User talk:Eldomtom2

Welcome!

Hello, Eldomtom2, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

Text removal

Please don't remove referenced information the way you did in Victim blaming; I reverted you removal. Please state your objections in article talk page, Talk:Victim blaming, where other editors can join discussion of the issue. Your objections mus be based on our guidelines and presented with arguments to support your opinion. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:03, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve St Aubin railway station

Thanks for creating St Aubin railway station.

A New Page Patroller Boleyn just tagged the page as having some issues to fix, and wrote this note for you:

Please add your references.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can reply over here and ping me. Or, for broader editing help, you can talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Boleyn (talk) 19:57, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September 2021

Your recent editing history at South ParQ Vaccination Special shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. SanAnMan (talk) 13:44, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2022

Hello, I'm MichaelMaggs. I noticed that you recently removed content from The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Pie Society (film) without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. This article uses UK English, where "the" in that context is typical MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:00, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 2022

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Reverse racism. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 15:15, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Offtopic from AFD on list of locomotives

I dunno, i am probably guilty of going off-topic in the AFD. What i think you should vote is not of general interest, anyhow, so i will answer here instead. I think you should conclude "Keep" by now because you have asked questions and had them answered. Enough that i sorta think u "owe" that concession. Also you could acknowledge that you don't have much familiarity with lists in general, and just say you concede to others like Thyrrdlf(?) who do, so you accept "keep". Also i am not sure if you have considered guidance at wp:salat. You don't have to, of course, this is just my opinion, which doesn't really matter, and I don't really care either.

List of pizza chains and List of pizza chains in the United States are examples where inclusion depends on Wikipedia-notability of a topic, to be proven by existence of an article (that has risked and/or survived scrutiny like at AFD perhaps). So sorta foisting work off to others, not having arguments about a given item at the list-article. See the discussions on both their talk pages. On the second, in 2015, i was making some complicated argument. But DHG was right.

Hope this helps. I will "watchlist" here, but it's probably best if u ping me in any reply. --Doncram (talk) 22:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies!

Sorry about the reverting on the London Underground S7 and S8 Stock‎ - clearly I wasn't paying attention! Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 07:33, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1948 Palestinian exodus

Hi, thank you for your comment at the RFC. If it was your intention to support the move, it is usual to write Support else Oppose unless you really intended only to comment and then !vote later. Cheers. Selfstudier (talk) 12:55, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SMB Super Show merge discussion closed

An editor closed the discussion. Your draft looks like a good starting point for the merger so feel free to push it live when you get a chance. :) Axem Titanium (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you envision the TLOZ episode list living going forward? That's the only content missing post-merge. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:53, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With the rest of the Super Show episodes at List of Mario television episodes. If you could put them there that would be appreciated.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 22:44, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I agree that's an intuitive home for it. The list title says "Mario television episodes" so redirecting readers there would be WP:ASTONISHing, imo. I also think there's value in putting all 13 episode summaries next to each other instead of interspersing them with Mario episode summaries. Just spitballing an idea here, but since the SMB3 and SMW episode lists aren't terribly long, those could be returned to their respective articles and this list could be converted to focus solely on SMBSS. I'm not seeing a compelling reason why three separate shows should have their episode summaries compiled into one page. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:02, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think your reasoning makes a lot of sense, but you should probably ask others about it first.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 11:00, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I started a discussion there. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:13, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to COVID-19, broadly construed, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Bon courage (talk) 05:14, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:The Super Mario Bros. Super Show (merger proposal draft)

Hello, Eldomtom2. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:The Super Mario Bros. Super Show (merger proposal draft), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 03:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 2023

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Deltarune, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Please do not label edits such as mine as "vandalism" which "had to be reverted". 🌶️Jala peño🌶️ Don't click this link! 16:21, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deltarune

Have you actually played the game? Because from my knowledge, there are actually 3 fountains, not 2, let alone 2 Dark Fountains, and only one of the fountains needs to be sealed (the Eastern fountain). I don't want to cause an edit war and I want to explain to you that the edit revert is inaccurate.

About the "Genocide is another fan nickname that refers to the fan nickname of the Undertale route where the player kills every enemy instead of sparing them." sentence, in which you replaced "every enemy instead of sparing them" with "monster", people who have never played the game may think that the Genocide route could be the default route, or, even worse, think that it is the only possible route.

Now that I've gotten this off my chest, I want you to explain in detail the reasons for your revert. 🌶️Jala peño🌶️ Don't click this link! 17:59, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here is each of your changes and why I reverted them:

Changing "Dark Fountains" to "Dark Fountain" in lede - this should be obvious, Kris and Susie seal multiple Dark Fountains in the game.

Changing "SnowGrave" to "Snowgrave" - SnowGrave is the correct spelling per the game.

Changing ""SnowGrave" is a fan nickname based on the spell which marks the point of no return; returning to the normal route is no longer possible after using it" to ""Snowgrave" is a fan nickname based on the spell which marks the point of no return, as returning to the normal route is no longer possible after consistently using the spell" - again, this is a simple matter of accuracy to the game - returning to the normal route is no longer possible after using SnowGrave once on Berdly.

Changing "Snowgrave" is a fan nickname based on the spell which marks the point of no return, as returning to the normal route is no longer possible after consistently using the spell" to ""Genocide" is another fan nickname that refers to the fan nickname of the Undertale route where the player kills every enemy instead of sparing them" - we really don't need to go into precise detail in a footnote. From the fact it's described as a "route" a reader can guess that it's optional, and they can always read the Undertale article for more information.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 20:30, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that there was only 1 fountain that was closed, being the Eastern fountain. There were multiple fountains which were opened, but so far only 1 has been closed in the game.

The "SnowGrave" spelling seems fair enough. I've only played the normal route, and the camelcase in "SnowGrave" was off-putting for me. The "SnowGrave/Snowgrave" part can be kept as-is.

From the fact it's described as a "route" a reader can guess that it's optional

The reader could also think that sparing the enemy is optional, but that the default is that the enemies are killed. A few words doesn't really hurt in that footnote. 🌶️Jala peño🌶️ Don't click this link! 18:15, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The problem is that there was only 1 fountain that was closed, being the Eastern fountain. There were multiple fountains which were opened, but so far only 1 has been closed in the game." - er, you do know Chapter 2 exists right?

"A few words doesn't really hurt in that footnote" - It's a long footnote and there is no need to be absolutely precise with every little sentence. Unless you provide evidence that someone has actually been confused by the sentence it should stay how it is.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 18:38, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know Chapter 2 exists. I played it. The 3rd fountain was opened in Chapter 2. I'm not dumb, I've played the game. I also double-checked with the Deltarune Fandom wiki.

Yes, the footnote is long, but that extra detail in the sentence should be able to head.

I don't know how you could actually expect me to provide evidence of people being confused by this. I'm not an FBI agent. I don't spy on people. 🌶️Jala peño🌶️ Don't click this link! 19:01, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Yes, I know Chapter 2 exists. I played it. The 3rd fountain was opened in Chapter 2. I'm not dumb, I've played the game. I also double-checked with the Deltarune Fandom wiki." Kris and Susie seal one fountain in Chapter 1, and another fountain in Chapter 2. Do you agree with this?

"Yes, the footnote is long, but that extra detail in the sentence should be able to head." What do you mean by this?--Eldomtom2 (talk) 19:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After double-checking again, I can confirm that it was my fault. There are 2 fountains sealed. My bad.

I'm not going to revert your edit; I understand the reason for your revert.

But the only thing you shouldn't keep doing is reverting copyedits and calling them "vandalism". 🌶️Jala peño🌶️ Don't click this link! 05:55, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When "copyedits" do nothing but introduce errors, it's unsurprising that some people might assume vandalism.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 09:05, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You should try to learn to not think that vandalism/intentional bad edits and errors made in good faith are the same thing. I came to you to try and stop an edit war, which was successfully done, so we should end this thread now. 🌶️Jala peño🌶️ Don't click this link! 09:13, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:The Super Mario Bros. Super Show (merger proposal draft)

Hello, Eldomtom2. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "The Super Mario Bros. Super Show".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:51, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 2023

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Amazing Digital Circus. 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. Examples would be [1], [2], [3], and [4], all made within 24-48 hours of each other. GSK (talk • edits) 15:24, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of most powerful locomotives revision

The consensus of my edit is implicit. I already explained why the classification is separated changed. Also, the title clearly says "List of most powerful locomotives", and the current "Standard" paragraphs contains a lot of unrelated information for this top. RMY17 (talk) 23:17, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly can you have "implicit consensus" when no one has said anything?--Eldomtom2 (talk) 23:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly does implicit consensus work for you? The fact that nobody said anything means is implicit. Not to mention, you already have a warning for "editing war". RMY17 (talk) 23:28, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"I edited it and no one objected within a month" absolutely does not constitute any sort of consensus.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 09:51, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what your problem is. I watched messages above and it's not your first time having issues like this.

I'll try to explain you one more time.

I explicitly said in my edits to the article why the top should be classified as single-frame and multi-frame. I also mentioned above that the then-current standard didn't make much sense.

I consider the information contained inside my version of the article explicit enough to give any well-intentioned person a clear understanding of the reason of change. The implicit nature of the consensus comes from understanding the issues with the previous version and the logic my changes propose.

I don't think my version of the article is the best way possible and that no one can change my mind about it, but common sense tells me it's an "improved classification and criteria" compared to the previous one. I might be wrong, but since other people didn't have an issue with it, I think it's an improvement. A month is enough time for other editors to see the changes.

Your act of reverting it with the ambiguous reason "get consensus for making a radical change like this" doesn't contribute with anything constructive. I don't have a problem with you, but I don't think you are in a position to act like this. Your previous issues don't give you credibility. RMY17 (talk) 12:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"The implicit nature of the consensus comes from understanding the issues with the previous version and the logic my changes propose." - Providing an explanation does not prove the existence of consensus.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 14:31, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It does prove. Anyone well-intended will agree with a good-faith improvement, and my edit is a good-faith improvement. I already explained you why, with arguments. You make statements based on nothing but your view of the subject (not your first time being warned). Read Wikipedia's article on consensus because I'll stop wasting my time on you.

Have a nice day. RMY17 (talk) 15:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is absolute nonsense to claim that "anyone well-intended will agree with a good-faith improvement".--Eldomtom2 (talk) 16:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Read the Wikipedia's article on consensus and try to provide a valid argument next time. RMY17 (talk) 16:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have. Nowhere does it say "if you make an edit and no changes it, you now have consensus". Also this is literally the only page you've edited.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 16:55, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't. Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus#Through_editing

Yes, on English Wikipedia. This is irrelevant. Should we talk about your warnings? Because they are the reason you don't have credibility to me. RMY17 (talk) 17:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You linked a section that does not say reverting month-old edits is impermissible. Again, why don't you get a firmer consensus?--Eldomtom2 (talk) 18:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need for it. RMY17 (talk) 21:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And your reason for claiming that is?--Eldomtom2 (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right above. RMY17 (talk) 01:32, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Consensus policy page definitely does not say that reverting month-old edits is impermissible as they should be assumed to have consensus.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 14:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. It is you that doesn't have the credibility to do it. You can't blame me for not trusting you when you were warned so many times. RMY17 (talk) 15:38, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Credibility" has nothing to do with consensus.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 15:09, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Get your medication bro. Of course it does RMY17 (talk) 21:20, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A 1v1 scenario like this is hardly a case where one side can claim consensus.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 21:26, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then give up. RMY17 (talk) 22:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, why are you so resistant to the idea of trying to get a firmer consensus?--Eldomtom2 (talk) 15:04, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's pointless. It is already obvious enough. RMY17 (talk) 17:03, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 13:16, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

December 2023

Your recent editing history at The Amazing Digital Circus shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ErnestoCabral2018 (talk) 19:33, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one engaging in an edit war by continually reverting to a vandalised version of the page.Eldomtom2 (talk) 19:39, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Amazing Digital Circus. 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. You have already done this on the exact same page. Please stop. 🔥Jala peño🔥 Stupid stuff I did 09:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What edit war do you think is presently going on on the TADC page? I don't see one.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 09:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removing short words

I notice you remove short word this in The Amazing Digital Circus. Do you know why you remove short word TADC? You can use edit summary to explains why you edit. 47.234.198.142 (talk) 03:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it because unofficial abbreviations usually aren't worth mentioning. I note that you have a tendency to lecture others about Wikipedia policy despite breaking it frequently yourself.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 11:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 2024

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Amazing Digital Circus. 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. GSK (talk • edits) 02:16, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on The Amazing Digital Circus. 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. GSK (talk • edits) 18:45, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by tagging

Was this really so difficult that you couldn't do it yourself? We both know you're experienced enough that it would pose zero challenge for you. The least you could have done was actually linked an article (on the talk page, perhaps) instead of leaving vague information where someone had to search and hope that what they found was what you meant. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Piccadilly Line

The reason for the revert was because New Tube for London redirects to London Underground 2024 Stock - so there was no correction to make in my eyes. I was unaware of the move that had taken place from the (now) redirect. So the edit that was being made would really have fallen under WP:BROKEN - I hope you can appreciate why the edits were reverted. Danners430 (talk) 14:08, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Railway brake

Why did you undo my edit to Railway brake here: [5]? You should explain why you did that in an edit summary as required by the rules on reverting which say "In the edit summary or on the talk page, succinctly explain why the change you are reverting was a bad idea or why reverting it is a better idea". Also, please tell me why you reverted my change - which more accurately describes the partial list of brake types in the article. Thank you, Opolito (talk) 23:43, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I undid it because it does not more accurately describe the partial list of brake types in the article - I do not believe that it lists all the most common brake types.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 14:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it doesn't even list the common ones, then it certainly does not list all of the types. So claiming this is a section covering the types is worse than suggesting it is the common types. Opolito (talk) 16:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My version does not say it covers all the brake types.--Eldomtom2 (talk) 19:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]