Page semi-protected

Talk:Android (operating system)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Article milestones
Date Process Result
July 25, 2007 Articles for deletion Deleted
October 7, 2007 Articles for deletion Kept
December 25, 2011 Peer review Reviewed

Any guess why big jump in Android share [majority for one week in the US]..?

[and loss of share], e.g. just majority in the US[1] and similar pattern in at least the UK, but not all other countries, e.g. India. This is probably just a fluke, or release on some phone? comp.arch (talk)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2017

Change the first device to run Nougat is LG V20 not Pixel and Pixel Xl. Stevangorre (talk) 16:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for bringing this to our attention! :) LocalNet (talk) 17:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I reverted this change. The column in question is labelled "First devices to run version", not first device to ship with the version. The first phone to ship with Nougat (via v7.0) was the LG V20 in Sept 2016 - but some Nexus phones were upgradable to v7.0 in Aug 2016, so technically they were running it prior to the V20 release. The first phone to ship with v7.1 were the Pixel devices in Oct 2016, and were the first to be running that version of Nougat - as of April 2017, the LG V20 has not yet received an update to v7.1. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 20:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
@Barek: Thanks for spotting that detail. I misinterpreted the column statement. But should we use a Nexus device there instead of Pixel? LocalNet (talk) 09:03, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
@LocalNet: The table already shows the first devices to run v7.0 to be Nexus 5X, Nexus 6P - and shows the Pixel devices as the first to run v7.1; so I think we're okay on the devices as being acurate for the existing table structure. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 21:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Isn't it always going to be a Google (or Google collaboration/developer) device? :) I mean anyone can fork AOSP, but the next official ASOP is always going to come from Google, so they always run the "first" version?! Is this column maybe not helpful as is? Or maybe "helpful" but then kind of promotional? comp.arch (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
I think the column does provide some value for historical reference of which device was the fist in each generation to receive the OS version. But, if the details can be found for past releases, I wouldn't be opposed to adding a column showing the first device to ship with each version. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 21:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

New Developer Preview is out

Page is protected and I can't update version info in infobox.

Android O developer preview 3 is out 08 June 2017.

Proof: https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2017/06/android-o-apis-are-final-get-your-apps.html

Iamckesc (talk) 18:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Iamckesc: Thanks for informing me! I will update the article :) LocalNet (talk) 18:20, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2017

Change "Android is a mobile operating system developed by Google, based on the Linux kernel and designed primarily for touchscreen mobile devices such as smartphones and tablets."

to "Android is a open-source mobile operating system developed by Google, based on the Linux kernel and designed primarily for touchscreen mobile devices such as smartphones and tablets.

Open-source is an important attribute when it comes to software.

Thanks. New account 2 (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi @New account 2: The third paragraph in the lead states "Android's source code is released by Google under an open source license", and it's a better fit for the information given its context of an engaged and active developer community later in the paragraph. LocalNet (talk) 15:05, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
The third paragraph describes the open-source nature of the software in detail. But it's better to qualify the description of the software in the leading sentence by adding the "open-source" description there. Then if someone wants to know about it in detail, they will refer to the third paragraph in the intro and within the article. Thanks. I just think that a simple qualifying the description with "open-source" deserves to be in the intro sentence for a more descriptive and precise introduction. Thanks. New account 2 (talk) 15:12, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
A counter-example for you: The "description of the software" is that it's a mobile operating system. That's what the majority of people understand and know. I don't think the average reader cares about - or possibly even understands - open-source or closed-source code. The third paragraph describes the essence of open-source software in an understandable manner that the lone words "open-source" don't do on their own. LocalNet (talk) 15:26, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, because people don't know or care, we have wikilinks. Open-source stands as an important attribute independent of what people care or know about when they first read the sentence. Thanks. New account 2 (talk) 15:32, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
But... that doesn't make sense. At least it doesn't in my mind. Open-source is given a lot of attention in the third paragraph, where we actually explain the details for readers. Why is it so important to feature the words "open-source" in the introduction sentence when, just a little later, there's much more information relating to it? Sorry, I just genuinely disagree with "important attribute independent of what people care or know about when they first read the sentence". Why should readers be given the information in the first sentence when the information and explanatory details are in the third? I think that would just create confusion and be unnecessary repetition. LocalNet (talk) 15:39, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
I think the question is whether it is good or important enough to note it in the intro sentence. I try to think like you and also think it's not notable enough. But then when I first thought of it, independent of your criticism and just thinking of a place for "open-source" in the intro, it looked okay to put it there because most software is closed-soure and therefore Android is an exception. I truly understand your criticism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by New account 2 (talkcontribs) 15:44, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
It doesn't mean that I acquiesce. I think that a better conclusion is required since the open-source nature is exceptional and uncommon and also that it is important for the software itself, it's nature and development. New account 2 (talk) 16:01, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Hehe, I just have to once again point out that "open-source nature is exceptional and uncommon and also that it is important for the software itself, it's nature and development" is exactly what the third paragraph details and that just the words "open-source" in the introduction wouldn't adequately explain any of that. But we appear to be on opposing sides. Either someone else will join this discussion the next time they check Wikipedia and be the deciding third-party, or dispute resolution would have to be necessary. LocalNet (talk) 16:08, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
The word "open-source" may not explain everything, but it's better than saying nothing, as it has been determined that it is at least important. Thanks. New account 2 (talk) 16:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── We seem to be circling around in this discussion. I will probably stop responding since there is no progress or new opinions/information emerging, but just to address the latest comment: "better than saying nothing"; *cough* third paragraph *cough* LocalNet (talk) 16:24, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks and all. I'll also not progress, but just that people shouldn't need to look at a later paragraph when the information is important enough to just be noted in the intro sentence. Maybe it will be better to link the word to the section in the article itself and not the article on "open-source model," so readers find more specific information. Thanks and all and let's see what we can do about it. Thanks. New account 2 (talk) 16:32, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree with LocalNet. To New account 2: Please read WP:LEDE and WP:UNDUE. New editors frequently seek to influence opinions by changing the lede, typically without good reason. You do not have consensus. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:34, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm trying to change the lead not to influence public opinion, but because people read it first and I read it first. Thanks. New account 2 (talk) 17:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Everything does not need to (and cannot) go in the first sentence of the lede. We cover the open source aspect in the infobox, in the body of the article, and in the lede. I don't see any need for this to be in the first sentence, particularly since we point out that most Android devices ship with a combination of open source and proprietary software. Meters (talk) 19:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Most Popular in lead.

I placed information with references in the lead about Android being the most popular. Was reverted thrice. Hopefully that person won't violate the wp:3rr rule. Reasons for the reverts where:

1. Don't place new info in the lead. This seems like the person is making up rules.

2. Needs to have info in the article if it is in the lead. Again seems like the person is making up rules. The information is concise and stands on its own. If someone wants to expand on, then go ahead, but that isn't a reason for revert.

What do you think? Thanks, Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:12, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Daniel.Cardenas: Aggressive today, are we? :) First off, let's avoid the insistence that I am "making up rules". I very clearly linked to WP:LEAD, which states "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article". Adding new information only in the lead breaks that guideline. Furthermore, please note that I added information in the article, reworded the information to clarify what terms "most popular" meant, and once I understood that it concerned "total Internet usage", I was unsure if it needed to be in the lead. Let's not draw a conclusion not stated by the source.
For future reference, there is no need to continuously re-add information once reverted by another user. It is so much easier to have a proper discussion rather than edit-war. While not a policy, bold, revert, discuss is an excellent example of good community relations.
And also, you are not even going to give me a chance to respond before you continue the reversions? Really? -.- LocalNet (talk) 18:25, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
@Emir of Wikipedia: I am discussing on the talk page. I have yet to receive a response from Daniel Cardenas, and why did you revert me without offering a commentary here first? LocalNet (talk) 19:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
I was in the middle of an edit, but suffered from an edit conflict in what looks like the possible start of an edit war between you two. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:11, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
@Emir of Wikipedia: The page's stable version was before the "most popular operating system" information was introduced. I am trying to maintain that until we reach an agreement here. At this time, the information is WP:SYNTH, and without me adding the info down in the article, would violate WP:LEAD. I question if the information is even worthy of the lead given the "total Internet usage" statement. LocalNet (talk) 19:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
I have restored to the previous version. How is it WP:SYNTH if it is making the same claim as the source? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:17, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! "most popular operating system" is an ambiguous statement. Popular in what way? Social media posts/critical acclaim/user demographic polls/devices sold etc. The source makes it clear that it is in "total Internet usage", but anyone who reads the information could not have that specific term in mind before reading the source. LocalNet (talk) 19:21, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Getting to the actual discussion. The source makes it clear that Android is the most popular operating system by "total Internet usage". That's information that's suitable in the section I moved it into and reworded it, but I don't think it's an important aspect of Android that its users spend a lot of time online. Furthermore, the source specifies that Android users had 37.93% market share, against 37.91% for Windows. Not exactly a major leap of difference, and could easily be switched again. LocalNet (talk) 19:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I've cooled down a little bit following the earlier back-and-forth reversions and would just like to apologize for the "Aggressive today, are we?" comment in my initial reply. I get really frustrated in situations where opposing editors seemingly ignore my edit summaries and proceed to revert me and start a talk page discussion, leaving me in the intensely difficult situation of choosing which one to address first (main page is seen by people, talk page is for explaining thoughts). I failed to stay WP:CALM. It's a learning process to handle disputes correctly and it's not easy, but I want everyone who reads this to know I have insights into my own wording and realize that comment might just have sparked more disagreement. I apologize, and would like to focus on the content. I am going to bed soon, though, so I will pick up the conversation again tomorrow. LocalNet (talk) 20:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)


Response to @LocalNet:
Aggressive today, are we? :)

Hopefully you can do better than personal attacks in the future. Apology accepted. And you are being reported for violating wp:3rr.

First off, let's avoid the insistence that I am "making up rules".

Don't add stuff the lead? Is that making up rules?

I very clearly linked to WP:LEAD, which states "Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article".

You added text in the article? Are you just being argumentative here?

Adding new information only in the lead breaks that guideline.

How about these guidelines from wp:lead?
  1. cultivates the reader's interest in reading more of the article
  2. explain why the topic is notable

Furthermore, please note that I added information in the article, reworded the information to clarify what terms "most popular" meant, and once I understood that it concerned "total Internet usage", I was unsure if it needed to be in the lead. Let's not draw a conclusion not stated by the source.

Seriously? Is not three sources sufficient?
Here is the title of the first source: Android Beats Windows, Now Officially The World’s Most Popular OS
Here is the text that I typed in: According to StatCounter, Android is the most popular operating system
Where is the syntheses?

For future reference, there is no need to continuously re-add information once reverted by another user. It is so much easier to have a proper discussion rather than edit-war. While not a policy, bold, revert, discuss is an excellent example of good community relations.

Seriously there is no need to be argumentative, think you own the article, invent rules, and revert good edits. You have better things to do.

And also, you are not even going to give me a chance to respond before you continue the reversions? Really?

Talk page discussion and revert were done at about the same time, really.

Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 05:32, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Sigh. I was hoping we could have a proper discussion. For several of the points here, it seems you've ignored my explanations earlier in this conversation. To address a few of the aspects raised here:
"Don't add stuff in the lead? Is that making up rules?" - Please note that I wrote "We can write a summary of that info in the lead, but the info needs to be in the article"
"cultivates the reader's interest in reading more of the article" and "explain why the topic is notable" - is it really that interesting that Android users spend a lot of time online? I really don't think it's very notable for a difference of less than a percentage point from Windows.
"Seriously? Is not three sources sufficient?" - You're specifically stating the titles of sources. Sources are also information in the article. "Officially The World’s Most Popular OS" is almost a click-bait title, if you ask me. StatCounter clearly specified that it concerned "total Internet usage" in the article.
"Seriously there is no need to be argumentative, think you own the article, invent rules, and revert good edits. You have better things to do." - I thought we were done with personal attacks? LocalNet (talk) 06:10, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


"cultivates the reader's interest in reading more of the article" and "explain why the topic is notable" - is it really that interesting that Android users spend a lot of time online? I really don't think it's very notable for a difference of less than a percentage point from Windows.
Your opinion is noted. I think others will find it very interesting.
"Seriously? Is not three sources sufficient?" - You're specifically stating the titles of sources. Sources are also information in the article. "Officially The World’s Most Popular OS" is almost a click-bait title, if you ask me. StatCounter clearly specified that it concerned "total Internet usage" in the article.
Are you giving up on wp:synth claim?

Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 07:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── At this point, I'm tempted to just let others be the deciding third-parties. And we should probably let the noticeboard incident finish. Honestly, it seems like you're more concerned with invalidating me ("making up rules", "are you giving up on synth claim?" and the last personal attacks), rather than content, where I've repeatedly expressed my thinking based on information in the sources and guidelines. I hope I've made myself clear in my edit summaries and my explanations here. LocalNet (talk) 07:45, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

You've made yourself clear that you were claiming wp:synth, but know are not willing to back it up. It seems you are more concerned with trying to throw the argument elsewhere. What are you points if any for not having most popular in the lead? My points are:
  1. It is very interesting, and most interesting content goes in the lead.
  2. It cultivates the readers interest on topic.
Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 08:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
For full disclosure for anyone reading this who don't check the page history, I want to let everyone know the opposing user edited their comment to remove the statement "You should just admit it, that it was a worthless claim" (regarding WP:SYNTH). That contradicts my explanation I've previously stated on this talk page, seen above as a reply to "Emir of Wikipedia". Repeated here for ease of accessibility: ""most popular operating system" is an ambiguous statement. Popular in what way? Social media posts/critical acclaim/user demographic polls/devices sold etc. The source makes it clear that it is in "total Internet usage", but anyone who reads the information could not have that specific term in mind before reading the source". Thank you. LocalNet (talk) 08:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── OK. I just saw that the edit-warring report has been cancelled. Thank you. I have a suggestion for you. What if we start entirely fresh? End this conversation and start a new talk page discussion, starting anew. Stating all of our points better, avoiding any personal insults, and both be willing to compromise. I have a feeling we went down the wrong path with the edit-warring report on the side, preventing any good-faith compromises or polite exchanges from happening. Thoughts? LocalNet (talk) 08:43, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Android (operating system). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:02, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

For anyone else watching this page, I will take a look at this. Writing this here to avoid edit conflicts from others doing the same :) LocalNet (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Several of the links marked by the bot concern the "Market share" section, a section that dives deeply into seemingly every single measurement metric to cover Android's expansion into the most-used operating system on the planet. Many of the statements look to link primarily, if not only, to the actual research company's own reports. However, not every report is notable. That's why we have the WP:SECONDARY guideline. Some of the info also looks to represent then-recent events. I don't have time right now, but we should go through that section later, replace the primary sources with secondary sources, and remove just simply unecessarily detailed reports. LocalNet (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
I have thought for ages that the market share section is a wreck and needs work so please make any edits you think are necessary to bring it under control. – Steel 18:20, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Making the page protected due to an edit request

Side discussion about the reasons for reverting and page protection. --MelanieN (talk) 17:20, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hey @Jd22292, Sro23, Davey2010, Sro23, and Adam9007: I can see there was a lot of back-and-forth edits here. There may be information about the user(s) I don't have, but in regards to the edit. Next time, maybe try to properly read what the user tried to explain in their edit requests here. It was a genuine thing, an issue with the links where one lead to logins/dead pages and the other to correct versions. You turned away not just them from becoming contributors, but potentially anyone else who now cannot write here... They definitely shouldn't have been cursing in edit summaries, but the information in the actual edit request was good. LocalNet (talk) 08:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Also pinging MelanieN into this. You blocked the 74.91.2.234 IP and protected this talk page. If there is any background information I don't know on the talk page user with the edit requests, then please give me some intel. Looking at this from a third-party perspective, it looks like multiple Wikipedia users blatantly ignored a user who was trying to get genuine attention. Why even revert the edit requests at all? A simple reply would be much more civil. I'm writing this to try to get some sense in the situation. Can anyone give me an explanation? LocalNet (talk) 13:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
I think this was block/ban evasion. Can't remember off the top of my head who though. Adam9007 (talk) 14:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nate Speed/Archive. Aside from the apparent sockpuppetry, the edit summaries alone are enough for WP:RBI. --MelanieN (talk) 14:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
P.S. The exact same thing was going on at three other talk pages as well. Details can be found at the rolling archive of WP:RFPP (at the bottom of the request page). --MelanieN (talk) 14:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Adam9007 and MelanieN: I found this page on the disputes with the user. Some of it appears to be wrong, however. If we take information in the edit request on *this page* specifically, the user stated that the link "https://www.wsj.com/article/SB118602176520985718.html" leads to an error page. It does! "Page unavailable" it tells me. They suggested changing it to "http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118602176520985718.html" (without the "s" in "https"), which works! In the actual Android article right now, if you search for "Google Pushes Tailored Phones To Win Lucrative Ad Market", you'll find the relevant link. This one. It uses an archive-URL with the "http" format (not https), specifically. Click directly on "the original" link and you get a "Page unavailable" text, which is the HTTPS variant I'm assuming was done by the bot discussed in the dispute page above. LocalNet (talk) 14:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Update: I'm a subscriber of The Wall Street Journal and just remembered I am signed in. That's why I get "Page unavailable". I opened one of the links in incognito, and got login page. The user appears to be right. LocalNet (talk) 14:40, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
@MelanieN: How come not a single person on the dispute page suggested to find someone subscribing to the Journal to check what's behind the login wall!? I also checked this talk page, and again, the user is right. "Page unavailable" after logging in. Seriously! It's alarming for me that this chaos was created apparently without gathering sufficient evidence from both sides? Trying not to get mad here, but I have to say I am. I won't scream in edit summaries like the other user, but it's frightening that it wasn't properly checked and situations like this arise. LocalNet (talk) 15:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
@MelanieN: Checked this and this too. The user is correct in those instances as well. "Page unavailable". Their description, "They're now dead links that redirect to nothing but login pages instead of the articles" is completely correct. I'm scared of asking how far back this has happened. I mean... wow. Verifying the user's information is as simple as finding a person with access/starting a subscription, and yet, now the user is being blocked. Honestly, I can understand why they used multiple accounts or screamed in summaries. They weren't being properly listened to. What do we do now? LocalNet (talk) 15:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
LocalNet, I'm not involved in the article content. You'll have to take this up with other editors at this page. Or (since you are an experienced editor in good standing) if you think the edit request was valid, you can simply implement it. --MelanieN (talk) 15:53, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
@MelanieN: Lovely way to not take responsibility! What if the user has been right all along? We're just going to ignore that and let them stay blocked? At the very least, take an interest in the situation (not the article content) and see if the blocks and reversions have been unnecessary by helping me start a new discussion somewhere similar to the one on the original dispute page. You're an admin, I am not. I have no idea where to do such a thing, but I'm trying to make things right. And P.S. "If you think the edit request was valid" - ehm have you read my previous messages here? How can you not also think the edit request was valid if you read my argumentation? "you can simply implement it" - I have already made the corrections. LocalNet (talk) 16:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • If someone's going to use the edit summary "THIS IS JUST AN *EDIT REQUEST*, YOU F*CKING BUTTHURT F*GGOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! D:<" then common sense would tell you that person's going to be reverted regardless of their edits, Anyway as noted above the IP was Mr Speed who has now been community banned from this website so IMHO if we do lose him then that's a good thing and one can only hope one day he takes the hint and gets lost for good (to put it in polite terms!). –Davey2010Talk 15:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @Davey2010: "then common sense would tell you that person's going to be reverted regardless of their edits" - No. I believe common sense would dictate that you let them know cursing isn't allowed on Wikipedia. Furthermore, the first few worlds CLEARLY state what the user was trying to do. Being frustrated and probably mad, they used the mistake of cursing. If you've ever been mad, you probably realize cursing comes almost naturally. This person's mistake was writing it down. And WOW: "if we do lose him then that's a good thing and one can only hope one day he takes the hint and gets lost for good" - lovely community we have here! I'd love to show this talk page to everyone in the world visiting Wikipedia. I'm on the contrary path. I hope the person improves their personality and becomes a great part of Wikipedia in the future! See the differences here?
  • (Redacted) ..... He's been WP:COMMUNITYBANNED from this website so regardless of whether his edits are good or bad they'll be reverted - I don't care for the few words he wrote - He wrote that edit summary in a disruptive and an offensive way (How do you know I'm not gay ? ..... Obviously I'm not but you dont know that and neither does he), He was apart of the community until he fucked it all up and might I say he's fucked his chances up here more than once so no I do hope he takes the hint and gets lost!, We don't tolerate any shit here at all, he was given chances and he blew it so he gets what he deserves, might I suggest you drop all of this and move on ? ... He's not a new user so you're basically wasting your time. –Davey2010Talk 16:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • See! Now you made the mistake of using a personal insult against me! You fell in a similar trap yourself. I'm not sure what the "gay" paranthesis information is supposed to be. But I can see that my attempts to actually convey some proper and significant information is being completely ignored, seemingly out of spite. Wonderful... Wikipedia should be so proud. LocalNet (talk) 16:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Davey, I was just in the process of asking you not to insult this user but got edit conflicted. You know better than that. They are here in good faith and just don't know about the back story. I'd like to see you apologize. --MelanieN (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── And you know what, I'm just gonna pile on with even more information here. From the public's perspective, does anyone here who took part in the active reversions, including Jd22292, Sro23, Davey2010, Adam9007, think it's a good outlook for Wikipedia to just revert edit requests, especially without an explanation for why in the edit summary? The public has no knowledge of the background of a dispute. I may be the only one who has actually asked what it's all about. Quick non-explanatory reversions of talk page messages, especially decent-looking ones where the user is begging to be properly heard, looks incredibly hostile. "Oh, you were going to try and help us fix some links? TOO BAD!" Way to improve the reputation of the Wikipedia community... At the very least, follow in the footsteps of the Bill Clinton talk page, in which the relevant content was put in a collapsed box with a reason for the decline. LocalNet (talk) 16:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Some of us have seen this all before. It started with a thread on WT:ER by Eggishorn. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:18, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

LocalNet, I can see you are upset about what appears to be an injustice. But there is a LOT of backstory here. After repeated instances of sock puppetry (see User talk:Nate Speed), the user was community banned from Wikipedia for making death threats! See the AN discussion here. The community has decided that this is someone who should never edit at Wikipedia. Not even if a particular edit suggestion is valid. If you find this suggestion to be valid, then make it in the article, but unfortunately there is nothing wrong with the way this user was treated. --MelanieN (talk) 16:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for giving me information MelanieN. I now understand the situation better. In that case, fine. But I'd still like to point out that quick non-explanatory reversions are seen by me, other editors and the public, who may have no knowledge of this background. It looks hostile by the editors and Wikipedia community, not by the user, when the actual conflict is the other way around. Like you said above, I came here in good faith to figure out what happened, but others may not ask and simply avoid suggesting edits. LocalNet (talk) 16:53, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm glad you understand now. And apparently you have made the article corrections so we are good here. I'd like to give User:Davey2010 a chance to respond, and then I'm going to hat this discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 16:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
LocalNet & MelanieN - I apologise for making that comment, I've got issues IRL and the lack of sleep certainly isn't helping but regardless I apologise. –Davey2010Talk 17:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)