User talk:ThatLinuxGuy

February 2021

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at OpenStreetMap Foundation. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Just so we're clear: I reverted your re-addition of primarily sourced directory-style information. We are not the company website, and perhaps you need to answer if WP:COI applies to you. Also, those edits contained violations of MOS:FLAG. The removal of the tags was invalid and suggests you don't understand WP:RS, and the accusation of vandalism is of course false. Drmies (talk) 22:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC) @Drmies: You violated WP:DR by ignoring "When you find a passage in an article that is biased, inaccurate, or unsourced the best practice is to improve it if you can rather than deleting salvageable text." You talked to no one before deleting tons of valid info. You vandalised the page with nonsensical change comments, multiple times, so I reverted it. I acted completely within Wikipedia guidelines, you would know that if you actually read them. --ThatLinuxGuy (talk) 11:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ThatLinuxGuy, I think I know the policies and guidelines pretty well, thanks--I've been here a while. The problem is that there is no salvageable text here. You may think there is, but there are of course no secondary sources to verify the internal workings of this organization, nor would we expect there to be. And what on earth could be encyclopedic about this, "Working Groups are small groups of people that work on specific tasks"? You think we don't know what "working groups" are? And we don't do lists of local chapters, certainly not with flags that violate the MOS--you'd know that if you were aware of our guidelines. So stop cussing at me, and don't accuse me of vandalism: that's actually blockable, since it violates WP:AGF. Drmies (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]