47.208.103.244

April 2022

Please stop undoing this redirect. No neutral, knowledgeable editor would read the talk page as not having a consensus. There's a clear consensus to merge. This is a futile fight. Your time would best be spent elsewhere. Sergecross73 msg me 21:07, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Please stop removing this entry and redirecting it to a tangentially related page after having bypassed the existing discussion and delcaring concensus without obtaining it. If you have an issue you can request a neutral party. 47.208.103.244 (talk) 19:18, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I have not "removed the entry" any times at all. The page history objectively proves this. Please do basic checking before making such accusations. And I've already asked for outside intervention from a neutral party. Sergecross73 msg me 21:46, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

FYI, the discussion has been closed, and 2 separate neutral editors agreed that it be closed with a consensus to merge, so any further restorations of the article will be seen as disruptive, and may lead to blocks or pages being locked from editing. Sergecross73 msg me 13:29, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm surprised this IP restored the page again after I had closed the discussion with a consensus to merge. If you still oppose the merge, IP, please start a split discussion at Talk:Image scaling. Jalen Folf (talk) 00:17, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Not a single person replied to or addressed my opposition to the merge in the discussion. I'm surprised anyone would view that as achieving consensus, please stop defacing this article. 47.208.103.244 (talk) 00:38, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

As I said, 2 separate neutral, uninvolved editors came to the exact same (and extremely obvious) conclusion that there was a very strong consensus for merging the article. I'm not sure if it's that you don't understand policy enough to properly get a read on the consensus, or if you're too biased to see it. But either way - ignoring the consensus and continuing to revert will only get you locked out of editing the article entirely, so please stop wasting your time and move on. Sergecross73 msg me 01:17, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

As I told the other editor, there is no concensus.

Not a single person replied to or addressed my opposition to the merge in the discussion. I'm surprised anyone would view that failing to address an objection as achieving consensus, please stop defacing this article. 47.208.103.244 (talk) 21:39, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

That is not your call to make. Ignoring and reverting is not an option. Sergecross73 msg me 22:46, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

May 2022

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. You will be blocked if you continue. I suggest you stop. Izno (talk) 02:52, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I did seek dispute resolution and it was removed without happening. As it stands the page continues to be removed. All content removed not just the list and redirected to a single paragraph on an unrelated wiki page. Consensus does not exist when people refuse to address concerns that are raised. Which is what happened here. I fully support page protection being added here to prevent editors from continuing to deface this page. 47.208.103.244 (talk) 21:57, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

If page protection is added, you don't get access to the page. It is better to just collabrate with others. When tempoary semi protection is added, we get to edit, but you don't. Wesoree (Talk | Contribs) 16:56, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

The page has been deleted and redirected to an unrelated article without reaching consensus. Editors continue to force this change when the article is restored. I believe this article needs page protection to prevent it's deletion. 47.208.103.244 (talk) 17:01, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

October 2023

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to Betty Kwan Chinn—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. Materialscientist (talk) 06:50, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

---