Hello, I'm That Tired Tarantula. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Robert Mulka seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. That Tired Tarantula (talk) 16:55, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Vietnam War 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; read about 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:42, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You added the information, it is your responsibility to provide the reference. Rude and insulting attacks on other editors is totally unecessary Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, there's no reason why someone couldn't just find a reference to someone elses contribution if it is added without reference instead of just reverting it without even trying to look into it. Otherwise it doesn't bring anything to the site and is a pretty useless way of contributing and that's sad because that's not how collaboration works. If you wanna find it rude and insulting that I think it's a lazy thing to do then that is up to you. MylowattsIAm (talk) 18:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How do I know where, or even if, you found a reference? As the contributing editor, it is your responsibility to provide the reference. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can do a Google search and find material that both states the same and is valid to be used as a reference. Which you can then add as a reference. MylowattsIAm (talk) 15:49, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So why didn't you? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 15:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And why didn't you? I wasn't even sure how to add a reference as I hadn't ever done it before nor was I really sure which of the several sources is good enough to be accepted as a reliable source. Getting help from someone who is more competent than me would've been nice but I guess that's too much to ask. MylowattsIAm (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you try asking? Did you read the Wikipedia guidelines on how to reference articles? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did but I still wasn't confident enough. Didn't ask because I didn't think other editors would act this way and just jump to removing straight away. I was naive and thought editors ate helping each other because Wikipedia keeps advertising itself as a collaborative website. MylowattsIAm (talk) 18:00, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Sinking of the MS Estonia. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Drmies (talk) 17:53, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't attack anyone, simply stated that people should rather use their energy to helping other editors make their contributions worthy of inclusion instead of simply removing their contributions without even caring to look into it. MylowattsIAm (talk) 18:03, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here is the thing. "you could've not been a lazy, useless editor and instead of just reverting the edit before you could've actually added the source yourself. Stop with this horrendous laziness and blind reverting"--that is a personal attack. If you don't understand that, then maybe this collaborative project isn't for you. Drmies (talk) 18:14, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From what I know, the definition of lazy is "unwilling to work or use energy" which seemed to be the case here. Simply reverting other editors contributions without even looking into them is pretty useless as it brings nothing good to the site. Doesn't seem very collaborative to me. But whatever, after reading that other people have had all sorts of horrible or ridiculous experiences trying to contribute to Wikipedia, I've decided to quit. It's not worth it. MylowattsIAm (talk) 18:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Germany 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; read about 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Dont get blocked over a name Moxy🍁 12:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]