Interested in becoming a regular contributor to Wikipedia? Create an account!
Your host, 107-190-33-254.cpe.teksavvy.com (107.190.33.254), is registered to Teksavvy Solutions Inc. and is believed to be a static address used by only one connection. However, this IP address may represent more than one user, accessing the Internet via several personal computers or devices.
Administrators: review contributions carefully if blocking this IP address or reverting its contributions. If a block is needed, consider a soft block using Template:Anonblock.
If vandalism is noted from this IP address, abuse reports may be sent to its network administrator for investigation.
Network administrators, to monitor this IP address for vandalism, can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
If you want to show how I have a pattern of editing that is partisan, biased, skewed, and does not maintain an editorially neutral point of view, I'm listening, otherwise f*** off. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 22:26, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's just not reasonable to remove quotes because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. When there are very descriptive, direct quotes available, why not allow for them in the Responses section of the article?
You've also expressed that this article basically should not exist, disregarding the fact that we just had a lengthy AfD discussion, in which the outcome was to Keep the article. Whether the decision was "close" or not isn't relevant, and you may not like or agree with that decision, but that's how it works. We have consensus to keep the article. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 22:43, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't said that, don't lie about what I said, and you may not like the fact that "Keep with the possibility of merge" means that the article might be merged, or that you do not, in fact, have consensus to keep without merger, since that is what is being discussed, but that's how it works. We have consensus to keep with possibility of merger. Cheers! 107.190.33.254 (talk) 22:46, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's just not reasonable to remove my changes because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. When there are very descriptive, direct sentences available, why not allow them in the article instead of more convoluted ones? 107.190.33.254 (talk) 22:47, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
December 2022
Hi 107.190.33.254! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of December 15, 2022 Twitter suspensions several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.
Ok, but only if you agree to, and I'd like to point out that I reverted my edits when I realised I was heading for an edit war with VQuakr, you've been edit-warring with me for a while now, please stop pestering me and take a break, thanks, cheers! 107.190.33.254 (talk) 23:47, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You were already waaaaay over WP:3RR, then continued after the final warning above, [1]. If you think you shouldn't be blocked, make your case at the noticeboard linked above. VQuakr (talk) 23:50, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, this was my final warning? And please do show me instances of 3RR, I reverted a lot of different things but generally left most of them alone, also, you can't play edit-warring alone, why am I the only user getting the noticeboard warning, also I stopped "edit-warring" after you made the post (but continued making small edits every while and then) 107.190.33.254 (talk) 23:56, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're reverting multiple other editors. Also, WP:NOTTHEM. Warning was [2]. Any edit that removes content is a "revert". Consecutive edits count as one but I count 11 groups of non-consecutive reverts in the last 24 hours, which is greater than 3. VQuakr (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes, this is normal part of consensus building, I change A, the other user changes it back but leaves something that I changed, and rinse and repeat, if you ask me, this has been highly productive 107.190.33.254 (talk) 00:02, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, since the whole point of my edits WAS to remove content, your definition seems cleverly built to mean that ALL of my edits were reverts. But 3RR requires for a user to write A, then for another to remove it, and then for someone to rewrite A, if you are going to claim that I reverted a specific part of the article 11 TIMES, please show me that bit, thanks, cheers! (and a friendly reminder that making multiple removals of content does not constitute multiple reverts 107.190.33.254 (talk) 00:06, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an example of your claim, so this is a random text
"Started several mistake joy say painful removed reached end. State burst think end are its. Arrived off she elderly beloved him affixed noisier yet. An course regard to up he hardly. View four has said does men saw find dear shy. Talent men wicket add garden."
I rewrite it as (changes in [[ ]])
"Started several mistakes joy say painful removed reached end. State [[ ]] think end are its. Arrived off she elderly beloved him affixed noisier yet. An course regard to up he hardly. View four has said does men saw find dear shy. Talent men wicket add garden."
Then someone adds
"Started several joy say painful removed reached end. State thinks end are its. Arrived off she elderly beloved him affixed noisier yet. An course regard to up he hardly. View four has said does men saw find dear shy. Talent men wicket add garden."
And then I do this
"Started several joy say painful removed reached end. State end are its. Arrived [[ ]] she elderly beloved him affixed noisier yet. An course regard to up he hardly. View four has said does men saw find dear shy. Talent men wicket add garden."
What you find preposterous isn't relevant. From the policy: The term "revert" is defined as any edit (or administrative action) that reverses or undoes the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, and whether performed using undo, rollback, or done so completely manually. A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert. This is a bright-line rule intended specifically to prevent the sort of rapid-fire removals you were doing. You also were edit warring since you repeated the same edits after I contested them, inviting you to move to the talk page. ETA: then maybe you shouldn't edit on your phone. There's no deadline, you know. VQuakr (talk) 00:22, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the 3 revert rule refers to this :
You : A
Me : removes A (ONE revert)
You : returns A (ONE revert for you)
Me : removes A again (TWO reverts)
You : returns A (TWO reverts for you)
Me : removes A again (THREE reverts)
It is intended to stop the whole changing back and forth of a page (example : the nationality of Nikola Tesla, or any other of those listed at WP:LAME) from getting excessive.
Here's what it DOESNT refer to :
Someone : writes A, B, C, D, E
Me : removes A (ONE revert)
Someone else : Z
Me : removes B (TWO reverts)
Someone else : F
Me : removes C (THREE reverts)
Also, I didn't continue edit-warring, I merely continued removing unrelated and different information on the page, ETA : then maybe you should reread the policy, there aint no deadline, ya know 107.190.33.254 (talk) 00:31, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
