User talk:IWeeBoo

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, IWeeBoo! Thank you for your contributions. I am Denver20 and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Denver Correia | Thank you ~:~:~:~ (talk) 14:35, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IWeeBoo, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi IWeeBoo! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like GreenMeansGo (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:10, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

March 2020

Hello. Some of your recent genre changes, such as the one you made to 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Thailand, have conflicted with our neutral point of view and/or verifiability policies. While we invite all users to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, we urge all editors to provide reliable sources for edits made. When others disagree, we recommend you seek consensus for certain edits by discussing the matter on the article's talk page. Thank you. Flix11 (talk) 05:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from adding, removing or changing genres, as you did to 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Thailand, without providing a source or establishing a consensus on the article's talk page first. Genre changes to suit your own point of view are considered disruptive. Thank you. Flix11 (talk) 05:45, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Flix11, sorry, but I have said that I made this edit and waited to see if any interested individual who don't agree and revert my edit, then I will have a discuss with that user in the article's talk page. For now, just let my edit remain, it's not necessary to put the matter in the talk page if still there is no one disagreed.IWeeBoo (talk) 05:59, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@IWeeBoo: On the contrary, you should go to the talk page and get clearance before editing to your version. Flix11 (talk) 06:00, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Flix11, clearance with who? No one has disagreed with my edit yet, for that there is still a consensus on that my edit is relevant. Only if anyone reverted my edit and wish to discuss then the old consensus is breaked and I will need to talk to that user to reach a new one. If you really don't agree then what do you not agree at? I will talk to you.IWeeBoo (talk) 06:07, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just read WP:CONACHIEVE. Flix11 (talk) 06:15, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Flix11, I have read it. Of course i understand what achieving consensus is. You are understand it wrong. The problem here is you. You are the only one up to now reverted my edit. Did you revert it with any specific disagreement? Or just because it's a big edit recognized via random patrolling? (that's not a relevant reason) If you really disagree with anything related to the article's content then we may talk directly in the talk page. If not, my edit should be temporarily retained until any truly interested editor who revert it for specific reasons and wish to discuss.IWeeBoo (talk) 06:32, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@IWeeBoo: Just dropping in here. Contrary to what you claimed, it is pretty clear that you have not achieved consensus to remove the entire section from the article. I have also been restoring that particular section as well as other parts you deleted for the past several hours, although through editing and not reverting. Next time, as Flix11 has said, please use the article talk page prior to repeatedly making such changes to avoid starting an edit war, especially when two users are now at odds with your intentions. — Tony Patt (talk • contribs) 07:25, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just you that is disagreeing. The other user just make random patrol. I can talk points that you may be conflicted with in your talk page.IWeeBoo (talk) 08:02, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Use the article talk page so that other users can jump in. You're the one challenging the status quo here so you should be taking initiative. Regardless of the number of editors who disagree with your edits, or whether Flix11 was doing a "random patrol" or not, consensus still needs to be formed until all parties agree, and that does not take away from the fact that you are coming close to violating the 3RR rule without engaging the talk page first. — Tony Patt (talk • contribs) 08:19, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Tony Patt (talk • contribs) 07:52, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Tony Patt, ok, calm down, I'm not intending to make war. No need of lecturing me about talk page and consensus, I know it well.IWeeBoo (talk) 07:56, 25 March 2020 (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, you may be blocked from editing. Paul_012 (talk) 05:36, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:IWeeBoo reported by User:Paul 012 (Result: ). Thank you. Paul_012 (talk) 05:42, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not warring edit!IWeeBoo (talk) 07:04, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]