Jump to content

User talk:2604:3D09:AB88:4600:E403:BA36:6847:7E0B

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

September 2023

[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:48, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Everything Everywhere All at Once, you may be blocked from editing. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't disrupt anything- as the edit that was made on that page (Everything Everywhere All At Once) was agreed upon in the article's talk page. I was also given the green light to make that change by another editor here. It's not "disruption" when it was agreed upon in the talk page! 2604:3D09:AB88:4600:E403:BA36:6847:7E0B (talk) 11:35, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following was written to me in regards to the edit I made on Everything Everywhere All At Once: "I see you have reinstated your edit on Everything Everywhere All at Once, because in that case there was indeed consensus reached on the talk page, and I apologize for having reverted that particular instance.". As you can see/read, that change was justified and made solely based on the consensus reached on the talk page, as nobody else had changed it to what I had changed it to despite consensus having been reached there! Or maybe it was changed- then changed back- without knowledge of the consensus made on the talk page. Regardless, that change was made solely due to the consensus, and as such is NOT disruption. Thanks for understanding! 2604:3D09:AB88:4600:E403:BA36:6847:7E0B (talk) 11:47, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Please stop unnecessarily changing genres. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, my changes were made solely based on talk page consensus having been reached, and nothing more. That isn't "vandalism"- that's what Wikipedia is all about! 2604:3D09:AB88:4600:E403:BA36:6847:7E0B (talk) 11:51, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stop icon You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 11:06, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Edit warring on Everything Everywhere All at Once

[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Everything Everywhere All at Once. 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:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. 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. — Manticore 12:15, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am NOT in an "edit war". The changes I made were solely done based on consensus that was made on the talk page, where it was agreed upon to change it to what it was changed to. I also had another editor's go-ahead once they realized that talk page consensus was reached, and they even apologized to me for changing it back! No one "disagreed" on the changes I made either, because again- they were made based solely on CONSENSUS.! If it's agreed upon via consensus in the talk page, it's perfectly JUSTIFIED to make the changes I made! So again, I am NOT in an edit war, because everyone agreed on changing it! Based on that, the edits that were made should NOT have been reverted whatsoever! 2604:3D09:AB88:4600:E403:BA36:6847:7E0B (talk) 12:22, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What you are doing currently is the very definition of edit warring. Familiarise yourself with WP:3RR. — Manticore 12:26, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's not an edit war. If consensus was reached in the article's talk page- which it was- then there is no "edit war", as it was agreed upon by everyone there! Nobody should've changed a thing, because consensus was reached! 2604:3D09:AB88:4600:E403:BA36:6847:7E0B (talk) 12:30, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In case you WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT, please stop. You are in the wrong. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 12:33, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not in the wrong. A consensus was reached in the talk page of that article- I'm even looking at it in a separate tab as we speak, so it's there! This response I received the first time I edited that article further shows that consensus was indeed reached, and that nothing further should've happened- no reverts- nothing. ""I see you have reinstated your edit on Everything Everywhere All at Once, because in that case there was indeed consensus reached on the talk page, and I apologize for having reverted that particular instance.". There you have it! So again, I'm NOT in the wrong. For an edit war to have happened, it must mean that consensus was not reached, but in this case- it was. 2604:3D09:AB88:4600:E403:BA36:6847:7E0B (talk) 12:45, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is not consensus. Talk:Everything Everywhere All at Once#Regarding the genre... is not by any means a solid consensus. Please, stop your disruptive editing. Wikipedia is not the place for a WP:GENREWARRIOR. Find something else to do, please. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 12:49, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If that was true (it's not), then I wouldn't have received the message from a fellow editor who originally had the same mindset that you did- until they realized that THEY were wrong and that consensus was indeed reached. That same editor also gave me the green light to change it back! Nothing further should've come out of that, as I'm only going by what the consensus- as well as what the other editor told me. Are you calling them a liar? 2604:3D09:AB88:4600:E403:BA36:6847:7E0B (talk) 12:53, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You have the wrong section! The consensus was made in a different section- which explains why you couldn't see it! 2604:3D09:AB88:4600:E403:BA36:6847:7E0B (talk) 13:30, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given that you have now been repeatedly advised of the relevant policies, could you please explain which of the WP:3RR exemptions you are relying on? Thanks. — Manticore 12:50, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you're referring to doesn't apply in this instance, as I made the edits based off of the consensus that was reached on the talk page. I originally had another editor who was of the same mindset as you who ended up double checking and discovering that consensus WAS indeed reached, and that editor apologized to me and gave me the green light to revert it back to how it was when I made the edit! They realized that THEY were in the wrong, and considering my edits were made based on the reasons I already mentioned a billion times, the article should NOT have been changed back to how it was before the edits were made, and they shouldn't have been changed back now either! That's why whatever you're talking about doesn't apply here, because if it would've stayed the way it was once the edits were made, then not a single revert would've even of been necessary! Unless you're calling that other editor a liar, but I HIGHLY doubt that! Once I was given the green light to change it back after that other editor originally reverted the edits that were made- only to realize that they themselves were in the wrong and even apologized to me- I changed it back, and that is where it should've been left. This misunderstanding wouldn't be happening either! 2604:3D09:AB88:4600:E403:BA36:6847:7E0B (talk) 13:02, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But technically, the one that applies to an article being vandalized is the one that would apply to this situation here, as once the other editor realized their mistake and apologized to me for it, then allowing me to change it back means that the action of me changing it back would've been the last edit that mattered, and any edits made AFTER that point would classify as vandalism against the edits I made that were approved, and so that is why me changing it back would count as the "reverting vandalism" applies in this situation! 2604:3D09:AB88:4600:E403:BA36:6847:7E0B (talk) 13:14, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

[edit]
Stop icon with clock
Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring.
During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Ad Orientem (talk) 13:31, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.
information Administrator note The only acceptable reasons for edit warring are reverting naked vandalism, serious BLP violations, copyright violations, reverting per WP:DENY, and self reverts. That's it. You were definitely edit warring. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:34, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not when I was given permission to edit it after somebody else thought the same thing you do, went back, double checked, realized that THEY were the one in the wrong- NOT me- and told me that there wouldn't be any further problems! As such, it's not even classified as "edit warring", as consensus was reached on the talk page, and the other editor realized that and apologized for accusing me of edit warring. It's high time you did the same. 2604:3D09:AB88:4600:E403:BA36:6847:7E0B (talk) 13:41, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. I'm not. The editor who originally thought the same as you ended up realizing their error, and apologized to me for falsely accusing me starting an edit war. I made all the edits based on what I was told (and saw) regarding the consensus that was made on the talk page as well as what this other user told me. Considering they assured me afterwards that nothing would happen afterwards, that either makes the other editor a liar, or it makes you wrong. I'm certain it's the latter! 2604:3D09:AB88:4600:E403:BA36:6847:7E0B (talk) 13:51, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:NOT3RR and explain to me which criteria your edits fall under as an exception to the prohibition of edit warring. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have already stated that there is no consensus. There is no "permission" to be granted; if another editor agrees with you does not mean you don't have to listen to others. You keep saying you WP:DIDNTHEARTHAT, but as a result of your actions you have been blocked for 24 hours. Please take a moment to realise you might be wrong. Hopefully you will return to edit constructively from now on. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 14:28, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Stop icon with clock
Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked temporarily from editing for block evasion.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Ad Orientem (talk) 00:14, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2604:3D09:AB88:4600:E403:BA36:6847:7E0B&oldid=1173522705"