User talk:2601:196:180:8D80:B172:FC7F:63F0:C835

February 2023

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Unione Corse—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 21:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

• Since you have acknowledged that your content dispute at Unione Corse has turned into an edit war, and you have acknowledged familiarity with WP:Edit warring and the consequences editors face for persisting in an edit war, I have reverted the article to the status quo ante situation while you, Materialscientist, and other editors discuss the wording of the article at the talk page and reach consensus about what changes, if any, should be included. —C.Fred (talk) 21:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, but you and I know it's not worth the effort. Materialscientist wins - which is a terrible look for them, as a WP administrator. Who repeatedly refused to explain his rational, knew all the proper steps to take and refused to take them, and insisted instead on repeatedly mass reverting edits that had legitimate explanations - clarifying for example that South Vietnam was the relevant incarnation of the former French Indochina (in the context South Vietnam had been introduced), or adding an appropriate link to explain what the otherwise mere name for a French bottled water "Vichy" meant; and, further, clarifying the nature of the waterfront activities and related "elimination" of problematic figures (never even getting the chance to go back and cite either of those latter two). Which NEVER WERE flagged "citation needed", because Materialscientist insisted on NOT doing their job as a plain old WP editor, let alone an administrator instigating and inflaming an edit war.

(Characterizations - in the latter two instances (replacing the willfully euphemistic [Free French] "pacified and rendered harmless" prominent German sympathizers, with a standard term for such things ("eliminated"); and the Union Corse bringing in strikebreakers (the term used in the article for the muscle the Union brought in, linked to its WP article) to "persuade" longshoremen back to work being replaced by "strongarmed", as that is what they did, not have tea with them - supported in such sources as Alfred W. McCoy, Cathleen B. Reach, and Leonard D. Adams, "The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia" (Harper & Row, 1972); Peter Dale Scott, "The War Conspiracy" (Bobbs-Merrill, 1972); Henrik Krueger, "The Great Heroin Coup" (South End, 1980); and Leslie Cockburn, Out of Control (Atlantic Monthly, 1987).)

See? At most, any reasonable editor would have *individually reverted* any single edits they objected to, and explained why - which Materilscientist was repeatedly invited then requested to do - yet steadfastly refused.

It's a stacked deck, and is not good for the encyclopedia. At all. 2601:196:180:8D80:B172:FC7F:63F0:C835 (talk) 22:29, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

---