User talk:Peter Njeim

Welcome!

Hello, Peter Njeim, 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 complete 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! I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @ 19:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, how did you know that the .css subpages existed so soon? I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @ 19:44, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2023

Your recent editing history 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; read about 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. MrOllie (talk) 03:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see this message earlier, sorry for making a message on your talk page. I think you're mistaken, there is no edit war (or at least, there was one, then I complied). I resolved the dispute (despite the demand being unnecessary as it violates no Wikipedia policy to use primary sources in this instance). Since I don't want to anger you, I won't revert your revision myself, and instead ask you to do it, thanks in advance. Peter Njeim (talk) 03:29, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are obviously repeating the same edit over and over - changing up the sourcing slightly does not mean you are not edit warring. You need to stop and reach an agreement on the article's associated talk page. MrOllie (talk) 03:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but the dispute wasn't the content of the edit, it was the sourcing, right? So I added the source and now it's resolved. I'm not sure there was any dispute about the edit itself, just that it was "minute". Remember that the prior revision has no sources to back up its claim. I don't want to use the talk page because I feel this has already been resolved. My edit is sourced, the only dispute has been resolved, and now it should stand, am I right? Peter Njeim (talk) 03:35, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing to edit war is not resolving the dispute - reaching agreement on the talk page is the way to do that. If you keep trying to edit war like this and if you refuse to use the talk page because you 'don't want to', your account will almost certainly be blocked. MrOllie (talk) 03:37, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I agree with that characterization. I didn't say because I "don't want to". I said I don't want to because the dispute was resolved. I don't appreciate you misrepresenting my words. Again, you seem to be avoiding my reasoning. Normally an edit war is just two people disagreeing on the words in an edit. In this case someone disagreed with my sourcing, so I added a secondary source. I'm really not sure what to tell you at this point, you want me to talk to Drmies and see if he's ok with my secondary source? Peter Njeim (talk) 03:41, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll just further add that I took offense to Drmies claiming my edit was "minute and meaningless", and wondering if it "matters at all". Considering the edit I replaced individually listed a dozen or so countries for no apparent reason (I can hypothesize the reason to be wanting to make America look small in comparison to a long list of countries (seen it first hand as a Canadian)). Considering it also had no source to back up the list of countries either, I honestly am contemplating whether I should've just replaced American English with North American English, replaced the list of countries with Commonwealth English, and not bothered adding the "except Canada" part, and hoped that readers understood that North American English includes Canada and therefore excludes it from Commonwealth English for that sentence, no source needed, and saved me this 2-hour-long trouble of correcting a small detail on Wikipedia. Man it's frustrating to contribute to this website. Peter Njeim (talk) 03:53, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]