User talk:2601:18D:4600:7070:0:0:0:A23F

February 2023

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. —El Millo (talk) 04:07, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't make sense to include links that don't go where they should. The same occurs on Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse. The comic book pages for Miles Morellos, Gwen Stacy, and Peter B. Parker should be linked properly like all the other characters on these pages. By all means, enlighten me as to why such sensible changes are considered disruptive. 2601:18D:4600:7070:0:0:0:A23F (talk) 04:20, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First, you didn't use edit summaries in any of your edits, so you basically made and then reinstated an edit without explanation, which is by itself considered disruptive. Second, you ignored hidden notes, which are often there because there's consensus for it. Now, I agree that where they now lead is incorrect, I thought they led to a dedicated section on the respective main comics characters page, otherwise I wouldn't have reverted you, but remember that you must you edit summaries (especially when removing hidden comments and/or reinstating your own reverted edits) and you generally should discuss instead of reinstating your edits when reverted according to the bold, discuss, revert cycle. —El Millo (talk) 05:15, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I get it. I overlooked the edit summaries by mistakes. Not sure what consensus there would be for interrupting those links but I will be mindful of this in the future. 2601:18D:4600:7070:0:0:0:A23F (talk) 01:00, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse, you may be blocked from editing. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 02:44, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I did it right this time. I used the edit summary. Regardless, I believe what I am doing is my most constructive edit I could do on that page, and not the least disruptive. I really want my edits to stick, so I would like this to be resolved properly and maturely, without having my right to edit revoked. Please help bring this to an end. Thank you. 2601:18D:4600:7070:0:0:0:A23F (talk) 04:21, 22 February 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.

I told you you generally should discuss instead of reinstating your edits when reverted according to the bold, discuss, revert cycle. You can start a discussion at the article's talk page. Continually reinstating your reverted edits constitutes edit-warring (whether knowingly or unknowingly), and could end up getting you blocked in the long run. —El Millo (talk) 04:52, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to cause any trouble. I just believe in things being organized and that people shouldn't be deceived with bad links. I managed to figure out discussions and I successfully started one. Hopefully, I can get my desired changes properly supported and approved this time. 2601:18D:4600:7070:0:0:0:A23F (talk) 23:51, 22 February 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.