User talk:S26205229

Welcome!

Hello, S26205229, 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!--Biografer (talk) 02:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February 2019

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at First Man (film). Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. TJRC (talk) 20:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring??

To whoever this may concern:

I am totally baffled by what is taking place here. It is not edit warring to correct something that has been repeatedly proven as true. If others choose to change it, it is no more argumentative to change it back as it is they insisting it is true. That being said, I haven’t made more than three edits to this page in 24 hours, therefore, there is no reason for the warning message. I do feel it’s important that the material on the page is correct, and I feel anyone else who reads it would agree. If no consensus is reached? What then? S26205229 (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You do keep reinserting what you think is best; it looks like you've done so about a half-dozen times over and over again over the past several weeks. In particular, immediately after having your edit reverted, you reinstated it. That is the very essence of edit warring.

You may be right on what the content should be; but having been reverted, you need to make your case on the talk page and get a consensus. If you're actually right, that shouldn't be hard to get.

You can edit-war without violating the 3RR. I personally think the 3RR should not be in the standard EW warning, since it leads to misunderstandings like yours, so I understand your point there. But the point remains: get consensus first. If no consensus is reached... well, that means, if you can't get others to agree with you, right? Then it stays as is.

I don't have any opinion or stake in your dispute; my comment is about not observing the process required. TJRC (talk) 23:00, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am still very new at this and was not aware there were any guidelines in place as to how to post an edit, so for that, I apologize.

However, I am still totally baffled by what is taking place here. If no consensus is reached? What then? How do I know when a consensus has been reached?? And what if no one will, how do I get proof that the budget is $59 million and end the discussion once and for all?! It bothers me people can’t read - it is a simple issue! It should not be changed this many times!

On a side note, is not edit warring to correct something that has been repeatedly proven as true. If others choose to change it, it is no more argumentative to change it back as it is they insisting it is true. That being said, I haven’t made more than three edits to this page in 24 hours, therefore, there is no reason for the warning message. I do feel it’s important that the material on the page is correct, and I feel anyone else who reads it would agree.

I hope for an answer soon... S26205229 (talk) 23:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First, welcome to Wikipedia. Don't worry, if you take it easy and don't force yourself on others, you'll get the hang of it.

I would suggest you start by reading WP:CONSENSUS, which is one of the most fundamental tenets of Wikipedia. I've pointed that and some others out in my note above; and the welcome message ultimately leads there, too. it's one of those "five pillars". It discusses consensus more thoroughly and better than I could do in a talk page message.

If you are objectively correct, you should see other editors coming around to your position; it should be obvious when there's a consensus. If not, that's covered at WP:CONSENSUS, too, in the section "No consensus". If the consensus is not going your way and you feel that it's obviously wrong, or if the discussion seems like it's not reaching a consensus and there needs to be one, have a look at WP:Dispute resolution.

You are incorrect about one thing: is not edit warring to correct something that has been repeatedly proven as true. WP:Edit warring says this quite clearly: "An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable: 'But my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring' is no defense." TJRC (talk) 23:17, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confused & Clarification

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Hi there,

I am so confused. Not with you - with this site. I’ve been on it for several months now, but have never really gotten the hang of it and never had any useful help.

As far as the first man incident, I apologize for my comment earlier: “I will, but for now it’s $59 million” or whatever I said. I had just had a very bad customer service incident at work, was hangry, and typed without thinking. My apologies. Is there any way for me to delete my comment?

My frustration with this site is growing though. For instance, I can’t find any page that has step by step instructions on how to edit. I once tried to remove an incorrect article listed as a reference, and I accidentally messed up the html code without realizing. When I went to go back, it was accidentally saved and the next thing I knew, it was blocked (I think); it said because of “sabotage.” I had no idea what happened! Also, the comments I’ve made regarding the changes: they were from people who messaged me quite bluntly (some rudely) about my change, and I thought I was responding to THEM. I didn’t know I had created a discussion or “talk” and I have no idea how I did that or how any of it works! So please bear in mind that any comments I have made that seemed intense were responding to a nasty person. I feel awful knowing that it didn’t go to them, but to the forum!

Long story short, I am completely bewildered by what’s going on. I wasn’t trying to do anything other than change a number back to where several sources have listed it. I didn’t know edit warring even existed, but now that you’ve described it, I realize my last comment classified as it. I also didn’t realize that what I sent you was copied to three different locations, and I have NO idea how that happened!

Please send me some useful links to editing a page! Thanks

S26205229

S26205229 (talk) 00:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried going through the Wikipedia adventure? —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 05:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second the recommendation of the Wikipedia Adventure as an introductory tutorial. It covers both the mechanics of editing and the behavioral standards. You've already done most of the steps there, I'll acknowledge that some of it will be "review" and possibly tedious, but it may patch up a couple of holes in your understanding about Wikipedia.

Not everyone you encounter on Wikipedia is going to be following those behavioral guidelines; some people are having a bad day or don't understand the guidelines and a few are out and out trolls. Don't let their bad behavior get to you. A measured, calm response after a delay is always going to be better than a heated immediate response.

A few things about Wikipedia are often surprising to new editors who come here having heard that it is an "encyclopedia that anyone can edit". It may sound like a recipe for chaos (especially given the presence of the aforementioned trolls), but the policies and guidelines generally allow peaceful resolution to most disputes. It's often a surprise that one's own expertise and personal knowledge can't directly be added to articles; everything must be backed up by a reliable source. While we strive for truth, it isn't capital letter TRUTH and we'll stick with something that can be documented.

The Teahouse is a good place to ask questions about editing Wikipedia. There are enough friendly and experienced hosts that most questions get an answer in a very short time (I think there may be more people watching the Teahouse than responding to {{help me}} requests). Discussions about content should start on the talk page of the article in question. Use the {{ping}} template to ring the issue to a specific editor's attention. If you don't understand why another editor took an action, you can ask them on their user talk page (an automatic ping). — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:37, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. I was wondering though: The correction I made to the budget stood for some time. Someone else changed else, and I changed it back. Because they kept changing it back, isn’t it THEM who needs to prove the issue? Since my $59 million stood for some time and THEY changed it. How come their’s get to stay and I have to prove mine? Also, I contacted the editor who made the change and haven’t heard back (I saw from their page they really don’t answer any messages) and the talk page on the First Man page has no one else recently...forgive me if you sent me the answer to this, but where do I go to get the question answered once and for all if communicating with them fails? Am I okay to change it back? S26205229 (talk) 01:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I’m not being persistent with this to be difficult or because I want my way - I just don’t want other articles or people pulling from the wrong number. $11 million makes a big difference, particularly when people go to write an article about box office successes and failures. I just want to make sure it’s accurate. S26205229 (talk) 01:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I didn’t add a source was because the source was already there and had been archived - 3) box office mojo. Should I have referenced it in the comments box when changing? S26205229 (talk) 01:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]