JshKlsn
June 2020
edit
Hello, I'm CommanderWaterford. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Android 11 have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks. CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Android 11. CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Android 11 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:06, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Chris Troutman (talk), as you can see the page was edited to reflect the cited source and provide accurate true information as well as fix spelling mistakes. By the other user reverting mine back to his, he's reverting back to false information. He cited the sources and then completely provided wrong information in the article.
- May I ask how I will be in trouble for fixing an article he's vandalizing? What is the point in me contributing to Wikipedia if I am going to get in trouble for providing correct information? At what point can I be sure that the facts (that are cited) will stick and the false information it continues to be reverted to will no longer be shown?
- JshKlsn (talk) 23:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
- My warning informs you that, as you've already reverted an editor twice, doing so again will result in you being blocked. We can disagree about what the article should say but Wikipedia does not tolerate endless changes back and forth. Per WP:BRD, after reverting you need to discuss the matter; This edit of yours is not discussion. You may not know this, but we care about verifiability and we really don't care about what's true. Insisting that what you're writing is "the truth" makes no difference to us. I looked at your edits and found that you removed cited content and added un-sourced content which you then repeated. As your edits aren't constructive, we're not going to want to keep them and blocking you would probably be better for all concerned. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
- I do not understand what you mean? The links you provided were me removing redundant information and broken English, as well as fixing names.
- The original said "Android 11 will have almost 100 new features for Android devices." and I changed it to "Android 11 will have almost 100 new features.", as "for Android devices" when talking about Android 11 is redundant. The "99 new features" was added by another user, and I did not edit that back to 100. I honestly don't understand what I am doing wrong. I am trying to change a Wikipedia article full of misinformation into one with proper cited information and it's being vandalized and I am getting in trouble. Is it wrong to remove redundant information or to fix broken English? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JshKlsn (talk • contribs) 19:41, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
- It doesn't matter if, in those same edits, you corrected anything. You removed cited content and added un-sourced content. You reverted another editor twice. This is asocial behavior, for which you have been warned. Please discuss on the article's talk page what you think needs to be changed. Do not edit war. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
- The original said "Android 11 will have almost 100 new features for Android devices." and I changed it to "Android 11 will have almost 100 new features.", as "for Android devices" when talking about Android 11 is redundant. The "99 new features" was added by another user, and I did not edit that back to 100. I honestly don't understand what I am doing wrong. I am trying to change a Wikipedia article full of misinformation into one with proper cited information and it's being vandalized and I am getting in trouble. Is it wrong to remove redundant information or to fix broken English? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JshKlsn (talk • contribs) 19:41, 24 June 2020 (UTC)