Adamstom.97 (talk | contribs) Undid revision 1097847516 by Bacon Noodles (talk) reverting, will respond at your talk page with an explanation Tag: Undo |
Bacon Noodles (talk | contribs) Unashamed ownership behaviour on Star Trek, with backup TL;DR. Tag: Reverted |
||
Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
::::I'm not being mean, I am pointing out that you are being a bit disingenuous with this apology since you are trying to minimize what you did at the same time. If you can accept that you did violate 3RR and you should not act like that in the future then I can accept your apology and we can move on. But you saying that you have let go doesn't mean much if you can't see that what you did was wrong. - [[User:Adamstom.97|adamstom97]] ([[User talk:Adamstom.97#top|talk]]) 02:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC) |
::::I'm not being mean, I am pointing out that you are being a bit disingenuous with this apology since you are trying to minimize what you did at the same time. If you can accept that you did violate 3RR and you should not act like that in the future then I can accept your apology and we can move on. But you saying that you have let go doesn't mean much if you can't see that what you did was wrong. - [[User:Adamstom.97|adamstom97]] ([[User talk:Adamstom.97#top|talk]]) 02:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC) |
||
:::::You're countinuing your comments with a negative tone to me. I already know what a 3RR means in the past and I already stop the edit war this instant. If you can accept my apology we will move on. But if you refuse to apologize to me, I am not replyting to you ever again. [[Special:Contributions/24.80.117.27|24.80.117.27]] ([[User talk:24.80.117.27|talk]]) 03:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC) |
:::::You're countinuing your comments with a negative tone to me. I already know what a 3RR means in the past and I already stop the edit war this instant. If you can accept my apology we will move on. But if you refuse to apologize to me, I am not replyting to you ever again. [[Special:Contributions/24.80.117.27|24.80.117.27]] ([[User talk:24.80.117.27|talk]]) 03:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC) |
||
== [[WP:OWNBEHAVIOUR|Ownership Behaviour]] on Star Trek == |
|||
I'll take your advice and be more concise - you show repeated, clearly dismissive and [[WP:OWNBEHAVIOUR|ownership behaviour]] on multiple ''Star Trek''-related articles. These are my personal experience with one edit, the unambiguous [https://xtools.wmflabs.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Star%20Trek:%20Discovery page statistics] showing you as having self-authored at least 80% every ''Trek'' series page since 2017 and the multiple examples of you reverting [[WP:GOODFAITH|good faith]] edits from a magnitude of editors in page histories. Heads-up, that ain't normal for someone claiming to not be owner, experienced or not. |
|||
So, before you patronise me into calling all this random trumped-up accusations because I've felt your wrath after adding one sentence on a stat, which ''I felt'' was relevant, even if that is not the subsequent consensus, '''have a little humility'''. And, before you accuse me of [[WP:HOUNDING|hounding]] you, I have not written this to persuade you, or change your mind on an edit, or to stop you from doing anything, I've written this because your attitude and self-proclaimed expertise are not an excuse for ignorance or dismissiveness and you ''need'' to reflect. |
|||
Instead of sprinting to revert a page to your own edit, if it is truly wrong, let another editor (there are plenty) take the same action. Or, if you still have concerns, use the talk page, as you so often instruct people to do, and say something like "@someone I see why you added that, but '''''I'' think''' it was better before because it was clearer/simpler/wide-ranging/punctuated/etc." Your opinion isn't worthless, but neither is an unregistered user's, who may also have seen Star Trek, but isn't aware of every Wikipedia policy, manual or a self-anointed article owner filtering every change. -- [[w:en:User:Bacon Noodles|<span style="font-family: Courier New; font-size:115%;">'''Bacon Noodles'''</span>]] ([[User talk:Bacon Noodles|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Bacon_Noodles|contribs]] • [[c:Special:ListFiles/Bacon_Noodles|uploads]]) 19:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC) |
|||
'''TL;DR''': <small>(In case you go "[[WP:TEXTWALL]], ignore")</small>: |
|||
* Stats are there, 80% authorship isn't normal |
|||
* Don't patronise me, when I'm just pointing out the trend, not one edit on ratings |
|||
* If there's a problem, another editor can also change it, not just you |
|||
* Talk about a change, unless it's clear vandalism or indisputably disruptive |
|||
* Your opinion as "experienced" is not automatically better than a newer user |
|||
* Don't always treat your opinion as fact or absolute |
Revision as of 19:11, 13 July 2022
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
Vacation
Hope you enjoyed your vacation/break! — SirDot (talk) 10:38, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you, it was a good break but also showed the difficulties of traveling during the pandemic! Nice to be back to a bit of normality. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:56, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
I am apologize for a possible edit war and 3RR
User Adamstom, I want to apologize to you for my mistake on a possible edit war and I edit too fast and a possible 3RR. I don't want to go too far on a 3RR. I let go immediately. I will stop this instant. I will apologize to you. If you can accept my apology, we will move on. I hope you will accept my apology for its edit mistakes. I will be careful not to edit war next time OK? Thanks. Talk to you later. 24.80.117.27 (talk) 02:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Also, I won't have to go to the article's talk page and I am here to talk to you for an apology. I hope you read my previous message. I let go for now. 24.80.117.27 (talk) 02:18, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- You went way past 3RR, re-adding your changes many times and reverting multiple other editors. If you make a change that other editors disagree with then you need to stop immediately and take your concerns to the talk page, not keep reverting. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Stop being mean to me, are you going to accept my apology or not? I already let go this instant. Once again, I already apologize to you and are you going to accept my apology or not? 24.80.117.27 (talk) 02:48, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not being mean, I am pointing out that you are being a bit disingenuous with this apology since you are trying to minimize what you did at the same time. If you can accept that you did violate 3RR and you should not act like that in the future then I can accept your apology and we can move on. But you saying that you have let go doesn't mean much if you can't see that what you did was wrong. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- You're countinuing your comments with a negative tone to me. I already know what a 3RR means in the past and I already stop the edit war this instant. If you can accept my apology we will move on. But if you refuse to apologize to me, I am not replyting to you ever again. 24.80.117.27 (talk) 03:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not being mean, I am pointing out that you are being a bit disingenuous with this apology since you are trying to minimize what you did at the same time. If you can accept that you did violate 3RR and you should not act like that in the future then I can accept your apology and we can move on. But you saying that you have let go doesn't mean much if you can't see that what you did was wrong. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- Stop being mean to me, are you going to accept my apology or not? I already let go this instant. Once again, I already apologize to you and are you going to accept my apology or not? 24.80.117.27 (talk) 02:48, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
- You went way past 3RR, re-adding your changes many times and reverting multiple other editors. If you make a change that other editors disagree with then you need to stop immediately and take your concerns to the talk page, not keep reverting. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Ownership Behaviour on Star Trek
I'll take your advice and be more concise - you show repeated, clearly dismissive and ownership behaviour on multiple Star Trek-related articles. These are my personal experience with one edit, the unambiguous page statistics showing you as having self-authored at least 80% every Trek series page since 2017 and the multiple examples of you reverting good faith edits from a magnitude of editors in page histories. Heads-up, that ain't normal for someone claiming to not be owner, experienced or not.
So, before you patronise me into calling all this random trumped-up accusations because I've felt your wrath after adding one sentence on a stat, which I felt was relevant, even if that is not the subsequent consensus, have a little humility. And, before you accuse me of hounding you, I have not written this to persuade you, or change your mind on an edit, or to stop you from doing anything, I've written this because your attitude and self-proclaimed expertise are not an excuse for ignorance or dismissiveness and you need to reflect.
Instead of sprinting to revert a page to your own edit, if it is truly wrong, let another editor (there are plenty) take the same action. Or, if you still have concerns, use the talk page, as you so often instruct people to do, and say something like "@someone I see why you added that, but I think it was better before because it was clearer/simpler/wide-ranging/punctuated/etc." Your opinion isn't worthless, but neither is an unregistered user's, who may also have seen Star Trek, but isn't aware of every Wikipedia policy, manual or a self-anointed article owner filtering every change. -- Bacon Noodles (talk • contribs • uploads) 19:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
TL;DR: (In case you go "WP:TEXTWALL, ignore"):
- Stats are there, 80% authorship isn't normal
- Don't patronise me, when I'm just pointing out the trend, not one edit on ratings
- If there's a problem, another editor can also change it, not just you
- Talk about a change, unless it's clear vandalism or indisputably disruptive
- Your opinion as "experienced" is not automatically better than a newer user
- Don't always treat your opinion as fact or absolute