User talk:Ljaatx2022

Welcome![edit]

Hi Ljaatx2022! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Drmies (talk) 00:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 2022[edit]

Do not use multiple IP addresses to disrupt Wikipedia. Such attempts to avoid detection, circumvent policies or evade blocks or sanctions will not succeed. You are welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, but your recent edits have been reverted or removed. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Having an account is good. I hope you will use it from now on. Drmies (talk) 00:41, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey -- I'm new and just made an account. Not cool to welcome me like this. Ljaatx2022 (talk) 00:45, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hush up. This was not your first edit, and you've been editing from a number of IPs. And your edit summary proved it wasn't--besides, it suggested a thing or two about you, with that condescending tone. Drmies (talk) 00:47, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you look at the article that was reverted at all? The rationale was totally invalid and I was saying there must be another reason this was done as the reason given made no sense. I'm just getting into this and have been enjoying it and am sure I have some etiquette to learn. That doesn't mean you have to be a jerk about it. Ljaatx2022 (talk) 00:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I have been editing from 2 computers and it has not been intentional (something about AGF). Ljaatx2022 (talk) 00:51, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So you weren't new. Final warning. Stop edit warring, stop editing while logged out, and stop referring to other editors with an abbreviation of their user name. Drmies (talk) 01:31, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. I am new? Where are you getting the impression I am not new? If this is how you treat new people on your platform its no wonder most people are too intimidated to contribute here.

2. Thanks for teaching me a new term -- edit warring. Seems like you all are doing the same.

3. I think binky is a grown ass adult and can handle me using an abbreviation of their u/n. Is another piece of wiki etiquette I'm just supposed to know?

Ban me if that's what you get off on. But I spent 5+ hours doing research to make a page better and am having a very hard time understanding why this is the response I'm getting. If you want to teach someone the ropes around here it needs to be done in a much less confrontational way. Ljaatx2022 (talk) 01:37, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also curious, what is the incentive for someone to discuss one of their edits on a talk page if the dissenting party is not allowed to revert? What is the usual process for this? Ljaatx2022 (talk) 01:39, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The usual process is WP:BRD, which means the onus for discussing, on the article talk page, is on you--and has been on you. Yes, edit warring: you could be blocked already for re-inserting disputed material three times, since editing from different IPs and then signing up for an account does not inoculate you from that charge. No, "we" (Binksternet and me) are not doing the same: we are disputing that you are making a positive contribution. Let's see--other wiki etiquette? Well, "bink" and "binky" and "if that's what you get off on", those are pretty serious violations, yes. So that "confrontational way", well, you're the one who said "I can only assume bink has another motive for removing this information". Drmies (talk) 01:55, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I actually really appreciate the information and will read up on this.

There is no need to threaten a ban because I obviously don't care since I am new here and have nothing to lose -- but I do want to learn and make a positive contribution and will take the time to read any rules/suggestions you direct me to. Ljaatx2022 (talk) 02:00, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have read article, thanks again. What is accepted process for restoring bold edits if original reverter does not engage in talk after a reasonable amount of time? Ljaatx2022 (talk) 02:04, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is always the problem. One cannot expect a user to wait indefinitely. If you ping them from that talk page, and they don't respond in a few days (that seems reasonable to me), then I think you've done your job.
But here's another thing--make it a better edit, in two ways. First, don't do it in huge chunk: do it in three or four edits, which makes it easier to scrutinize and thus harder to object. Second, make sure you follow guidelines--so in your version I see lots of unverified paragraph. Source them abundantly, so that can't be objected to either. Does that make sense? Drmies (talk) 13:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ljaatx2022 the solution is to move on. When I first came to Wikipedia, it took a while to learn the ropes. There are many unwritten rules here. Large edits in a political space for a brand new editor also IP hopping are going to draw unwanted attention. My advice would be to realise this place is not a battleground, it is an encyclopaedia. If your edits are frustrating experienced editors, then your behaviour should change. My first few edits were reverted, and it really is on you to work collaboratively with other editors to discuss changes. Consensus does not mean you get to demand they respond - I think it is clear the other involved editors do not side with the changes and they are not obliged to change their mind. Hope @Drmies does not mind me chipping in, just noticed this while patrolling the user creation log. MaxnaCarta (talk) 05:21, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. I basically did a bunch of research and dumped it all at once. I’ll limit scope in future and appreciate the “move on” advice. I was originally frustrated that the edit description in the reversion was basically pulled out of thin air. I see now there were probably some other things the editor took issue with that they didn’t have room to describe in the comment.

Thanks for taking the time to explain how things work. Looking forward to making more positive contributions in the future. Ljaatx2022 (talk) 05:14, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]