User talk:~2026-40426-27
Hello! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
You are welcome to edit without logging in; however, creating an account is free and has several benefits (for example, the ability to create pages and upload media).
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
If you have any questions, just use this link to ask for help ; a volunteer will visit you here shortly!
Happy editing! ScottyNolan (talk) 20:40, 20 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
Information icon Hi ~2026-40426-27! I noticed that you've made several edits in order to restore a version of Nirav D. Shah. The impulse to repeatedly undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure that you're aware of Wikipedia's edit warring policy. Repeatedly undoing the changes made by other users in a back-and-forth fashion like this is disallowed, even if you feel what you're doing is justifiable.
All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages in order to try to reach a consensus with the other editors involved. If you are unable to come to an agreement at Talk:Nirav D. Shah, please use one of the dispute resolution options that are available in order to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of repeatedly reverting other editors' changes can help you avoid getting drawn into edit wars. Thank you. -- irn (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
- Hi. I think that is not exactly right. I only made one edit to restore material that you had deleted. Not several. And I did not just restore that material. But as I said on the talk page, you had complained in your deletion that the sentence only was one senator taking a position. As you may have seen, what I added after that was that two senators - not one - had made the objection. This is important. Please look again at what happened. Your description is not whath happened, in important ways. --~2026-40426-27 (talk) 17:34, 21 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
- Yeah, I apologize for the imprecision: I used a template to place a generic, pre-written message, so it doesn't contain some of the nuance of this particular situation. Sorry if it felt like you were being misrepresented. That said, though, the Wikipedia policy on edit warring applies to reverts "in whole or in part", so both of the edits you made to restore the quotation count as edit-warring. I have seen people get temporarily blocked for that sort of thing, so it's just something to be aware of. And, as happened in this situation, using the talk page just makes it a lot easier to figure out where we disagree and come to a consensus. And I appreciate how you engaged on the talk page and made that change, so thank you for that! Cheers, -- irn (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
- Thanks. That policy is a bit odd as applied here. Someone says "deleted because only 1 Senator said it." So you add a second Senator who said it and insert a sentence saying now "2 Senators say .." And explain that in the edit summary. That seems like it should be complimented as a perfect I listened response, not seen as warring. But that's me. --~2026-40426-27 (talk) 18:03, 22 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
- Yeah, I see how it can look that way. You were clearly engaging in good faith and trying to respond to others' concerns, and that should be complimented. Using the talk page provides more space for elaborating than an edit summary, and it's more conducive to collaborating as well because it's not directly paired with making the changes that one is advocating. So when there's a dispute, the best practice is to go to the talk page rather than hashing it out through edit summaries. -- irn (talk) 16:22, 23 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
- Thanks. That policy is a bit odd as applied here. Someone says "deleted because only 1 Senator said it." So you add a second Senator who said it and insert a sentence saying now "2 Senators say .." And explain that in the edit summary. That seems like it should be complimented as a perfect I listened response, not seen as warring. But that's me. --~2026-40426-27 (talk) 18:03, 22 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
- Yeah, I apologize for the imprecision: I used a template to place a generic, pre-written message, so it doesn't contain some of the nuance of this particular situation. Sorry if it felt like you were being misrepresented. That said, though, the Wikipedia policy on edit warring applies to reverts "in whole or in part", so both of the edits you made to restore the quotation count as edit-warring. I have seen people get temporarily blocked for that sort of thing, so it's just something to be aware of. And, as happened in this situation, using the talk page just makes it a lot easier to figure out where we disagree and come to a consensus. And I appreciate how you engaged on the talk page and made that change, so thank you for that! Cheers, -- irn (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
Information icon Hello, I'm WikipediholicRat. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Troy Jackson—because it 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 or the Help desk. Thanks. WikipediholicRat (talk) 22:31, 27 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
- User:WikipediholicRat---Why do you not believe it is constructive? --~2026-40426-27 (talk) 22:33, 27 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
- User:WikipediholicRat ---And why did you delete this. Especially -- without an edit summary? User:Pppery .. I think this editor is not quite ready for rollback. ~2026-40426-27 (talk) 22:38, 27 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
- User:WikipediholicRat---Why do you not believe it is constructive? --~2026-40426-27 (talk) 22:33, 27 July 2026 (UTC) Reply
Information icon Hello, I'm Beyhive Navy. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Kristina Liutova, but you didn't provide a reliable source. On Wikipedia, it's important that article content be verifiable. If you'd like to resubmit your change with a citation, your edit is archived. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Beyoncé and Rihanna's navy 🐝🪖 01:20, 3 August 2026 (UTC) Reply
- Really? Which edit? --~2026-40426-27 (talk) 01:22, 3 August 2026 (UTC) Reply
- What are you doing? You just deleted an entire paragraph with every sentence followed by citations. And also seem not to know that a lead does not need to be cluttered with references where they exist in the text. --~2026-40426-27 (talk) 01:25, 3 August 2026 (UTC) Reply
- You added unsourced content and removed info here . Beyoncé and Rihanna's navy 🐝🪖 01:26, 3 August 2026 (UTC) Reply
- If I removed info, that was an inadvertent error . So thanks for catching that. But the addition was appropriate and did not require references as they appear in the text below the lead. It is a rule meant to avoid needlessly cluttering leads. Wikipedia:NOTCITE --~2026-40426-27 (talk) 01:28, 3 August 2026 (UTC) Reply
- And this language was better and mirrored the construct of the first part of the sentence. Why did you revert? "In her junior career, Liutova won the 2022 Under-12 Orange Bowl and the 2023 USTA Under-16 Nationals." --~2026-40426-27 (talk) 01:30, 3 August 2026 (UTC) Reply
- So -- please self-revert on those two points, the lead and that sentence, or I can address it for you. ~2026-40426-27 (talk) 01:34, 3 August 2026 (UTC) Reply
- You can add it back yourself but keep the sourced content you removed. You removed it without explicit explanation and I already explained it to you. And the lead in question is the introduction of the article, not the biographical summaries. Beyoncé and Rihanna's navy 🐝🪖 01:37, 3 August 2026 (UTC) Reply
- So -- please self-revert on those two points, the lead and that sentence, or I can address it for you. ~2026-40426-27 (talk) 01:34, 3 August 2026 (UTC) Reply
- And this language was better and mirrored the construct of the first part of the sentence. Why did you revert? "In her junior career, Liutova won the 2022 Under-12 Orange Bowl and the 2023 USTA Under-16 Nationals." --~2026-40426-27 (talk) 01:30, 3 August 2026 (UTC) Reply
- Will do. As I said, the deletion of the sourced content was inadvertent. That's why there was not explanation. And the lead to the bio article is what I am referring to.--~2026-40426-27 (talk) 01:44, 3 August 2026 (UTC) Reply
- Thank you. Beyoncé and Rihanna's navy 🐝🪖 01:58, 3 August 2026 (UTC) Reply