User talk:BX9438Q/2017

Countess of Rosebery

Flyte35, the only consensus for your edits I can see on Talk:Hannah Primrose, Countess of Rosebery is you agreeing with yourself. That's not enough for you to reinsert your preferred version as soon as the protection expired, which is what you did. I won't take any admin action in regard to that article, as I might be considered biased by being a long-time friend of Giano, but perhaps the protecting admin would like to keep an eye on developments. Bishonen | talk 16:33, 21 January 2017 (UTC).

I don't think anyone was maintaining there was consensus. It is not necessary to get the approval of other editors before making changes to articles. Flyte35 (talk) 18:09, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

You do realize the article was protected because of the content conflict / edit war? And now you have reinserted the change you previously edit-warred in favour of. You need to try harder to actually get consensus — 3rd opinion or RFC or dispute resolution or whatever — not simply resume the war. Bishonen | talk 18:23, 21 January 2017 (UTC).

I don't have to do anything, but I am aware of the procedures all editors have available in Wikipedia to resolve content disagreements, yes. Flyte35 (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Resolution: See talk page. Edits not retained. Flyte35 (talk) 04:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Family of Donald Trump

That article is under a ArbCom imposed 1RR, so please self-revert immediately. If you do not, I will be forced to block your account from editing. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:03, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Resolution: Another editor altered the text in question and added sourcing. No account blocking or anything. Flyte35 (talk) 04:36, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Michael Reagan

Hi there. In general, please try to avoid immediately removing that are placed in good faith. Tags such as these are placed to foster article development and discussion. Try to be open to other editors' suggestions. If you think the tags should be removed, then the best approach is to discuss them on the article talk page. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:23, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

That doesn't make so much sense in this context. All of the tags you added were were about providing more detail. And it appears all of those details could be found in the sourcing provided. I don't think it's terribly helpful to flag text if you can just address your concerns on your own. Flyte35 (talk) 17:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Limited resources. We all try to improve the encyclopedia any way we can. Don't dismiss other people's contributions, no matter how small. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Resolution: Tags removed. Flyte35 (talk) 22:09, 17 November 2018 (UTC)