User talk:Æ's old account wasn't working

Welcome!

Hello, Æ's old account wasn't working, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum see the Wikipedia Teahouse.

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Simplified Manual of Style
Your first article
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community
Feel free to make test edits in the sandbox
and check out the Task Center, for ideas about what to work on.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on my talk page or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! HiLo48 (talk) 04:58, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At this stage, I think you may be to read wp:disruptive, as some of your edits appear to only be for effect, and you may well be wp:nothere. Slatersteven (talk) 14:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My editing is not disruptive, but it may be seen as such; my already-cooked ADHD/autistic brain sees the normal as fallacious.

Attack me more, and you may face a rain of terror from my also-usually-non-disruptive alts (they never disrupt articles, but for users, that's a different story) Æ's old account wasn't working (talk) 01:10, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your Talk:Lagonda Taraf topic...

You might be surprised to hear about featured topics. Editors mainly improve articles on topics they are interested in, and we're all cool with it, even if that means we occasionally see featured articles about battleships of Germany or Final Fantasy in the main page. ObserveOwl (talk) 12:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q3/Q4

Hi, I would strongly recommend self-reverting at Grand Theft Auto VI per WP:3RR as you've now made the same change four times within 15 hours. Is there a particular reason you're so strongly opposed to the phrasing "Q3/Q4" in the infobox? This is standard phrasing, especially for product launches such as video games (see, e.g., here, here, and here). (And, just to clarify, reverting back to your original change is not really an effective "offer" or "compromise".) – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 04:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say is, and as I quote:

"This mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardise it."

I will leave it up to you to figure out the meaning, though I may come back with a more in-depth answer when I am ready. Æ's old account wasn't working (talk) 05:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate an actual answer—as will other editors when you inevitably encounter other disputes if you plan on continuing to edit here. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 12:13, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just wanted to reach out one more time seeking an explanation regarding your opposition to the phrasing, as it's not immediately clear from your recent edit summaries. As mentioned above, the term is widely used, and the concept of quarter years is even noted at MOS:SEASON. If there is a particular reason you're still opposed to the term (e.g., verifiability, neutrality, insignificance), I would really appreciate your input.

Regarding this comment—Let me make some good faith edits for once—you are the only one who can decide to edit in good faith; all that other editors can do is assume, which every reverting editor has done. All we can ask is that you assume the same of us, and participate in discussions accordingly. Your passion for editing and correcting information is fantastic, so I would hate to see you driven from Wikipedia as a result of it. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 06:35, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see.

I completely forgot about the fact that "Q3/Q4" is widely used. All that edit warring has brought me nowhere. Æ's old account wasn't working (talk) 07:20, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring on Grand Theft Auto VI

Hi Æ's old account wasn't working! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Grand Theft Auto VI 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:Grand Theft Auto VI, 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. — Manticore 05:06, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is best not to worry about it for too long. Besides, all that the readers care about is getting information in its simplest form, and "Q3/Q4" might be seen by some as gaming jargon. As for me, I'll be back.

Note that this is not a threat, however I will not go down without a fight. Because, in my eyes, WP:CBI completely invalidates WP:BATTLEGROUND. I am a vigilante ally of the encyclopedia; my primary objective here is to refine free knowledge, not to spark conflicts with others. Æ's old account wasn't working (talk) 13:15, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A failed move request (or more specifically, four) on Talk:Microsoft Flight Simulator has discouraged me from using Talk on any page. Extreme, but relatively effective. Also, there is another edit war in progress on Terminator 2: Judgment Day... that I started. Have fun. Æ's old account wasn't working (talk) 13:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, WP:CBI is an essay, while WP:BATTLEGROUND is policy. Not wanting to spark conflicts is honourable, but simply having that goal doesn't mean it's not happening; if you don't want to edit war, don't.

One discussion not going the way you wanted does not excuse you from future discussions; talking to others is a fundamental part of editing on Wikipedia, whether we like it or not. Refusing to do so is not effective, regardless of how it may feel at the time. If you are truly here to build an encyclopedia, I would strongly recommend actively engaging with it, rather than violating its policies. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 13:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

Just a note regarding this comment: using alternative accounts to evade a block is known as sockpuppetry, a serious form of misconduct on Wikipedia. Thankfully, you are not currently blocked, so this is not an issue, but I figured you should be aware as your comment implied otherwise. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 05:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Terminator 2: Judgment Day shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:16, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Terminator 2: Judgment Day. — Manticore 11:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a simple grammatical change. Æ's old account wasn't working (talk) 12:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain what is wrong with my edits.

So let me ask you a question: Which of these sounds better?

"upon seeing" or "because"? Æ's old account wasn't working (talk) 12:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think your version is (slightly) better, but I will block you if you revert again. Reverting against multiple editors is disruptive. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:19, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who knew copyediting was so difficult? Æ's old account wasn't working (talk) 12:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You need to get other people to agree that the copy is better after your edits. Consensus and communication matter as well. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:51, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see.

Would you (or any of your mates, if you cannot accept this request alone) also be alright sorting out the absolute trainwreck that is my FAC nomination for 2001: A Space Odyssey? I fear any retaliatory response in the ways of self-accused psuedo-biting and numerous passive-aggressive oppositions could rapidly escalate into a serious conflict. Is it the fact that I did it using my alt account, or is it because that FAC nomination also happens to be my first? I suspect the former. I may nonetheless impulsively start a conflict without warning, at which point I request the whole nomination be scrapped until further notice. Oh, and this talk page is the only place on the encyclopedia I feel truly comfortable in. Æ's old account wasn't working (talk) 10:10, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Æ, hopefully I can provide some insight. Unfortunately, there's nothing left to sort out as the nomination has been archived. Please note, though, that the opposition was not because of your alt accounts, nor because it was your first nomination; it was primarily due to your inexperience with the article. Per WP:FAC, nominators should either be "significant contributors" (you have made only seven edits, all relatively minor, and contributed less than 1% of its content) or consult regular editors before nomination.

FACs can be long and exhausting, and nominators are expected to respond to criticism promptly and positively. First-time nominators are strongly advised to seek mentorship in preparing for a nomination. If you intend on nominating the article again in future, I would recommend that you seek a peer review to understand the remaining issues and spend the time addressing those first. You should also familiarise yourself with the featured article criteria, especially WP:FA?#1a and 1b. Hopefully this helps; let me know if you need assistance with anything in particular. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024

Welcome to Wikipedia. Editors are expected to treat each other with respect and civility. On this encyclopedia project, editors assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not appear to do at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates#2001: A Space Odyssey. Here is Wikipedia's welcome page, and it is hoped that you will assume the good faith of other editors and continue to help us improve Wikipedia! Thank you very much! SerialNumber54129 18:22, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed that your recent edit to Wikipedia:Redirect did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account, you can give yourself a reminder by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary (or the default undo summary), and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Slatersteven (talk) 16:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you revert again I will report you, an edit war does not have to breach 3rr. Slatersteven (talk) 13:01, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So far, you have completely rejected all my comments to illustrate a point. Æ's old account wasn't working (talk) 13:12, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you are just getting a kick out of it... Æ's old account wasn't working (talk) 13:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read wp:agf. Slatersteven (talk) 13:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bludgeon

I think you need to read wp:bludgeon. If multiple users disagree with you, you might well not be right. Slatersteven (talk) 10:55, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There might not be a point to all this fighting I started after all.

Honestly, I think this quote summarises these conflicts of mine perfectly:

"I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission. And I want to help you."

HAL 9000 (Douglas Rain), 2001: A Space Odyssey Æ's old account wasn't working (talk) 11:44, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

THen stop. Slatersteven (talk) 12:34, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Damn.

You realise a response like that will only prolong the conflict I vowed to stop just before.

I will stop, as long as you give a SOurce. That is all I ask of you.

So... SOurce, please? Æ's old account wasn't working (talk) 12:41, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:ONUS and WP:Consensus, it is down to those who want to add something to prove their point. Ans no not getting your wat is not a valid reason, this is my last word, here on this wp:dropthestick. Slatersteven (talk) 12:44, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Last word? Æ's old account wasn't working (talk) 12:48, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]