User talk:Azum

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Azum, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! South Nashua (talk) 16:57, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Azum 17:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 2019[edit]

Concerning this and the following edit. We have a definition, WP:VANDALISM, which does not cover the edit you were reverting. First, edit-warring is not OK, especially since there were already a lot of users adding and removing the same word, and the article had to be protected shortly after your edits. Second, and more importantly, calling vandalism smth which is clearly not vandalism is a personal attack, and repeated personal attacks may lead to blocks and various editing restrictions. Please never ever do it again. Thank you for understanding.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:08, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question was being brigaded by users from an external site, it was already protected and a discussion was raised regarding the issue on the talk page, instead of contributing to this discussion the editor I was reverting decided to continue with the brigade. Taken out of context it wouldn't be considered vandalism but I think you need to see the bigger picture Azum 20:55, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do see a bigger picture. This is not vandalism, by no means.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article was being brigaded and edited over 30 times, do you honestly think the 30th editor is suddenly acting in good faith? Why do you think the article was left locked in the state I reverted it to? Azum 06:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the 30th editor was not acting in good faith, then you, the 31st editor, was not acting in good faith either. And, to be honest, if I choose between a former arbitrator and a user with 12 edits, I would rather choose a former arbitrator (not to say that edit-warring is acceptable).--Ymblanter (talk) 06:46, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion, reverting the article back to the state it was in before the brigade and encouraging the vandal to join the discussion on the talk page is somehow not done in good faith? I think that you're grasping at straws here Azum 07:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since you insist on calling them a vandal, this is an official warning for you: One more time you call vandalism smth which is not WP:VANDALISM I am going to block your account.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even the admin that locked the page is calling it a vandalism wave but if you're just going to throw around threaths we are done here Azum 07:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]