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.
I could quite easily argue that editors who do not understand categorisation are blindly reverting. Possibly because I am consided to be one of the undercless IP editors. I actually racked up 10s of 1000s of edits before giving up. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 02:13, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You reply is not clear to me. Are you saying that there is no way of verifying that my edits are acceptable by the community? My edits follow the guidelines and as such do not need discussion. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 07:51, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
You're doing things such as removing content from a sandbox in a user's space without permission. You absolutely should never do that. Next time you disrupt again you may be blocked for disruptive editing. Nate•(chatter)20:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your obfuscated user name is confusing. I did not realise it was my, ah nemisis, until I looked at the edit history. In the interests of WP you should use you actual username. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 21:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits are disruptive and you refuse to discuss them. There is no vindictiveness behind my reversions and editing a user's sandbox without permission is a hard line policy where it's never allowed outside of vandalism reversion. And if you consider other editors as an 'nemesis' you need to step back and see why we are reverting your edits. Nate•(chatter)21:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I have pointed out before discussion is not needed if the edit is a clear application of quidelines. You have to make youself familiar with the huge body of WP guidelines. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 21:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. You were just told to stop editing user talk pages without permission and resumed doing so. You do not have permission to do so except to remove vandalism. Step away before you're blocked. Nate•(chatter)21:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm just going to say, consistent use of edit summaries - cordial, mind-numbingly bureaucratic impersonal policy- or reason-based edit summaries - goes a million miles (example). Thanks. -- zzuuzz(talk)22:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No point. Waste of time. If I was a vandal (and I am not) I would just lie. This is common. If I was logged in I would do edit summaries. In either case the edits should be checked. WP is suffering because the community did not go for site wide pending revisions/changes. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 08:41, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stop vandalizing my draft template page
Your repeated destruction of the template at User:Mathglot/sandbox/Templates/Draft projects has been reverted by two users. Your edit summary on your second attempt (diff) is either a bizarre misunderstanding of what a template is, or perhaps gaslighting on your part:
it does not need discussion. This is not social media. And I explained why and why should understand why.
"Social media"? What in God's green Earth are you talking about? It is a template, similar to the {{Draft categories}} template, undergoing development in user space. And "does not need discussion"—whaaat? Have you heard of talking it out, or WP:CONSENSUS? If you disagree with something in this template, fine—bring it up on the Talk page, and let's discuss it. However, if you attempt to vandalize this page again, you will find yourself at the Edit-warring noticeboard. Mathglot (talk) 02:27, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you can show an actual problem I will fix it. It is only a member of two categories, and both of them are appropriate. If you go off on weird tangents yabout social media or are unable to explain what the problem is, then there is nothing I can do, I'm sorry. Mathglot (talk) 09:22, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is in Category:Wikipedia_categorization. It is transcluded and I gave up trying to figue out wich template was causing it so I removed all the content. I left a message about this on the page itself. It is a sandbox AND a draft AND in user namespace so it soulf not be in a WP category. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 09:40, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, finally I understand what you are talking about, now; thank you for that clarification. I will look into this, and see if 1) it is problematic, and 2) the proper way to fix it. In the meantime, something being in the "wrong" category (if that is the case) is hardly an emergency, and can wait for proper resolution. If there is a "next time" for you regarding this type of category-gnoming edit, if you think you see a problem but give up on proper analysis of it, please do not just blow away the content of a template or other page, replacing it with Talk page-like commentary; unless it is an emergency (copyvio, libel, threats of harm or legal action, etc.) just leave the page alone, and raise a discussion on the Talk page instead. A template being in the wrong category is not one of those. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
.
It was problematic
There was nothing wrong with my temporary solution in fixing it. You have the edit to fall back on.
There was nothing wrong with my temporary solution in fixing it.
your edit was not a "fix", it was wholesale destruction of a template, because you apparently do not understand templates, or how to achieve the result you wish. (As it turns out, the fix was not in the template, but in the /doc page.) Next time, if you don't understand something, please just ask the editor in question to have a look at the problem you see, rather than charge full speed ahead into the wrong page and destroy it. Mathglot (talk) 11:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reprise of notification of AN discussion about you
I have reverted your recent edits removing the collapse parameters from templates. Please see the documentation on how to collapse the template in the articles they are transcluded on. Tule-hog (talk) 20:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The templates are too big for any page which is you I had set the default IN THE TEMPLATE ITSELf to collapsed. There is still the option to have it expanded in a page but given the size of this one I fail to see why that would want to be done. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 21:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You did not 'set the default' here - you have removed the parameter, so that it cannot be customized. You would want to use
so that the template remains full on the actual Template: page. I've gone through and added this on the ones you were editing. Tule-hog (talk) 06:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The other problem I have with templates is that some have strong background colours. This one is an example of it. My preference is to have the default colour. Failing that they should be a lighter hue. Yes, I know that some topics have a colour associated with them but that is not a good reason for background color. 43.249.196.179 (talk) 21:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know what you were trying to do. Feel free to do go back and do so properly, without removing the template parameter.
I can't guarantee others will not revert, but I don't have any opinions about color or autocollapse vs. collapsed as default. Tule-hog (talk) 03:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.
Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. In addition, your ability to edit your talk page has also been revoked.
