Hello Achmad, I hope you're well. I kindly request you to restore my contributions and for you to re-evaluate my edits. There was no vandalism, I was simply making various tweaks which resulted in many edits during a short time. If you check my edits on the page, you will see that all of the added claims were factual and supported by sources. Additionally, I enhanced many sentences from the original article. According to Wikipedia, "Vandalism includes any addition, removal, or modification that is intentionally humorous, nonsensical, a hoax, offensive, libelous or degrading in any way." My edits were neither humorous, nonsensical, hoaxes, et cetera. I was simply painting a neutral picture of the organization.
I apologize for making many edits in such a short time. I was not aware of the sandbox feature and will use it in the future.
Hello
VegitotheKnightmare (also pinging
Achmad Rachmani). I see that you have reinstated those edits, and I have reverted them. Wikipedia uses a process knows as "
WP:BRD" (for BOLD, revert, discuss) in situations like this. You took the first step by BOLDly making your changes. Another editor reverted it, which is the second step. Rather than continuing to make controversial changes to the article, the thing to do next is to take the matter to the Talk page of the article, so editors can agree on how to handle it.--
Gronk Oz (
talk)
03:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Hello Gronk, hope you're well.
I believe that your statement is incorrect. WP:BRD is optional.
"The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) is one of many optional strategies that editors may use to seek consensus. This process is not mandated by Wikipedia policy, but it can be useful for identifying objections, keeping discussion moving forward and helping to break deadlocks. In other situations, you may have better success with alternatives to this approach."
May I know why the changes are controversial, and why you deleted the edits if this process is not mandatory?
VegitotheKnightmare - I see that you have started a topic on the article's Talk page, and that is the appropriate place for the discussion so all interested editors can take part, and I won't duplicate it here. I don't follow why you mention that
Sgerbic (who you chose not to notify) commented on the Talk page: if you think that is relevant to this discussion then please feel free to indicate how on the Talk page.--
Gronk Oz (
talk)
12:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Hello Gronk, hope you're doing great
It seems you're not interested in discussion as you haven't replied to the talk page topic.
In that case, why did you revert my edits and ask for me to take it to the talk page? How did you know others weren't happy with my edits if at all?
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at
Rosa Parks. Your edits appear to be
disruptive and have been or will be
reverted.
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.
Can you please elaborate with specific details on how the edits are "disruptive?" This will help me moving forward. I really don't think I did anything wrong.
Hello Achmad, I hope you're well. I kindly request you to restore my contributions and for you to re-evaluate my edits. There was no vandalism, I was simply making various tweaks which resulted in many edits during a short time. If you check my edits on the page, you will see that all of the added claims were factual and supported by sources. Additionally, I enhanced many sentences from the original article. According to Wikipedia, "Vandalism includes any addition, removal, or modification that is intentionally humorous, nonsensical, a hoax, offensive, libelous or degrading in any way." My edits were neither humorous, nonsensical, hoaxes, et cetera. I was simply painting a neutral picture of the organization.
I apologize for making many edits in such a short time. I was not aware of the sandbox feature and will use it in the future.
Hello
VegitotheKnightmare (also pinging
Achmad Rachmani). I see that you have reinstated those edits, and I have reverted them. Wikipedia uses a process knows as "
WP:BRD" (for BOLD, revert, discuss) in situations like this. You took the first step by BOLDly making your changes. Another editor reverted it, which is the second step. Rather than continuing to make controversial changes to the article, the thing to do next is to take the matter to the Talk page of the article, so editors can agree on how to handle it.--
Gronk Oz (
talk)
03:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Hello Gronk, hope you're well.
I believe that your statement is incorrect. WP:BRD is optional.
"The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) is one of many optional strategies that editors may use to seek consensus. This process is not mandated by Wikipedia policy, but it can be useful for identifying objections, keeping discussion moving forward and helping to break deadlocks. In other situations, you may have better success with alternatives to this approach."
May I know why the changes are controversial, and why you deleted the edits if this process is not mandatory?
VegitotheKnightmare - I see that you have started a topic on the article's Talk page, and that is the appropriate place for the discussion so all interested editors can take part, and I won't duplicate it here. I don't follow why you mention that
Sgerbic (who you chose not to notify) commented on the Talk page: if you think that is relevant to this discussion then please feel free to indicate how on the Talk page.--
Gronk Oz (
talk)
12:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Hello Gronk, hope you're doing great
It seems you're not interested in discussion as you haven't replied to the talk page topic.
In that case, why did you revert my edits and ask for me to take it to the talk page? How did you know others weren't happy with my edits if at all?
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at
Rosa Parks. Your edits appear to be
disruptive and have been or will be
reverted.
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.
Can you please elaborate with specific details on how the edits are "disruptive?" This will help me moving forward. I really don't think I did anything wrong.