User talk:SolarDGrayson
August 2023
Hi SolarDGrayson! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of red panda 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:Red panda, 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. UtherSRG (talk) 13:53, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- @UtherSRG: You need to be fair and not take sides. If anyone has reverted several times to their preferred version, it would be him where he blanket reverted my edits twice without discussing or giving fair reasoning. I haven't reverted several Times. If you had looked closely at the history log, I hardly even made one revert of his edit. My last edit[1] on the Red panda article, could be considered to be counted as the "first and ONLY" revert I have done so far of his edit. (If you can even call that as a revert. Hardly can be called as "several" times. SolarDGrayson (talk) 14:14, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- Edit warring isn't simply just reverts. Making multiple edits of the same nature is still edit warring. You've now been told multiple times in multiple ways that your edits are not in alignment with consensus. Future edits in this manner may get you blocked from editing. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- When he first reverted me, I did wait for him on talk for discussing that edit. I haven't restore that edit[2] back in still but made a thread on talk to discuss. [3] He finally responded after hours by replying to another on my talk thread, but doesn't directly reply to me or given me a good response to my question, and also reverted another of my edit (that was completely different to my first reverted edit). So have to admit that I was feeling really frustrated of that. But I have started a thread on the talk page to discuss the (second reverted edit) and of course won't restore it back without discussion. [4]SolarDGrayson (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:24, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- When he first reverted me, I did wait for him on talk for discussing that edit. I haven't restore that edit[2] back in still but made a thread on talk to discuss. [3] He finally responded after hours by replying to another on my talk thread, but doesn't directly reply to me or given me a good response to my question, and also reverted another of my edit (that was completely different to my first reverted edit). So have to admit that I was feeling really frustrated of that. But I have started a thread on the talk page to discuss the (second reverted edit) and of course won't restore it back without discussion. [4]SolarDGrayson (talk) 15:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- Edit warring isn't simply just reverts. Making multiple edits of the same nature is still edit warring. You've now been told multiple times in multiple ways that your edits are not in alignment with consensus. Future edits in this manner may get you blocked from editing. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- @UtherSRG: You need to be fair and not take sides. If anyone has reverted several times to their preferred version, it would be him where he blanket reverted my edits twice without discussing or giving fair reasoning. I haven't reverted several Times. If you had looked closely at the history log, I hardly even made one revert of his edit. My last edit[1] on the Red panda article, could be considered to be counted as the "first and ONLY" revert I have done so far of his edit. (If you can even call that as a revert. Hardly can be called as "several" times. SolarDGrayson (talk) 14:14, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Content Disclaimer
Informasi ini disarikan dari Wikipedia dan disajikan kembali untuk tujuan edukasi. Konten tersedia di bawah lisensi CC BY-SA 3.0. Kami tidak bertanggung jawab atas ketidakakuratan data yang bersumber dari kontribusi publik tersebut.
- The information displayed on this website is sourced in part or in whole from Wikipedia and has been adapted for the purpose of restating it. We strive to provide accurate and relevant information, however:
- There is no guarantee of absolute accuracy. Wikipedia is an open, collaborative project that can be edited by anyone, so information is subject to change.
- It is not intended to constitute professional advice. The content displayed is for informational and educational purposes only. For important decisions (e.g., medical, legal, or financial), please consult a professional.
- Content copyright. Wikipedia is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC BY-SA). This means that content may be reused with appropriate attribution and shared under a similar license.
- Responsible use. Any risk arising from the use of information from this website is entirely the responsibility of the user.