![]() | This page was nominated for deletion on 20 January 2024. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Hello, Z80Spectrum, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.
If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Chaheel Riens ( talk) 09:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Involved in DRN: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:ZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes#Summary_of_the_discussion_so_far Z80Spectrum ( talk) 00:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
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
Talk:ZX Spectrum graphic modes, 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. Article talk pages should be archived. The
good-faith assumption is that you didn't understand when you turned off ClueBot.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 23:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
User:Z80Spectrum, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for
deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Z80Spectrum and please be sure to
sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of
User:Z80Spectrum during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 21:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
{{subst:Wrong license note|Commons:Deletion requests/File:Parrot-with-gradient.png}} Z80Spectrum ( talk) 17:30, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Here you said But you haven't read it, you just rushed in and produced a flood of irrelevant policies in defense of an established editor.
No part of that sentence is true, but even if it were true it is not a good use of the
article talk page. Please revise or strike the accusation that I am blindly defending anyone.
More generally, I don't see any indication that the other two editors who have replied recently are the least bit confused about the situation. It honestly reads like you are assuming they must be confused because you dislike the answer you received.
Regarding my involvement that section, I've made myself as clear as I know how. Ultimately, I am under no obligation to satisfy you with the answer I provided, and I don't see that further replies regarding those other two sections are going to benefit anyone. I suggest you move on, but in any case please do not ping me again in that section of the talk page. VQuakr ( talk) 02:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Please do not add content cited to blogs and wikis, as you did on Brainfuck. Per WP:UGC, these things are not considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. Thank you. CodeTalker ( talk) 03:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
I invite @ Paradoctor to this discussion, which is a reply to [ |this post] he made.
That the article split suggestion was reverted together with the rest was infelicitous, but understandable in context.- - - More precise would be: "That the article split suggestion was deleted together with the rest was infelicitous, but understandable in context.". By the way, it took me one month and over 50 posts of arguing to revert that "infelicitous" delete. Just the fact that noone reverted it earlier is, IMO, sufficient to report a few involved editors to WP:ANI. But I didn't do it, I attempted to discuss.
Dionysius Miller did agree with you that WP:OR does not apply to talk pages.. - - - Well, he said that he agrees, but the rest of his paragraph clearly indicates that he doesn't really agree.
The proper rationale for the removal of the contentious material is quite simply WP:NOTFORUM (policy) / WP:TALK#TOPIC (guideline). Original research, when discussed on talk, is offtopic, as it is general conversation about the article's subject. So citing WP:OR as reason, while technically incorrect, is absolutely in keeping with the spirit of the talk page rules.
So, basically we have to discuss the issue no. 3.
About WP:OR. It clearly states: This policy does not apply to talk pages . How much more explicit do you want it to be? Besides that, your interpretation is against the spirit of Wikipedia rules, because of the following: if talk page material is allowed to be removed because it is allegedly WP:OR, then it becomes hard to discuss whether it in fact is WP:OR or not. So, the poster gets caught in a problem of circular definition of Wikipedia rules.
The essential and central problem of all Wikipedia rules, and especially ones on the WP:TPG is: the rules are circular, vague and imprecise. This allows experienced editors to "hammer down" newcomers, because it allows them to re-interpret the vague rules of Wikipedia. As a consequence, Wikipedia is not really guided by any rules, but by groups of people who interpret the rules as they please, and against the stated spirit of Wikipedia.
Besides, weren't you in a camp that was against deleting posts unless they are terribly against the rules? But now, you are suddenly singing a different song. How come? Z80Spectrum ( talk) 18:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
applying those policies to talk page materialis inaccurate. More generally, the purpose of talk pages is to discuss improvements to the article. Extended sections that are based on original research are pointless since they can't be used for article content. Noting this does not mean someone is applying WP:OR to a talk page. VQuakr ( talk) 19:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
I oppose their use in the article, not their mere mention in talk space. Your accusation about applying those policies to talk page material is inaccurate..
So I asked you 4 times in a row...you got a very clear answer, you just didn't like it. Big difference, and I don't appreciate the accusation that I somehow am telling you anything different now than I did then. To repeat (yet again!) my original reply in that section:
I think those conversations are moot, since they are discussions about "simulating output" in a way that isn't compatible with WP:SYNTH.There is therefore no article content to discuss. VQuakr ( talk) 20:18, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Your accusation about applying those policies to talk page material is inaccurate.", well, that accusation is about people CONFUSING policies that apply only to articles, with policies that should apply to talk pages. So, perhaps you were thinking about article content, but you made it look very confusing, even after several attempts of mine to clear it up. In that sense, my example on WP:TPG is right on the spot. Z80Spectrum ( talk) 20:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
The problem is that you refused to clarify...no, that's not true either. Since you can't seem to get through the first sentence without spouting easily-disproved untruths, your opinion on whether I or anyone else is confused or not isn't worth the electrons inconvenienced to express it. VQuakr ( talk) 21:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Why shouldn't my discussion How to simulate Spectrum's PAL output be allowed on this talk page?
I don't see your answer yet. If you don't answer, it will be impossible to continue this discussion with you.
In the answer to my question you should clearly state all the most relevant Wikipedia policies that you think are applicable.
WP:OR is banned from talk pages, how can any substantial argument be made there?
Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists.
If every argument on talk pages is branded as WP:ORI have explained to you twice now that citing WP:OR alone as a reason for removal, while technically insufficient, is substantially correct, because discussing OR on talk automatically violates WP:TALK#TOPIC.
all discussions necessarily involve some amount of original researchFlat out wrong. Discussing whether a source is reliable is not WP:OR. Discussing how, or if, this or that policy or guideline applies to an edit is not OR.
Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research.What is not explicitly stated is that the material is intended to influence article content. Therefore, an editor who, say, is gathering evidence about the edits of a problem user is not doing original research, even if their work is not a reliable source for article content. Paradoctor ( talk) 17:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
citing WP:OR alone as a reason for removal, while technically insufficient, is substantially correct, because discussing OR on talk automatically violates WP:TALK#TOPIC..
Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. Comments that are plainly irrelevant are subject to archiving or removal.
Was this material intended by you to influence the article, i. e. to justify some change to it, yes or no?
Was this material taken from a published, reliable source, yes or no?
Yes, it was!then what reliable sources were you planning to use to inform those changes to the article? VQuakr ( talk) 20:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC) ; edited 21:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC) ; edit undone 06:34, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
then what reliable sources were you planning to use to inform those changes to the article?(said VQuakr)
Write your summary of Option VX...I will not be doing this.
Answer the question...already answered, but irrelevant per your responses on this page ending furtherance of the topic.
There are rules, policies, guidelines, and pillars....This isn't a court of law where you're going to find some magical combination of words that results in the community shouting "objection sustained" and then you get to do whatever you want. This is a collaborative environment in which the path you've chosen doesn't result in you getting what you want. VQuakr ( talk) 23:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
already answered.
Thank you for your opinion, but I judge differently.Mmkay, WP:NOTBUREAU is policy but sure, good luck with that. VQuakr ( talk) 19:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
In my opinion, I'm entitled to a reply.
The fact that you have a question, concern, or objection does not [...] mean that others are obligated to answer. Paradoctor ( talk) 19:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
if you desire so".
This policy does not apply to talk pages".
general conversation about the article's subject, which TPG prohibits.
Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking out text with<s>...</s>
or {{ strike}} or marking text as deleted with<del>...</del>
constitutes a change in meaning.
I can't collapse the entire comment(s), because only parts are off-topic. Z80Spectrum ( talk) 02:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
I invite everybody interested in the problem of talk page material deletions to vote on the poll here.
@ User:Robert McClenon Z80Spectrum ( talk) 15:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
In this post, related to this discussion I have asked @ User:VQuakr the following question:
Question 1: Why should my topic How to simulate Spectrum's PAL output remain deleted on the page Talk:ZX Spectrum graphic modes? In the response, please state all the Wikipedia policies that were violated, in your opinion.
User:VQuakr answered in his immediate reply with this link.
Therefore, I conclude that his answer to my question is:
I think those conversations are moot, since they are discussions about "simulating output" in a way that isn't compatible with WP:SYNTH.
I interpret his answer as following:
User:VQuakr is pointing to the
WP:SYNTH policy as a justification for deletion of topic
How to simulate Spectrum's PAL output
My reply to his answer is:
WP:SYNTH is just a part of the
WP:OR policy. The WP:OR policy explicitly states in the leading section: This policy does not apply to talk pages
. Therefore,
WP:SYNTH is an invalid justification for deletion of the contended talk page topic "How to simulate Spectrum's PAL output".
As I have now refuted the only justification provided by User:VQuakr, I now invite him to point to any other Wikipedia policies or guidelines that are (in his opinion) a valid reason for deletion of the contended topic How to simulate Spectrum's PAL output. He is also invited to post his rationales and justifications here, but only those that are strictly related to the Question 1. Z80Spectrum ( talk) 20:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
I interpret his answer as following:has a different meaning than what I wrote. What you copy/pasted is irrelevant since that's not what you replied to. VQuakr ( talk) 22:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Z80Spectrum (
talk) 16:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
ZX Spectrum. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. VQuakr ( talk) 19:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
if all you're doing is waiting to continue doing reverts.
I have blocked you for
tendentious editing per the
consensus at this ANI thread. This is not a
community ban, you can appeal it using this template: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. If you want to be unblocked, I recommend committing to staying away from the associated talk pages which led to the block, and changing the way you communicate with others. I recommend discussing how to improve articles and move things forward, rather than continuing talk page disputes.
Moneytrees🏝️
(Talk) 20:18, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This page was nominated for deletion on 20 January 2024. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Hello, Z80Spectrum, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.
If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to The Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Chaheel Riens ( talk) 09:55, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Involved in DRN: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:ZX_Spectrum_graphic_modes#Summary_of_the_discussion_so_far Z80Spectrum ( talk) 00:59, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
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
Talk:ZX Spectrum graphic modes, 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. Article talk pages should be archived. The
good-faith assumption is that you didn't understand when you turned off ClueBot.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 23:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
User:Z80Spectrum, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for
deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Z80Spectrum and please be sure to
sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of
User:Z80Spectrum during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 21:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
{{subst:Wrong license note|Commons:Deletion requests/File:Parrot-with-gradient.png}} Z80Spectrum ( talk) 17:30, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Here you said But you haven't read it, you just rushed in and produced a flood of irrelevant policies in defense of an established editor.
No part of that sentence is true, but even if it were true it is not a good use of the
article talk page. Please revise or strike the accusation that I am blindly defending anyone.
More generally, I don't see any indication that the other two editors who have replied recently are the least bit confused about the situation. It honestly reads like you are assuming they must be confused because you dislike the answer you received.
Regarding my involvement that section, I've made myself as clear as I know how. Ultimately, I am under no obligation to satisfy you with the answer I provided, and I don't see that further replies regarding those other two sections are going to benefit anyone. I suggest you move on, but in any case please do not ping me again in that section of the talk page. VQuakr ( talk) 02:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Please do not add content cited to blogs and wikis, as you did on Brainfuck. Per WP:UGC, these things are not considered reliable sources on Wikipedia. Thank you. CodeTalker ( talk) 03:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
I invite @ Paradoctor to this discussion, which is a reply to [ |this post] he made.
That the article split suggestion was reverted together with the rest was infelicitous, but understandable in context.- - - More precise would be: "That the article split suggestion was deleted together with the rest was infelicitous, but understandable in context.". By the way, it took me one month and over 50 posts of arguing to revert that "infelicitous" delete. Just the fact that noone reverted it earlier is, IMO, sufficient to report a few involved editors to WP:ANI. But I didn't do it, I attempted to discuss.
Dionysius Miller did agree with you that WP:OR does not apply to talk pages.. - - - Well, he said that he agrees, but the rest of his paragraph clearly indicates that he doesn't really agree.
The proper rationale for the removal of the contentious material is quite simply WP:NOTFORUM (policy) / WP:TALK#TOPIC (guideline). Original research, when discussed on talk, is offtopic, as it is general conversation about the article's subject. So citing WP:OR as reason, while technically incorrect, is absolutely in keeping with the spirit of the talk page rules.
So, basically we have to discuss the issue no. 3.
About WP:OR. It clearly states: This policy does not apply to talk pages . How much more explicit do you want it to be? Besides that, your interpretation is against the spirit of Wikipedia rules, because of the following: if talk page material is allowed to be removed because it is allegedly WP:OR, then it becomes hard to discuss whether it in fact is WP:OR or not. So, the poster gets caught in a problem of circular definition of Wikipedia rules.
The essential and central problem of all Wikipedia rules, and especially ones on the WP:TPG is: the rules are circular, vague and imprecise. This allows experienced editors to "hammer down" newcomers, because it allows them to re-interpret the vague rules of Wikipedia. As a consequence, Wikipedia is not really guided by any rules, but by groups of people who interpret the rules as they please, and against the stated spirit of Wikipedia.
Besides, weren't you in a camp that was against deleting posts unless they are terribly against the rules? But now, you are suddenly singing a different song. How come? Z80Spectrum ( talk) 18:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
applying those policies to talk page materialis inaccurate. More generally, the purpose of talk pages is to discuss improvements to the article. Extended sections that are based on original research are pointless since they can't be used for article content. Noting this does not mean someone is applying WP:OR to a talk page. VQuakr ( talk) 19:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
I oppose their use in the article, not their mere mention in talk space. Your accusation about applying those policies to talk page material is inaccurate..
So I asked you 4 times in a row...you got a very clear answer, you just didn't like it. Big difference, and I don't appreciate the accusation that I somehow am telling you anything different now than I did then. To repeat (yet again!) my original reply in that section:
I think those conversations are moot, since they are discussions about "simulating output" in a way that isn't compatible with WP:SYNTH.There is therefore no article content to discuss. VQuakr ( talk) 20:18, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Your accusation about applying those policies to talk page material is inaccurate.", well, that accusation is about people CONFUSING policies that apply only to articles, with policies that should apply to talk pages. So, perhaps you were thinking about article content, but you made it look very confusing, even after several attempts of mine to clear it up. In that sense, my example on WP:TPG is right on the spot. Z80Spectrum ( talk) 20:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
The problem is that you refused to clarify...no, that's not true either. Since you can't seem to get through the first sentence without spouting easily-disproved untruths, your opinion on whether I or anyone else is confused or not isn't worth the electrons inconvenienced to express it. VQuakr ( talk) 21:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Why shouldn't my discussion How to simulate Spectrum's PAL output be allowed on this talk page?
I don't see your answer yet. If you don't answer, it will be impossible to continue this discussion with you.
In the answer to my question you should clearly state all the most relevant Wikipedia policies that you think are applicable.
WP:OR is banned from talk pages, how can any substantial argument be made there?
Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists.
If every argument on talk pages is branded as WP:ORI have explained to you twice now that citing WP:OR alone as a reason for removal, while technically insufficient, is substantially correct, because discussing OR on talk automatically violates WP:TALK#TOPIC.
all discussions necessarily involve some amount of original researchFlat out wrong. Discussing whether a source is reliable is not WP:OR. Discussing how, or if, this or that policy or guideline applies to an edit is not OR.
Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research.What is not explicitly stated is that the material is intended to influence article content. Therefore, an editor who, say, is gathering evidence about the edits of a problem user is not doing original research, even if their work is not a reliable source for article content. Paradoctor ( talk) 17:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
citing WP:OR alone as a reason for removal, while technically insufficient, is substantially correct, because discussing OR on talk automatically violates WP:TALK#TOPIC..
Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. Comments that are plainly irrelevant are subject to archiving or removal.
Was this material intended by you to influence the article, i. e. to justify some change to it, yes or no?
Was this material taken from a published, reliable source, yes or no?
Yes, it was!then what reliable sources were you planning to use to inform those changes to the article? VQuakr ( talk) 20:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC) ; edited 21:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC) ; edit undone 06:34, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
then what reliable sources were you planning to use to inform those changes to the article?(said VQuakr)
Write your summary of Option VX...I will not be doing this.
Answer the question...already answered, but irrelevant per your responses on this page ending furtherance of the topic.
There are rules, policies, guidelines, and pillars....This isn't a court of law where you're going to find some magical combination of words that results in the community shouting "objection sustained" and then you get to do whatever you want. This is a collaborative environment in which the path you've chosen doesn't result in you getting what you want. VQuakr ( talk) 23:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
already answered.
Thank you for your opinion, but I judge differently.Mmkay, WP:NOTBUREAU is policy but sure, good luck with that. VQuakr ( talk) 19:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
In my opinion, I'm entitled to a reply.
The fact that you have a question, concern, or objection does not [...] mean that others are obligated to answer. Paradoctor ( talk) 19:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
if you desire so".
This policy does not apply to talk pages".
general conversation about the article's subject, which TPG prohibits.
Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking out text with<s>...</s>
or {{ strike}} or marking text as deleted with<del>...</del>
constitutes a change in meaning.
I can't collapse the entire comment(s), because only parts are off-topic. Z80Spectrum ( talk) 02:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
I invite everybody interested in the problem of talk page material deletions to vote on the poll here.
@ User:Robert McClenon Z80Spectrum ( talk) 15:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
In this post, related to this discussion I have asked @ User:VQuakr the following question:
Question 1: Why should my topic How to simulate Spectrum's PAL output remain deleted on the page Talk:ZX Spectrum graphic modes? In the response, please state all the Wikipedia policies that were violated, in your opinion.
User:VQuakr answered in his immediate reply with this link.
Therefore, I conclude that his answer to my question is:
I think those conversations are moot, since they are discussions about "simulating output" in a way that isn't compatible with WP:SYNTH.
I interpret his answer as following:
User:VQuakr is pointing to the
WP:SYNTH policy as a justification for deletion of topic
How to simulate Spectrum's PAL output
My reply to his answer is:
WP:SYNTH is just a part of the
WP:OR policy. The WP:OR policy explicitly states in the leading section: This policy does not apply to talk pages
. Therefore,
WP:SYNTH is an invalid justification for deletion of the contended talk page topic "How to simulate Spectrum's PAL output".
As I have now refuted the only justification provided by User:VQuakr, I now invite him to point to any other Wikipedia policies or guidelines that are (in his opinion) a valid reason for deletion of the contended topic How to simulate Spectrum's PAL output. He is also invited to post his rationales and justifications here, but only those that are strictly related to the Question 1. Z80Spectrum ( talk) 20:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
I interpret his answer as following:has a different meaning than what I wrote. What you copy/pasted is irrelevant since that's not what you replied to. VQuakr ( talk) 22:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Z80Spectrum (
talk) 16:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
ZX Spectrum. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. VQuakr ( talk) 19:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
if all you're doing is waiting to continue doing reverts.
I have blocked you for
tendentious editing per the
consensus at this ANI thread. This is not a
community ban, you can appeal it using this template: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. If you want to be unblocked, I recommend committing to staying away from the associated talk pages which led to the block, and changing the way you communicate with others. I recommend discussing how to improve articles and move things forward, rather than continuing talk page disputes.
Moneytrees🏝️
(Talk) 20:18, 1 April 2024 (UTC)