User talk:Number 57: Difference between revisions

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19

This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be auto-archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 1.

You are designating that adding native names of Israeli politicians at the infoboxes “unnecessary”, but it is necessary.

You are seeing that that’s unnecessary but it’s necessary in general and even it’s not, it’s better that adding native names on that infoboxes.

Please do not disrupt the Wikipedia. 2A00:1D34:412:1001:6591:C3BE:C42:54E1 (talk) 11:26, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You blanket reverted edits that’s not even disputed on talk plus one edit that had consensus with Sheherherhers. Sheherherhers later discussed with me on a revert and came to consensus[1] with me that one of my edit was fine and neutral. They themselves restored that edit as a result of discussion. [2] Additionally other editors like Amigao and others made multiple edits afterward, that improved the article like showing there’s no sources for certain paragraphs. You reverted them. Additionally my specific edits here to remove flawed original research (WP: SYNTH) is not even being disputed by anyone including horse. [3] [4]. NOBODY even reverted them as nobody once raised issues with specifically them. The only edit currently actively discussed, has still not even been added back in tho it should. As the sourcing issue has been resolved and there doesn’t seem to be any valid reason for removal. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 04:34, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Look, it’s pretty clear that you’re purely on Wikipedia to push a particular POV. Regardless of this, you need to respect WP:BRD and not force your edits into the article (your edits were previously reverted by Horse Eye’s Back). Number 57 12:39, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s rich. Did you even read above? Is it considered a conduct issue when someone reverts specific edits that were never disputed, or when a disputed edit has already reached consensus and been restored by another editor? If you didn’t know, then now you know. But if you are aware that the edits aren’t disputed or have already reached consensus and still falsely label them as disputed in order to undo them – effectively wasting others’ time as a battlefield editor – then I may have to report this without hesitation. I am not going to be goaded to an edit war and there’s only so many times I can tell you that those edits aren’t even being disputed. The primary disputed edits haven’t even been restored yet. You are the FIRST AND ONLY EDITOR reverting those edits and without reasoning. JaredMcKenzie (talk) 14:51, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]