User talk:2601:196:180:8D80:A9F1:E6B0:852F:B49E

March 2023[edit]

Hi 2601:196:180:8D80:A9F1:E6B0:852F:B49E! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Operation Elster 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.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Operation Elster, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Idontknowwhattouseasmyusername300 (talk) 14:51, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

This is a tempest in a tea pot involving two brand new users overreaching on new changes patrol. One with just 300 edits in a few days experience with the encyclopedia, the other similarly with 500. All they know is revert. And seem determined to ignore edit summaries. Or make the slightest effort to either check the validity of some thing, or if that is too hard, use a citation needed template to flag material they’re questioning, rather than practice completely unacceptable mass reverts without indicating what any of their objections are.

In hopes of ending this cycle, I have on my own supplied a citation for the only questionable edit made (which simply made clear the reason the Pretorius mission failed, a fundamental and undisputed fact about it). Thank you for your concerns.2601:196:180:8D80:A9F1:E6B0:852F:B49E (talk) 14:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any sources to support your evidence or are you using the given ones? It may not be the most comfortable to correct someone or write a paragraph of useless information; but any way, this argument over a article without is a waste of time. I advise you to work on something you can actually cooperate with other people. Please leave the article be until the conflict is peaceably and wisely resolved. =ˆUwUˆ= (talk) 16:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Better yet, contest an your draft to the article to see which receives more positive votes.~~=ˆUwUˆ= (talk) 16:31, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the citation. Best added at the start I think you might agree.

Regards

LWB Lukewarmbeer (talk) 17:37, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ionic Ludicrous The IP was correct in insisting on Elster as the name (not Magpie), which is as it now exists, and provided a citation for the Pastorius change. Hence, not "...a waste of time." Also, when there is a dispute in an article that is potentially heading toward edit warring, the proper step is to start a discussion on the Talk page in an attempt to reach consensus. However, this is not resolved with "...which receives more positive votes." As at Teahouse, please refrain from comments on Talk pages until you have a better grasp of Wikipedia's rules, guidelines and procedures. David notMD (talk) 18:39, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was only talking about the arguing. =ˆUwUˆ= (talk) 18:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.