User talk:LotusEating

Edit-warring against multiple editors[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

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. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have already requested temporary page protection.

You can see I have discussed the issue on the talk page. The dissenting users have no legitimate objections to the revisions; one makes comments disparaging ethnic groups. Can you advise me on how to collaborate with users whose goals are political? LotusEating (talk) 05:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Protection is not necessary here. You are edit-warring against multiple editors; you'll need to establish consensus on the talk page for your changes. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 12:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They are not engaging in good faith. But OK. LotusEating (talk) 23:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Why do you keep reverting edits while you have been warned before (see above)? Keep doing that and you might get blocked. The section about historiography is also problematic, so I don't see why you are just reverting for the sake of it. Removing the historiography section, leaving an article with some information by century is fine.

Just some of the problems about the section: it says overview but only presents two views, that you have inserted (see WP:OR), while there are many more. The Dutch part is ref'ed only by Dutch sources, so not reliable. Some of the refs don't have page numbers. Phrases such as "The argument goes like this." is not encyclopedic language.

It is also ironic that you said in your edit summary that "prejudices the article in favour of one of two main interpretations" while you have done exactly the same by only presenting two views. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 07:15, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is misleading. The edits improve it.

The idea that the "Dutch" sources are not reliable because they are "Dutch" is absurd. The citations are peer-reviewed publications from serious university presses.

Read that again. There are two main interpretations in the literature. An article that presents both of these (my edits) is better than one that presents one of these (the original.) LotusEating (talk) 06:26, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The current article is crap. If you're going to revert every good faith edit that comes along, then it will remain crap. LotusEating (talk) 06:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]