheres to the supporting references rather than presenting imaginary WP:OR. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.148.89.251 (talk) 19:09, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the project is bigger than us, believe me. I wouldn't damage the encyclopedia just for the sake of WP:BANREVERT. Your proposed change is so minor that it doesn't seem to be that much of an improvement. Note how in my edit summary I say that anyone else is allowed to restore your edit in good faith. But if you truly cared about Wikipedia, you would stop evading your ban. Sro23 (talk) 23:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"if you truly cared about Wikipedia, you would stop evading your ban."

You seem like an intelligent editor, so I find it's impossible for you not to have realised that I'm a constructive editor who has been ostracised from the community for (fairly trivial) past mistakes. It would appear that you and I are destined to butt heads forever, which is unfortunate. 159.148.89.78 (talk) 01:32, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, you were banned for legitimate reasons. It's not fair that everyone else follows the rules while you ignore them whenever you please. Sro23 (talk) 01:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Girkar

Why did you revert my edits?--Mr. Guye (talk) 19:42, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was fixing the categorization. I know reverts without summaries seem kind of aggressive, but that's not what I intended. Sorry about that. Sro23 (talk) 23:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted Edits to Mavelikkara

I have reverted some of your edits to Mavelikkara town article, I put some edits to the "About tag" and you reverted it, but I undid your edits again because adding Alappuzha the name of the town is not needed, instead adding the district name is needed.

106.76.241.185 (talk) 16:11, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Long term abuse

Sorry I missed out on the community ban !vote, have you considered making an entry at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/List?LM2000 (talk) 07:10, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm sorry for not notifying you. Sure, I think TAWT would qualify for WP:LTA at this point, and I'm actually surprised there is no entry on him yet. One of the reasons his socks are so easy to identify is that they pretty consistently will stick to editing just pro-wrestling or British pop culture articles for at least 8 years now. He's also claimed he has brothers who are a part of TAWT (?) It's weird. Sro23 (talk) 08:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the talk page abuse, I wouldn't have posted that here if I had checked the history first. He makes no effort to conceal his identity, it's easy enough for him to just get a new account. My favorite reoccurring feature is the busy notices he has been putting on userpages since the beginning.LM2000 (talk) 09:03, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's fine. Yeah, I wonder why his socks always have to do that. Sro23 (talk) 09:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for requesting the extended confirmed, probably have to find an Admin who knows the history as others who don't know will decline because the sock was blocked. Thanks anyway though for trying. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 00:24, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More than one sock now. Unfortunately WP:RFPP reports always seem to take a at least a couple hours to process. Well, at least I tried. Sro23 (talk) 01:22, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Sro23. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 02:24, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts??

Thoughts?? Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 08:10, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Added to the SPI. This person needs to get a different hobby. Sro23 (talk) 08:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where in WP policy and guidelines

...does it state that one cannot edit from both an IP, and logged in, if clearly identifying oneself as the same editor? Let's take this scenario. I am waiting to board a flight, and I have been editing for some time, but my sec features have logged me off WP, and I discover this when my boarding group is called, and I have to rush to save and leave. On approaching the save, and discovering I am logged out, I face the following choice—try quickly to cut and paste the edits, from the IP workspace, into the Leprof_7272 workspace, without losing them or making a mistake, despite being under intense time pressure. Or, I wait and do the save later, but if autopowered down, maybe lose the edits entirely. In these cases, I save the edits under the IP, signing the same as I do when logged (Le Prof in edit summary, or some such). Where is this prohibited? And again, as stated in the long response to the Noticeboard accusations, I utterly refute and reject the insinuations of deception that have been leveled (thankfully, by those who know me the least, and have least done their homework). Cheers, RSVP here, thanks. Leprof 7272 (talk) 09:24, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the link to my full response to the tagging Noticeboard matter. Despite the added diversion below, I still would ask an answer, @Sro23:, to the IP vs logged policy guideline question. Thanks. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 10:18, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Well. Since WP:YANI, I would suggest that particular edit need not be made. And particularly not now, when such edits may be under- what, extra scrutiny, shall we say? On a lighter note, see what I did there: replied to a single point in less than a thousand words :) consider it, perhaps, an exercise in precision. Cheers, — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 09:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: It is never a challenge to be brief, while being completely unhelpful. But with regard to replaceability, thanks for the further encouragement to do my critiques from without, rather than from within. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 10:18, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SOCKING policy reads: Sock puppetry can take on several different forms [including]: Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address. ... Editors ... who edit as an IP address editor separate from their account, should carefully avoid any crossover on articles or topics, because even innocuous activities such as copy editing, wikifying, or linking might be considered sock puppetry in some cases and innocuous intentions will not usually serve as an excuse. (emphasis mine) See also: Template:Uw-login. You have very frequently edited articles both logged in and logged out. You never identify your logged out edits as Leprof except on talk pages. This is clearly against WP:SOCK. You have been notified and warned about this numerous times. Softlavender (talk) 10:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note there's a (somewhat) centralized discussion here. Primefac (talk) 15:32, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal

Who exactly is this IP user targeting the soap opera character pages and making attacks against you? I'm guessing they are already blocked based on their actions. 331dot (talk) 12:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Cebr1979. Sro23 (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go in to work for some overtime in a bit. Unlike our friend, I actually have a job. I'll be back this evening, so hold down the fort. Cheers! :) --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Repel All Boarders ‖ 18:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So, not User:Nate Speed? I'm so confused. :) --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Welfare State ‖ 01:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of Cebr's IP's. This, for example, is Nate Speed. Two different vandals, but both like to IP hop. Sro23 (talk) 01:57, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

YGM

Hello, Sro23. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Jim1138 (talk) 07:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, looks like that's all been taken care of now. Sro23 (talk) 22:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFC notification

Due to your editorial involvement in {{The_Jungle_Book}} I thought you might want to participate in the RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates#RFC: Overhauling the Disney franchise templates for consistency.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:41, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you're an admin, are you?

Because they sure like to complain about you here like you are one. I just think the whole thing is amusing. If they spent half the effort they do griping by doing something productive, like creating their own version of Wikipedia... Oh, that would require work. Those who can, do. Those who can't, whine and complain. Continue the good work you do. Most of us appreciate it. :) --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Health and Welfare ‖ 05:57, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even get an honorable mention... Jim1138 (talk) 08:23, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that. The thing is, I know that most of the people there are banned users, but I can't help but worry there is some truth to their complaints. If you catch me doing something wrong, feel free to drop me a line, so that I can learn. Clearly I'm not perfect. And for the record, no I am not an admin. I'm not going to even try so long as that RFA process remains as grueling as it currently is. Sro23 (talk) 21:17, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There may be some truth, but it's hard to find it amongst all the wailing and gnashing of teeth. And hey, I'm not perfect either. I've debated about putting myself into the admin ring for a while. But I agree about the process. If I did, I'd probably not answer most of the questions. Judge me by my history, I say. If I didn't get in, no loss. I can still do what I do. Anyhoo, cheerio, and thanks for the barnstar! --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Attract and Repel ‖ 04:47, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's also fun that one of the worst offenders uses, I think, their real name on that blog. Never ceases to amaze. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Repel All Boarders ‖ 19:01, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nickelodeon Article

Why do you keep restoring the red link? 83.136.45.201 (talk) 00:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a duck to me. Block Evasion obviously. -- Dane ^talk 00:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Deadpool (TV series)

I see that Failedclone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has edited this draft that was created by an IP. Am I correct to assume the IP is probably the same as well? Home Lander (talk) 19:44, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) That's would I would suspect, otherwise it's a massive coincidence. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - General Health ‖ 20:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged the draft for deletion. Home Lander (talk) 20:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your UAA reports

All taken care of. If you receive any more threatening emails or harassment from more sock accounts, let me know and I'll make sure it's handled. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

For putting up with all the shit you do, you deserve far more than a beer! CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 19:01, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFC/N discussion of the username "WikiVirusC"

A request for comment has been filed concerning the username of WikiVirusC (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion here. Linguist ^talk|contribs 20:11, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is Ash Ketchum dispute an edit war or disruption being dealt with?

Hey Sro23, I have noticed you seem to be in some sort of content dispute with a Boston IP (currently I don't believe the IP hopping is intended to deceive, AGF and all). However, I cannot find any sign of discussion on any talk page. I also am unfamiliar with the content, so don't know whether this a content dispute in full or a v/rvv case. If the IP is vandalizing then sorry for bothering you. An edit summary from the latest IP edit was Go and criticize Sro23 for causing that issue, he's the one that basically started the issue in the first place! Besides, the info is already sourced. I haven't reverted the IP yet, and I see General Ization has asked for SEMI on RFPP, so I'm not going to ask for full protection. Thanks, d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 02:21, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a content dispute. The rotating IP's belong to User:Bigshowandkane64. Sro23 (talk) 02:30, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you. I wanted to make sure. d.g. L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 02:34, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Young adult (psychology)

Hi Sro23, I've blocked Doggy889 (talk · contribs) indefinitely on the basis of WP:DUCK per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Unkownzero. I'm afraid, however, that the sock puppet has a point with respect to this edit, which hasn't been reverted yet. The link takes us to a section of an article that's only tangentially related, i.e. not helpful to the reader. I'm thinking the link should stay removed, but I wanted to ask what you think about it. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it's fine if we let the edit stick. This is the same troll who has been sending me death threats so forgive me if I'm a little revert-happy. Sro23 (talk) 22:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your talk page

On 'that page' (you know, the anti-admin one located off-Wiki), they've announced that the block on your talk page expired. Probably why you're getting the new trolling. Thought you might wanna know. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Border Town ‖ 04:41, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Timeline of computer security hacker history#Listcrufts removal

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Timeline of computer security hacker history#Listcrufts removal . John1234ou812 (talk) 04:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

Clean start

As an experienced editor dealing with plenty of socks, can you comment on please [1]? I think this is undermining all other WP sanctions and should be limited. 92.63.109.253 (talk) 13:29, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HI

Hello! How are you actually visiting that tumblr? I did not lie! The account is still showing signs of posting after her death! That is not Miss Lam herself! aa7778273Aa7778273 (talk) 07:19, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

sorry!

I'm so sorry! I did not notice it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aa7778273 (talk • contribs) 07:39, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Thanks for your help with that vandal on my talk page! Marianna251TALK 17:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thank you as well for keeping an eye on my talk page! Dolotta (talk) 01:45, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Sro!

Why are you such a popular target for sockpuppets, anyway? Amaury (talk | contribs) 03:19, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, haters gonna hate, I guess. But really I think it's because I do not tolerate sockpuppetry, plus I actively look out for socks. I'm not really anyone special, and discovering socks is sometimes hard, most of the time not all that difficult. I think most people either don't know about this policy or don't care/simply don't have the time to peruse page histories hunting for sockpuppets. Sro23 (talk) 11:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for helping clean up the mess created by the dirty socks! —MRD 20 14 02:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi S

I wanted to let you know that you forgot to sign this edit. BTW I think your assessment of the situation is sound. As ever thanks for your vigilance and enjoy the rest of your Sunday!! MarnetteD|Talk 17:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, thanks for letting me know MarnetteD Sro23 (talk) 17:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are most welcome :-) MarnetteD|Talk 17:31, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sock

Thanks. Too late for a CU, but I'm checking with one of the Admins who has been involved. I'm pretty sure you are right - well, I'm sure you're right, but want another confirmation. Doug Weller talk 18:21, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He's blocked along with JohnfromLondon. Thanks. Cleanup needed now. Doug Weller talk 05:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clerk training

I've created User:Sro23/Clerking and left you an assignment. Please keep that page on your watchlist so you can see when I update it.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:47, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RPP

The power of having your talk page on my watchlist. Remove if you don't want your talk page to be protected. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 02:53, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I get the feeling that's what the vandal wants though. Sro23 (talk) 03:03, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You can't make everybody happy. What made you victim of trolling anyways? All I see is the rollback being used. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 03:11, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I did-rollback the vandalism. Sro23 (talk) 03:17, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, Sro23. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 17:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 17:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brain freeze

Hi S and congrats on your becoming a clerk for SPI's. When you have a moment would you check on this. They are claiming to be FrozenFan2 (who was actually Bigshowandkane64 (talk · contribs)) but this edit is more likely to be a name that is escaping me at the moment (jared something or other I think) - I just don't want to file an my SPI at the wrong spot. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 19:16, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MarnetteD, it's User:Jaredgk2008. Sro23 (talk) 19:19, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ding ding ding. Thanks S. Zzuuzz has already taken care of the block and R/D so it is back to editing articles :-) Enjoy the rest of your weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 19:31, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Voice (U.S. season 12)

As I have explained on the article talk page, the controversies section has several deficiencies. Please do not add it back without significant changes, including sources which indicate this is an actual controversy related to this season of the show and not just a writer expressing an opinion that they do not like one aspect of the show. Thank you. Knope7 (talk) 22:57, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting "canvassing"

Other people's talk pages are not yours to censor. [2] among others. Toddst1 (talk) 02:16, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Funny thing about that. Remember that edit warrior from last year, User:Who R U?? The IP's I reverted are him. Sorry for not making that more clear. Sro23 (talk) 02:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. That was not at all clear. An SPI or a friendly nod to a CU should do the trick. Toddst1 (talk) 13:07, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations Todd on making a trivial situation worse. WTF were you thinking? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:35, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

YGM

Doug Weller talk 19:47, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I sent you a response. Sro23 (talk) 01:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wittgenstein123

Hello Sro23. I noticed that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Wittgenstein123 was closed. What should I do if I suspect that Raskolinkover (noping link) should also be included? Thanks, —Paleo Neonate – 03:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

Why this? These edits were constructive. It's just like you want every edit on Wikipedia reverted and I can't edit the encyclopedia at all. I don't know why you would revert that because it is so upsetting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.228.254.131 (talk) 06:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]