Reverts

edit

Hi, I understand your concerns, but next time cite sources before removing large amounts of content π‘­π’Šπ’π’Žπ’”π’”π’”π’”π’”π’”π’”π’”π’”π’”π’”π’” (talk) 13:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

There is no need to "cite sources" in such an instance, though to help out trigger-happy reverters on vandalism patrol such as yourself User 2601:196:180:8d80:1d68:17d0:e86b:f982 linked the appropriate section of the Wikipedia Manual of Style for you to reference - and you still blindly reverted their edit. As well as the previous dozen, all of which had appropriate edit summaries (clearly indicating the work was methodical and constructive, and defintely NOT vandalism), in one mass revert. You may blank my warning on your talk page, but any repeat actions such as these indeed will be escalated to administrative review, as vandalism patrol is not a blank ticket to abuse your editing privileges at others' expense. 2601:196:180:8D80:11A3:8F01:3CB:69E5 (talk) 13:46, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply