Hello, I'm EchidnaLives. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Texas's 23rd congressional district, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. echidnaLives - talk - edits 01:50, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, didn't mean to do that. I have self reverted this. echidnaLives - talk - edits 01:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No offense taken, you were just doing your job 107.190.33.254 (talk) 01:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, this is petty and borderline tendentious. You're just straight up reverting good faith edits that I've made (in an effort to improve clarity!) on the article about Twitter's removal of journalist accounts, and seemingly removing quotes because you don't like them. The whole goal here is to work together, it's a back and forth. You've made a lot of good changes to the article to help make it more concise, but it seems like you are edit-warring for unknown reasons. What gives? Thanks. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 22:07, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to show how I have a pattern of editing that is partisan, biased, skewed, and does not maintain an editorially neutral point of view, I'm listening, otherwise f*** off. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 22:26, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep it civil, thanks. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 22:27, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well then don't insult me by calling me partisan, you started it, not me 107.190.33.254 (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's just not reasonable to remove quotes because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. When there are very descriptive, direct quotes available, why not allow for them in the Responses section of the article?

You've also expressed that this article basically should not exist, disregarding the fact that we just had a lengthy AfD discussion, in which the outcome was to Keep the article. Whether the decision was "close" or not isn't relevant, and you may not like or agree with that decision, but that's how it works. We have consensus to keep the article. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 22:43, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't said that, don't lie about what I said, and you may not like the fact that "Keep with the possibility of merge" means that the article might be merged, or that you do not, in fact, have consensus to keep without merger, since that is what is being discussed, but that's how it works. We have consensus to keep with possibility of merger. Cheers! 107.190.33.254 (talk) 22:46, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's just not reasonable to remove my changes because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. When there are very descriptive, direct sentences available, why not allow them in the article instead of more convoluted ones? 107.190.33.254 (talk) 22:47, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 107.190.33.254! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of December 15, 2022 Twitter suspensions 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:December 15, 2022 Twitter suspensions, 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. VQuakr (talk) 23:33, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, I reverted my edit upon realising it was partially incorrect, thanks 107.190.33.254 (talk) 23:35, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're going to be reported if you don't stop. You've been edit-warring with several users now, please take a break. Thanks. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 23:44, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but only if you agree to, and I'd like to point out that I reverted my edits when I realised I was heading for an edit war with VQuakr, you've been edit-warring with me for a while now, please stop pestering me and take a break, thanks, cheers! 107.190.33.254 (talk) 23:47, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See you at the noticeboard. Cheers! 98.155.8.5 (talk) 23:48, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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:107.190.33.254 reported by User:VQuakr (Result: ). Thank you. VQuakr (talk) 23:47, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had stopped my edit-warring, care to explain? 107.190.33.254 (talk) 23:48, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You were already waaaaay over WP:3RR, then continued after the final warning above, [1]. If you think you shouldn't be blocked, make your case at the noticeboard linked above. VQuakr (talk) 23:50, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, this was my final warning? And please do show me instances of 3RR, I reverted a lot of different things but generally left most of them alone, also, you can't play edit-warring alone, why am I the only user getting the noticeboard warning, also I stopped "edit-warring" after you made the post (but continued making small edits every while and then) 107.190.33.254 (talk) 23:56, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're reverting multiple other editors. Also, WP:NOTTHEM. Warning was [2]. Any edit that removes content is a "revert". Consecutive edits count as one but I count 11 groups of non-consecutive reverts in the last 24 hours, which is greater than 3. VQuakr (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, this is normal part of consensus building, I change A, the other user changes it back but leaves something that I changed, and rinse and repeat, if you ask me, this has been highly productive 107.190.33.254 (talk) 00:02, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It has definitely not felt productive to me. The page is now protected, and for good reason. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 00:10, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, since the whole point of my edits WAS to remove content, your definition seems cleverly built to mean that ALL of my edits were reverts. But 3RR requires for a user to write A, then for another to remove it, and then for someone to rewrite A, if you are going to claim that I reverted a specific part of the article 11 TIMES, please show me that bit, thanks, cheers! (and a friendly reminder that making multiple removals of content does not constitute multiple reverts 107.190.33.254 (talk) 00:06, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But 3RR requires for a user to write A... no, it doesn't. VQuakr (talk) 00:09, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well what you're claiming is that someone wrote something in the article, and EVERY TIME I removed content, I was doing a new revert of that content 107.190.33.254 (talk) 00:10, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. That's why there are 11 groups of reverts listed in the EWN complaint. VQuakr (talk) 00:12, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an example of your claim, so this is a random text

"Started several mistake joy say painful removed reached end. State burst think end are its. Arrived off she elderly beloved him affixed noisier yet. An course regard to up he hardly. View four has said does men saw find dear shy. Talent men wicket add garden."

I rewrite it as (changes in [[ ]])

"Started several mistakes joy say painful removed reached end. State [[ ]] think end are its. Arrived off she elderly beloved him affixed noisier yet. An course regard to up he hardly. View four has said does men saw find dear shy. Talent men wicket add garden."

Then someone adds

"Started several joy say painful removed reached end. State thinks end are its. Arrived off she elderly beloved him affixed noisier yet. An course regard to up he hardly. View four has said does men saw find dear shy. Talent men wicket add garden."

And then I do this

"Started several joy say painful removed reached end. State end are its. Arrived [[ ]] she elderly beloved him affixed noisier yet. An course regard to up he hardly. View four has said does men saw find dear shy. Talent men wicket add garden."

By your standards I have just made 2 reverts, since I removed content twice, this is obviously preposterous 107.190.33.254 (talk) 00:14, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These aren't even actual edits. If you want to argue this in a more productive way, it would probably be better to use diffs. 98.155.8.5 (talk) 00:17, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ON MY PHONE, TOO FIDDLY, my point stands 107.190.33.254 (talk) 00:18, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What you find preposterous isn't relevant. From the policy: The term "revert" is defined as any edit (or administrative action) that reverses or undoes the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, and whether performed using undo, rollback, or done so completely manually. A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert. This is a bright-line rule intended specifically to prevent the sort of rapid-fire removals you were doing. You also were edit warring since you repeated the same edits after I contested them, inviting you to move to the talk page. ETA: then maybe you shouldn't edit on your phone. There's no deadline, you know. VQuakr (talk) 00:22, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the 3 revert rule refers to this :

You : A

Me : removes A (ONE revert)

You : returns A (ONE revert for you)

Me : removes A again (TWO reverts)

You : returns A (TWO reverts for you)

Me : removes A again (THREE reverts)

It is intended to stop the whole changing back and forth of a page (example : the nationality of Nikola Tesla, or any other of those listed at WP:LAME) from getting excessive.

Here's what it DOESNT refer to :

Someone : writes A, B, C, D, E

Me : removes A (ONE revert)

Someone else : Z

Me : removes B (TWO reverts)

Someone else : F

Me : removes C (THREE reverts)

Also, I didn't continue edit-warring, I merely continued removing unrelated and different information on the page, ETA : then maybe you should reread the policy, there aint no deadline, ya know 107.190.33.254 (talk) 00:31, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]