Hello, Z80Spectrum, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations verified in reliable, reputable print or online sources or in other reliable media. Always provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.
I don't know if the post above is a question, or an automated post, but I'll try to "answer" in case it is a question.
I have nothing against archiving, but only certain topics. The other editor has explained to me that the ClueBot III is going to AUTOMATICALLY archieve certain post. I then disabled ClueBot III, because it is my opinion that an agreement should be reached first about the list of topics that need archiving. I outlined on the talk page my preferences about the list. I think I have already posted virtually indetical arguments here [1]. Z80Spectrum (talk) 02:27, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here you said But you haven't read it, you just rushed in and produced a flood of irrelevant policies in defense of an established editor. No part of that sentence is true, but even if it were true it is not a good use of the article talk page. Please revise or strike the accusation that I am blindly defending anyone.
More generally, I don't see any indication that the other two editors who have replied recently are the least bit confused about the situation. It honestly reads like you are assuming they must be confused because you dislike the answer you received.
Regarding my involvement that section, I've made myself as clear as I know how. Ultimately, I am under no obligation to satisfy you with the answer I provided, and I don't see that further replies regarding those other two sections are going to benefit anyone. I suggest you move on, but in any case please do not ping me again in that section of the talk page. VQuakr (talk) 02:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As you wish. I'm a newbie, so feel free to ignore my pings if I accidentaly ping you.
From my perspective, we can continue that discussion, I don't see why not, if you produce an answer to my question. I don't feel offended. But, if you don't want to, that is OK. Z80Spectrum (talk) 03:52, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I struggle to think of a worse way to say "Sorry for the accidental @, that wasn't meant to be addressed to you even though I addressed it to you" than "I see that you are confused again." How else did you expect the string "@username" to be interpreted? That's certainly not a Wikipedia-unique facet of online communication. WP:CIVIL is policy, FYI. Regardless, my feedback remains the same. I don't see anyone rushing to defend me, I see an outcome that is obvious to everyone except yourself. VQuakr (talk) 07:06, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what exactly is the meaning of "@" symbol here on WIkipedia. I used the editor user interface, which automatically inserts the "@" symbol. I do understand that you get a ping when the "@" symbol is used, and I did want you to read my reply.
If I was wrong to add the "@" symbol, then I do appologize to you.
The text of the contended paragraph is clear: it is not directed at you, because it is impossible that you didn't read your own WP:SYNTH objection. Z80Spectrum (talk) 15:06, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
However, you have also removed the source "Morr, Sebastian. "Esoteric Programming Languages." (2015).", which seems to be reliable and well-cited. I copied that source from Esoteric programming language article. So, please, bring back that source and the related citation reference. Z80Spectrum (talk) 03:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there was a reliable source mixed in with all the UGC sources in your changes, feel free to go ahead and add it back in. I don't feel like spending the time to analyze all your changes to do it myself. CodeTalker (talk) 03:48, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Talk page guidelines vs. ZX Spectrum graphic modes
I invite @Paradoctor to this discussion, which is a reply to [|this post] he made.
(minor issue) Paradoctor said: That the article split suggestion was reverted together with the rest was infelicitous, but understandable in context. - - - More precise would be: "That the article split suggestion was deleted together with the rest was infelicitous, but understandable in context.". By the way, it took me one month and over 50 posts of arguing to revert that "infelicitous" delete. Just the fact that noone reverted it earlier is, IMO, sufficient to report a few involved editors to WP:ANI. But I didn't do it, I attempted to discuss.
(minor issue) Paradoctor said: Dionysius Miller did agree with you that WP:OR does not apply to talk pages.. - - - Well, he said that he agrees, but the rest of his paragraph clearly indicates that he doesn't really agree.
(major issue) Paradoctor said: The proper rationale for the removal of the contentious material is quite simply WP:NOTFORUM (policy) / WP:TALK#TOPIC (guideline). Original research, when discussed on talk, is offtopic, as it is general conversation about the article's subject. So citing WP:OR as reason, while technically incorrect, is absolutely in keeping with the spirit of the talk page rules.
So, basically we have to discuss the issue no. 3.
a) I beleive that your understanding of WP:NOTFORUM (policy) is incorrect. For better understanding, please re-read it.
b) I beleive that your understanding of WP:TALK#TOPIC (guideline) is incorrect. For better understanding, please re-read it.
c) I think we should first concentrate on discussing WP:OR.
About WP:OR. It clearly states: This policy does not apply to talk pages . How much more explicit do you want it to be?
Besides that, your interpretation is against the spirit of Wikipedia rules, because of the following: if talk page material is allowed to be removed because it is allegedly WP:OR, then it becomes hard to discuss whether it in fact is WP:OR or not. So, the poster gets caught in a problem of circular definition of Wikipedia rules.
The essential and central problem of all Wikipedia rules, and especially ones on the WP:TPG is: the rules are circular, vague and imprecise. This allows experienced editors to "hammer down" newcomers, because it allows them to re-interpret the vague rules of Wikipedia. As a consequence, Wikipedia is not really guided by any rules, but by groups of people who interpret the rules as they please, and against the stated spirit of Wikipedia.
Besides, weren't you in a camp that was against deleting posts unless they are terribly against the rules? But now, you are suddenly singing a different song. How come? Z80Spectrum (talk) 18:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Telling someone "please re-read it" isn't a helpful way to present your case, it is far more likely to annoy than to make progress. A quote of the section that you think needs further clarification would be much better.
Re your mention at [2]: WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, and WP:IMAGEOR are all sections of the same policy. The diff you linked was specifically about synthesis of images being used or considered for use in article space. I oppose their use in the article, not their mere mention in talk space. Your accusation about applying those policies to talk page material is inaccurate. More generally, the purpose of talk pages is to discuss improvements to the article. Extended sections that are based on original research are pointless since they can't be used for article content. Noting this does not mean someone is applying WP:OR to a talk page. VQuakr (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thank you. I'll skip your first point, for the time being, just to shorten the answer.
VQuakr said: I oppose their use in the article, not their mere mention in talk space. Your accusation about applying those policies to talk page material is inaccurate..
However, the | entire topic is about the talk page content that was deleted, not about article content. We can't discuss article content before talk page content is restored. You are right that you didn't explicitly say whether you are talking about talk page material or about article content. So, you got me confused about that, so I asked you 4 times in a row to clarify what you mean, but you refused. You could have clarified it earler, why did you wait until now? So now you claim that you didn't explicitly said it. Well, true, but it doesn't look like a fair discussion to me. Z80Spectrum (talk) 19:30, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So I asked you 4 times in a row... you got a very clear answer, you just didn't like it. Big difference, and I don't appreciate the accusation that I somehow am telling you anything different now than I did then. To repeat (yet again!) my original reply in that section: I think those conversations are moot, since they are discussions about "simulating output" in a way that isn't compatible with WP:SYNTH. There is therefore no article content to discuss. VQuakr (talk) 20:18, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't accuse you that you are telling something different now than before. In fact, it is my view that you also got confused, as I have stated in this post.
The problem is that you refused to clarify what you mean, which ruined the entire discussion. That was not nice of you, and neither is your accusation now that "I didn't like it", and a similar accusation that you made before. The truth is that you were not clear about what you mean, and you refused to clarify when explicitly asked.
Also, about your claim "Your accusation about applying those policies to talk page material is inaccurate.", well, that accusation is about people CONFUSING policies that apply only to articles, with policies that should apply to talk pages. So, perhaps you were thinking about article content, but you made it look very confusing, even after several attempts of mine to clear it up. In that sense, my example on WP:TPG is right on the spot. Z80Spectrum (talk) 20:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that you refused to clarify... no, that's not true either. Since you can't seem to get through the first sentence without spouting easily-disproved untruths, your opinion on whether I or anyone else is confused or not isn't worth the electrons inconvenienced to express it. VQuakr (talk) 21:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I see it, the timeline goes like this:
(Post 1)(this post) . I have asked the question Why shouldn't my discussion How to simulate Spectrum's PAL output be allowed on this talk page?
(Post 2) (next post) . You reply (verbatim): [3]. I haven't "attacked" anything, heavily or otherwise. VQuakr (talk) 17:00, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
(Post 3) (next post) . I repeat my question and add: I don't see your answer yet. If you don't answer, it will be impossible to continue this discussion with you. In the answer to my question you should clearly state all the most relevant Wikipedia policies that you think are applicable.
(Post 4) (next post) . You reply (verbatim): WP:LISTEN. VQuakr (talk) 22:23, 1 February 2024 (UTC
Your answer in Post 2 could not be understood as a straight answer. It is not even a full sentence. You could have simply written: My answer is the same as [4]. Unfortunately, you didn't. That has, apparently, caused much confusion. I advise you, if you wish to be clearly understood, to answer with full sentences.
Your answer in Post 4, unfortunately, doesn't clarify the situation at all, as it is a general answer that doesn't point to the specific problem. Again, it would have been better if you have answered with a full sentence. Z80Spectrum (talk) 07:29, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to explain it in a simpler way. The situation that Wikipedia is facing is much like the Orwell's Animal Farm.
In Animal Farm, the animals start with a clear and nice constitution. But, over the time, the constitution gets perverted by apparetntly small changes of text, which, in effect, turn every rule of the constitution into the exact opposite.
Well, that's what is happening on Wikipedia. To solve the situation, you must not only think in terms of current rules and their ambigous wording, but in terms of the overall effect that they will have on Wikipedia.
I mean, really, if WP:OR is banned from talk pages, how can any substantial argument be made there? If Wikipedia continues on such a path, eventually it will require all additions to talk pages to also be cited and from "reliable sources". How is that in accordance with the original spirit of Wikipedia?
WP:OR is banned from talk pages, how can any substantial argument be made there?
WP:OR: Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists.
There is nothing to discuss. OR doesn't belong on Wikipedia.
The only thing that may occasionally be legitimate to discuss is whether some text is OR or not. But that is then a a question about whether the published source the text comes from is reliable, i. e. source criticism.
Yes, but I am talking about drawing precise limits: how many grains make a heap?
If every argument on talk pages is branded as WP:OR, even things so simple that they may be WP:CALC, then how can any substantial argument be made on talk pages without being immediately deleted?
Talk pages are for discussions, and all discussions necessarily involve some amount of original research, as a part of the argument. Are we going to draw the line so strict that any substantial argument is going to be branded as WP:OR or WP:NOTFORUM or WP:TALK#TOPIC? Even when WP:OR explicitly says otherwise, and even when my reading of WP:TALK is the opposite of yours (I can explain it in detail, but I'm cutting it for brevity). Z80Spectrum (talk) 17:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think that poll has any chance of success as a consensus building tool; too convoluted. Please expedite striking your characterization of my position as what you wrote isn't accurate. More generally, we're not a rule-based organization and it isn't realistic that our policies and guidelines will contain precise examples of every possible situation. VQuakr (talk) 17:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that what I wrote is an accurate summary of your position. If you like, I suggest that you write your summary, in case that I misrepresented you.
If every argument on talk pages is branded as WP:OR I have explained to you twice now that citing WP:OR alone as a reason for removal, while technically insufficient, is substantially correct, because discussing OR on talk automatically violates WP:TALK#TOPIC.
all discussions necessarily involve some amount of original research Flat out wrong. Discussing whether a source is reliable is not WP:OR. Discussing how, or if, this or that policy or guideline applies to an edit is not OR.
WP:NOR makes OR easy to identify: Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research. What is not explicitly stated is that the material is intended to influence article content. Therefore, an editor who, say, is gathering evidence about the edits of a problem user is not doing original research, even if their work is not a reliable source for article content. Paradoctor (talk) 17:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation.
As I understand you now, your opinion is that my posts did not violate WP:OR, but other editors quoted WP:OR instead of quoting WP:TALK#TOPIC as rationales for deleting talk page material that I wrote. In my opinion, that is still the evidence of confusion, and the reason more to clarify WP:TPO. That is why my examples on talk page of WP:TPG are valid, and that is why I initially opened this topic on my talk page.
You said: citing WP:OR alone as a reason for removal, while technically insufficient, is substantially correct, because discussing OR on talk automatically violates WP:TALK#TOPIC..
I beg to differ substantially.
First. I can find no support of your claim in any Wikipedia policy. I think that your interpretation is not only mistaken, but also baseless. I think that WP:TALK#TOPIC together with WP:OR clearly supports an interpretation opposite of yours.
Talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general conversation about the article's subject (much less other subjects). Keep discussions focused on how to improve the article. Comments that are plainly irrelevant are subject to archiving or removal.
I interpret it as following: [deleted talk page topic] and [other deleted talk page material] that I wrote are in the perfect harmony with the quoted WP:TALK#TOPIC. They are discussing how to improve the article, more precisely, how to improve the quality of the article's images. The quality of images cannot be improved if the methods of generating the article's images cannot be discussed on the article's talk page.
The deleted discussion is not a discussion about articles subject (the subject are the graphics modes), but about article content (images in the article are content).
Frankly, I can't see your side of the argument at all. You will have to explain it to me in more detail. I think you are completely mistaken. Z80Spectrum (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Was this material intended by you to influence the article, i. e. to justify some change to it, yes or no? Yes, it was! (yes). I have posted this explanation many times already, see "Article content." paragraph and this. This is not a point of contention, by any editor, except by you.
Was this material taken from a published, reliable source, yes or no? Your question is off-topic. It is irrelevant, because WP:OR does not apply to talk pages, as we have both already agreed. Since your question is off-topic, I won't answer it. It is the same as if you asked me whether it is a sunny day where I live.
Yes, it was! then what reliable sources were you planning to use to inform those changes to the article? VQuakr (talk) 20:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC) ; edited 21:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC) ; edit undone 06:34, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
then what reliable sources were you planning to use to inform those changes to the article? (said VQuakr)
That should be discussed on Talk:ZX Spectrum graphic modes page after the deleted talk page content is restored. Until then, this question is both off-topic and it is a form of several fallacies, which I will skip for brevity.
Your refusal to address this is why no one seems very excited about restoring the content, myself included. The more relevant guideline for here would be WP:UOWN. VQuakr (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Huh?? I was pointing you to the guideline that is specific to your user/user talk page - in short, it says you can edit it as you see fit as long as you don't make it appear someone said something they didn't. It has nothing to do with discussions elsewhere. VQuakr (talk) 21:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no point in discussing content on the talk page that can never be added to the article because it is WP:OR. If you could point to a source that could be used as a basis for article changes, then it's reasonable to discuss the contents of that source. If you just invented some content as OR and hope to get a consensus on its inclusion, and only then try to find a source to support it, you're doing it backwards and wasting a lot of other editors' time. CodeTalker (talk) 21:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale that you have provided is a form of the Russell's paradox (or catch-22, if you want). It goes like this: to add material to the article, use the talk page to verify whether it is WP:OR. On the talk page, you can't discuss whether the proposed changes are WP:OR, because such a discussion is WP:OR.
Russel's paradox indicates an error in the axioms, and in this case the axioms are the Wikipedia policies (more precisely, one interpretation of Wikipedia policies, which some people apparently support). Z80Spectrum (talk) 21:52, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can assume, in this specific case, that the material isn't usable for article improvement since you are unwilling to share the source(s) it would be based upon. Since, as Paradoctor notes, you're unwilling to conduct a constructive discussion here, I think it's safe to consider this discussion over and move on to something else. VQuakr (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, we can't assume. There are rules, policies, guidelines, and pillars. There is nothing to assume, because assumptions always result in errors.
Write your summary of Option VX... I will not be doing this. Answer the question... already answered, but irrelevant per your responses on this page ending furtherance of the topic. There are rules, policies, guidelines, and pillars.... This isn't a court of law where you're going to find some magical combination of words that results in the community shouting "objection sustained" and then you get to do whatever you want. This is a collaborative environment in which the path you've chosen doesn't result in you getting what you want. VQuakr (talk) 23:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[5]. I've already provided you this diff several times, so further statements from you that I've "refused to answer" or similar will be interpreted as trolling. Thank you for your opinion, but I judge differently. Mmkay, WP:NOTBUREAU is policy but sure, good luck with that. VQuakr (talk) 19:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, I'm entitled to a reply.
I have recently provided a reply to your answer of my question. The reply is here, for anyone interested.
You have provided this diff [6]. Unfortunately, I was previously unable to interpret that diff as a straight answer to my question, due to many reasons, particularly because it was posted many posts (i.e. 40 hours ) before I have asked the question, and because that diff was posted in a discussion context different than the context created by my question. Such could be the reason for the confusion.
However, you obviously misunderstood me. I did not require any answers from User:VQuakr, i.e. in my previous post, I specifically said "if you desire so".
I also don't understand where did you get the idea that I'm not entitled to a reply. WP:SATISFY says nothing about that concern.
What I said is that I'm entitled to post my reply. I did not require a reply from VQuakr.
The first step in a discussion about whether changes are OR is to consider the source they came from. You can certainly discuss a source on a talk page. But if someone persistently refuses to provide a source as you have done, we have to conclude that there is no source. In that case, it's OR. There's no paradox, there's just a refusal to work within the guidelines we have. CodeTalker (talk) 22:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Talk pages are not only for discussing sources. Talk pages are for any discussion about improving the article. It doesn't matter whether a talk page discussion is based on reliable sources, or not. It is sufficient that the discussion is reasonable and that it is not off-topic or insulting.
There must be a starting point. That is the only known solution for the Russell's paradox. Starting point is a non-deleted discussion on a talk page. That can be discussed. Deleted discussion can't be discussed because the poster will constantly be running into the Russell's paradox (Catch-22 is a simpler version of the paradox).
You can't ask me about sources for the deleted talk page discussions, because Wikipedia doesn't require talk page discussions to be from a reliable source. I have tried, on several occasions, to explain why the deleted discussion aren't WP:OR: simply because WP:OR explicitly and states: "This policy does not apply to talk pages".
The second and unrelated issue is whether my proposed changes (which are explained in the deleted talk page material) are a kind of original research or not (therefore, should my proposals be applied to the article content, or not?). I have attempted to explain why they are not original research, but other editors are constantly confusing talk page content with article content, and that makes it impossible to conduct a fair discussion. Those are the expected consequences of the Russell's paradox. The only solution to the problem is to clarify WP:TPO such that Russell's paradox is removed from the guideline. Z80Spectrum (talk) 22:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z80Spectrum RE your non-answer to my question 2, this means we have to consider the material provided your personal opinion, with the WP:BURDEN to prove otherwise being on you.
Which means you wanted to have a discussion about your personal opinion of the article's subject, or rather an aspect of it, which comes down to the same. This constitutes general conversation about the article's subject, which TPG prohibits.
Adding to this, your stated intention was to have the article changed based on, again, your personal opinion, which violates WP:V.
As a personal note, I have forgotten more about Russell's paradox than you will ever know. You really put your foot in your mouth there.
Parting advice: Being ignorant about something is one thing. Being judgmental when you don't know what you are talking about is called arrogance. Start listening to what experienced editors are telling you. If you don't, you won't last long here.
Requesting again an answer to an off-topic question is off-topic, therefore parts of your comment will soon be struck out by me.
Russel's paradox is a very complicated issue, which has troubled mathematics for a long time. Computers programmers are trained to avoid Russel's paradox because every recursion must have a starting point, otherwise it freezes the computer in an infinite loop. Computer's simply can't tolerate Russel's paradox; therefore programmers must constantly avoid variants of it.
People who are untrained for such situations may think that they know a lot about Russel's paradox, when they do not. Russel's paradox is not about reading books, or about getting a doctorate in mathematics; it is a practical issue instead.
WP:TALKO: Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking out text with <s>...</s> or {{strike}} or marking text as deleted with <del>...</del> constitutes a change in meaning.
Do not edit my comment again. OFFTOPIC does not apply here, regardless what you think.
Ah, it should be colapsed or deleted then. I can undo the <del>s, and change them into collapse, if you want. Just notify me (clearly, please) and I'll make the change.
I can't collapse the entire comment(s), because only parts are off-topic (for example, you asked two questions, one is off-topic, and the other isn't). I can only collapse parts of comments that are off-topic. Other parts of a comment should stay as they are. Z80Spectrum (talk) 01:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't listened to me (or anyone else for that matter), so I won't waste any more time here. You set your own course, you see where it takes you. Paradoctor (talk) 01:36, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Therefore, I conclude that his answer to my question is: I think those conversations are moot, since they are discussions about "simulating output" in a way that isn't compatible with WP:SYNTH.
My reply to his answer is: WP:SYNTH is just a part of the WP:OR policy. The WP:OR policy explicitly states in the leading section: This policy does not apply to talk pages. Therefore, WP:SYNTH is an invalid justification for deletion of the contended talk page topic "How to simulate Spectrum's PAL output".
As I have now refuted the only justification provided by User:VQuakr, I now invite him to point to any other Wikipedia policies or guidelines that are (in his opinion) a valid reason for deletion of the contended topic How to simulate Spectrum's PAL output. He is also invited to post his rationales and justifications here, but only those that are strictly related to the Question 1. Z80Spectrum (talk) 20:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The text following I interpret his answer as following: has a different meaning than what I wrote. What you copy/pasted is irrelevant since that's not what you replied to. VQuakr (talk) 22:24, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Point 1. I am allowed to post my interpretation. Interpretations are a normal part of discussions. If you think that my interpretation is incorrect, you are allowed to explain why it is so.
Point 2. Even if my interpretation is completely ignored, the central point is the argumentation and conclusion (in the paragraph below the interpretation). The interpretation is only explanatory. Therefore, the central counter-argument should be directed against my conclusion. Z80Spectrum (talk) 22:46, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on ZX Spectrum. 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.
VQuakr, please, do not confuse issues. Yes, it was the same sentence that was repeatedly edited, but there were three separate issues with that sentence. My last edit only reverted your previous change, and there was no similar edit or revert before it. So, there was one revert of yours and one revert of mine, that is not an edit war. Z80Spectrum (talk) 19:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here are 1, 2, 3 examples of your reverts in that article in the last 24 hours. "Separate issues" is not relevant in this case. WP:LISTEN to others on the talk page rather than using maintenance templates as a bludgeon. VQuakr (talk) 19:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I advise against attempting to reverse anything right now. I don't see even a technical violation of the 3RR in the history yet and you didn't know (that's the purpose of the warning: again, just listen rather than argue everything!). VQuakr (talk) 19:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not, if all you're doing is waiting to continue doing reverts.
It is not the time between reverts that defines edit warring, it is the not seeking consensus on talk. The three-revert rule is a sufficient criterion for edit warring, not a necessary one.
Yes, thank you, @Paradoctor. Anyway, I didn't plan to edit the page much more today, and I am seeking consensus on the article's talk page (see this section [7]). Feel free to join the talk there and to improve the article. Although, really, I think that this whole thing is a non-issue, because I'm quite flexible about the exact content of the article. I was just trying to communicate issues in the article that I think should be improved. Z80Spectrum (talk) 21:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
if all you're doing is waiting to continue doing reverts.
Forgot to reply to this. I don't have any exact plans, but I'll try to do things more slowly, so that others can warn me if I do something wrong. I'll try to better count the reverts and hours. Also, I think no more major changes are necessary to the leading section, at least for the time being. Z80Spectrum (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have blocked you for tendentious editing per the consensus at this ANI thread. This is not a community ban, you can appeal it using this template: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. If you want to be unblocked, I recommend committing to staying away from the associated talk pages which led to the block, and changing the way you communicate with others. I recommend discussing how to improve articles and move things forward, rather than continuing talk page disputes. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk)20:18, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not aware of the context of Z80Spectrum edits that led to tbe block. But I don't feel well thinking it may have had something to with Z80Spectrum's comment on my talk page.
Z80Spectrum, I appreciate the comments you posted in my talk page. I hope admins unblock you in the future and you return to edit to Wikipedia. Sincerely, Thinker78(talk)20:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm just reading what has happened in the last half-hour. Your case has been removed from ArbCom.
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Talk:ZX Spectrum graphic modes, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Article talk pages should be archived. The good-faith assumption is that you didn't understand when you turned off ClueBot. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
User:Z80Spectrum, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Z80Spectrum and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Z80Spectrum during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Z80Spectrum (talk) 16:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on ZX Spectrum. 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.