User talk:TallUntidyGothGF

December 2024

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 Canada goose, 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. Per WP:BRD if you wish to change the long-standing description and your change has been undone you should discuss the issue on the article's talk page and attempt to reach a consensus rather than continuing to restore your edit. Meters (talk) 02:07, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to note that the above was not "clearly vandalism" as indicated in the use instructions for this warning template, but an improvement to the page with reasoning given in the edit summary, and that was eventually accepted upon discussion in the Canada Goose talk page. The user would have preferred I go straight to the talk page instead of improving upon the reason in a re-made edit - but it's confusing to me because other editors don't seem to mind that kind of response (re-edit with changes or improved reasoning) - and the BRD guidelines seem to support that kind of 're-BOLD' justified effort. This comment is for posterity/my own notes rather than any attempt to continue the discussion. TallUntidyGothGF (talk) 15:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't call your edit "vandalism", let alone "clearly vandalism". Not in my edit summaries, not here, not on my talk page, and not on the article's talk page. If you are going to claim to quote someone, it would behoove you to actually get it right. I left a disruptive editing warning, not a vandalism warning, because you restored a contested edit without following WP:BRD. And no, you don't get to leave a note in response to my warning, misquote me, and imply that you don't want me to respond. Meters (talk) 10:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think I misunderstood the above notice as a warning for vandalism rather than 'disruptive editing,' since the language is very similar (they both use the 'not appear to be constructive' language). I was quoting the guidelines for the warnings that said to apply the template in the warning if the edit was 'clearly vandalism.' I apologise for that, and should have been clearer.

I understand if you don't want to respond at this point, but I guess what I don't understand is: what is the difference between when making an improved edit after a reversion is okay, versus when it is disruptive?

Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Dealing_with_disruptive_editors e.g. "If editor restores, or unreverts: If sourced information appears this time around, do nothing; if not, revert again if they haven't responded at the talkpage. Ensure a clear explanation for the difference in opinion is posted by you at the article talkpage. Refer to this thread in your edit summary. If possible, suggest compromises at the talkpage."
WP:BRD "BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once. This applies equally to bold editors and to reverters. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider discussing instead of reverting. The talk page is open to all editors, not just bold ones. The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD."
previous experience of this behaviour being okay with and supported by other editors who have reverted me

TallUntidyGothGF (talk) 13:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]