Ekecdnkoewihdouuepiw

June 2020

Please do not add or change content, as you did at List of PAW Patrol episodes, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:28, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

November 2020

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Rio Monterroso Culvert, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Also, please refrain from introducing commentary into Wikipedia articles. ❯❯ 1subAtomic ^(💬Talk) 11:37, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Rio Monterroso Culvert moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Rio Monterroso Culvert, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:56, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I’m a very new Wikipedia editor and the river monterroso culvert article is my first article. Ekecdnkoewihdouuepiw (talk) 12:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I will try my hardest at correcting the errors. This is my first article and I don’t know where to look for the page that describes the errors. Please reply the errors that I will have to correct and I will attempt to publish the draft again Ekecdnkoewihdouuepiw (talk) 12:08, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the statements on the fact that “it is the largest culvert” and I have decided it to be just an article about the culvert and it’s river. and would like to keep an unconfirmed Statement on the top in case it is legitimate. I will now republish the draft thank you. Ekecdnkoewihdouuepiw (talk) 12:20, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi, the biggest problem by far is that this article/draft has no references. Basically, every material statement in the article needs to be supported by citing reliable, secondary sources - see the "Your submission at..." section immediately below this one for more information. Hope this helps, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that before I had started studying the river Monterroso’s culvert there was almost zero websites on it to use as a citation. The town did nothing to bring attention to the culvert as so there was not many cites onto it other than one website of when it’s original bridge had a sinkhole. Measurements including it’s length, span and height was measured by me. I have a screenshot of a google earth measurement of it at 1.16km however no photo of its height being measured. Most photos was photographed by me and the photos that are vintage, there citing documents don’t exist back then and/ or are so old the original documents or people involved was destroyed with age or had passed away. Are you able to find other solutions to this problem. If needed I can add unconfirmed to all statements, or a statement that claims about the lack of citational material exiting for the article? Ekecdnkoewihdouuepiw (talk) 19:14, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Rio Monterroso Culvert (November 2)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Rio Monterroso Culvert and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Rio Monterroso Culvert, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 12:08, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Ekecdnkoewihdouuepiw! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Theroadislong (talk) 12:08, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Rio Monterroso Culvert has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Rio Monterroso Culvert. Thanks! Theroadislong (talk) 12:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Rio Monterroso Culvert (November 2)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by TheAafi was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Rio Monterroso Culvert and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Rio Monterroso Culvert, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

─ The Aafī (^talk) 12:26, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Rio Monterroso Culvert (November 2)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Robert McClenon were:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Rio Monterroso Culvert and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Rio Monterroso Culvert, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:42, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

November 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to introduce inappropriate pages to Wikipedia, as you did at Rio Monterroso Culvert, you may be blocked from editing. If you need guidance on how to create appropriate pages, try using the Article Wizard. You have already been advised more than once that every Wikipedia article needs references to reliable sources, and have repeatedly created this article in both draft space and article space anyway. Please learn how to include references to reliable sources and let the community decide when an article should be accepted. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:50, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I created the river Monterroso culvert draft article which is my first article. The disruptive editing is me correcting and adding more information. However I have removed the claim of ”worlds largest” on the most latest article. I will try to remove the original duplicate draft soon. Ekecdnkoewihdouuepiw (talk) 18:51, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Rio Monterroso Culvert for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Rio Monterroso Culvert is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rio Monterroso Culvert until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I have added citations. Depending on what you think on the new citations are you able to remove the “more citations needed” info bar on the top of the article? Ekecdnkoewihdouuepiw (talk) 14:28, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

November 2020

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rio Monterroso Culvert while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Aoi (青い) (talk) 10:07, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

There are currently several other out of control people on the same IP address. Which is why I have not allowed them to log in. I will notify them not to alter pages Thank you Ekecdnkoewihdouuepiw (talk) 13:50, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Patty Mayo Fraud Situation

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Patty Mayo Fraud Situation requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from https://bnonews.com/index.php/2019/01/youtube-patty-mayo-revealed-as-actor/. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Jmertel23 (talk) 14:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

November 2020

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Patty Mayo Fraud Situation, a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. Jmertel23 (talk) 14:43, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. I have not intended to tamper with speedy deletion tags. I created the article knowing that it would be deleted due to copyright anyway. I will remove the copyrighted material and think again for another way for the article to exist without breaching copyright rules. Ekecdnkoewihdouuepiw (talk) 15:24, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Rio Monterroso Culvert, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Please do not blank articles (including replacing all salient content with a message to say you have blanked the article) while an AfD discussion is ongoing. Thank you. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:26, 14 November 2020 (UTC) DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:26, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Your contributed article, River Monterroso

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, River Monterroso. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Rio Monterroso Culvert. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Rio Monterroso Culvert. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Aoi (青い) (talk) 07:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. However my plan is to get rio monterroso culvert deleted and keep river Monterroso due to a change of name however due to an ongoing deletion afd in monterroso culvert I am unable to blank rio monterroso culvert I would be grateful if you direct the deletion to rio monterroso culvert and keep river monterroso Ekecdnkoewihdouuepiw (talk) 10:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

November 2020

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with River Monterroso. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion, which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. Thank you. Aoi (青い) (talk) 10:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to River Monterroso, you may be blocked from editing. JACKINTHEBOX • ^TALK 10:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Coldhead into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Aoi (青い) (talk) 01:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Coldhead

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Coldhead. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Cryocooler. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Cryocooler. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions.   // Timothy :: talk  18:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Pipe Dropoff stump moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Pipe Dropoff stump, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. — Amkgp 💬 19:52, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Pipe Dropoff stump moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Pipe Dropoff stump, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. – Thjarkur (talk) 22:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Which source were you basing this article on? I was unable to find any mentions of this subject with a Google search.

You may wish to have a look at our guidelines regarding original research, all material should be verifiable in published sources.

You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, it's very easy or even automatic to add citations if you're citing a webpage, you just need the URL.

Thank you.

– Thjarkur (talk) 22:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

As I have not found any other article on this subject I decided to create it.

I am uncertain if the subjects article exists as a different name as I saw it in the underground Juan Benítez stream in a culvert, and decided to make this article. I have agreed for it to be deleted if the article subjects real name is found and has its own article. The basic situation is that I found it in a culvert and decided to make a article on it as an article on it didn’t exist, the name is unique and has no citations because I invented the name just a day ago however it may be associated with a “Plunge pool”. However I will do my best to add citations. Ekecdnkoewihdouuepiw (talk) 21:07, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Your article MDE ES

Welcome, and thank you for contributing the page MDE ES to Wikipedia. While you have added the page to the English version of Wikipedia, the article is not in English. We invite you to translate it into English. It has been listed at Pages Needing Translation, but if it is not translated within two weeks, the article will be listed for deletion. Thank you. Spiderone 18:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Please move it to the spanish version of wikipedia Ekecdnkoewihdouuepiw (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

MDE ES tagged for deletion

Hello Ekecdnkoewihdouuepiw, I wanted to let you know that I've tagged MDE ES for deletion because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia. If you feel that this assessment is incorrect you can either edit the article to explain better how the subject is notable or you can click on the "Contest this deletion" button and explain it on the talk page, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

This company does not even exist as far as I can tell. Please don't add made-up content to Wikipedia. All content here should have appeared in a reliable source. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi. See WP:COI – it's best not to write about oneself. It's also best not to log out to add oneself again to disambiguation pages (WP:SOCK), apart from that only items that already have articles are mentioned on disambiguation pages. – Thjarkur (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Pipe dropoff stump

Hello, Ekecdnkoewihdouuepiw. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Pipe dropoff stump, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Pipe dropoff stump

Hello, Ekecdnkoewihdouuepiw. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Pipe dropoff stump".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! --Ferien (talk) 21:36, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

March 2024

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Doctor Eggman. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I am writing to you to notify you that “disruptive” is a subjective term in which its validity balances on the compass of one’s opinions, biases and external factors.

It is also evident that amongst nine other flaws in the proposed argument you have put forward, one of the points you have raised do not meet the “Common rationales for blocks” criteria, therefore I am not obliged to accept the stance that you have provided as valid without the additional clarification of higher authorities of Wikipedia.

It’s much appreciated that you develop from some of the points below and keep them in mind for future reference to continue to effectively uphold Wikipedia’s guidelines:

1. Subjectivity of Disruptive Edits: The term "disruptive" is inherently subjective, as it depends on individual perspectives, biases, and external factors. It's not universally agreed upon what constitutes disruptive behaviour, making it challenging requiring the point to apply consistently across different situations 1
2. Consensus Evolution: Wikipedia acknowledges that consensus can change over time. This means that what might be considered disruptive today could be seen differently tomorrow, especially if the community's understanding or perspective on the topic evolves 1.
3. Engagement in Consensus Building: Engaging in consensus building is a crucial part of Wikipedia's editing process. It's possible that the edits in question were part of an ongoing effort to build consensus on a topic, rather than disruptive actions 1.
4. Failure to Get the Point: The message implies a failure to understand the point of the edits. However, it's also possible that the edit(s) were made with the intention of challenging existing consensus or presenting a new perspective, which is a valid part of the editing process 1.
5. Rejection of Community Input: From face value, these edit(s) may have been made in response to perceived rejection or ignoring of community input, which is a sign of disruptive editing. However, it's also possible that the edit(s) were made to address concerns or additions that were not adequately addressed by the community 1.
6. Assumption of Good Faith: Wikipedia's guidelines encourage assuming good faith among editors. It's possible that the edit(s) were made in good faith, with the intention of improving the article, rather than disrupting it 2.
7. Conflict of Interest: The edit(s) could be seen as disruptive if they are made with a conflict of interest. However, it's also possible that the edit(s) were made with the intention of providing a balanced view or correcting perceived biases 2.
8. Disruptive Editing: The edit(s) could be seen as disruptive if they do not engage in consensus building. However, it's also possible that the edits were made with the intention of fostering a more open and constructive dialogue on the topic 1.
9. Misrepresentation of Others: The edit(s) could be seen as disruptive if they involve misrepresenting others' contributions. However, it's also possible that the edits were made to correct inaccuracies or misinterpretations of others' contributions 2.
10. Use of Diffs: The edit(s) could be seen as disruptive if they involve altering others' comments without using diffs. However, it's also possible that the edits were made to provide a clear and concise comparison of the changes made, in accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines 2.

Ekecdnkoewihdouuepiw (talk) 23:46, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Is this chatgpt? HansVonStuttgart (talk) 08:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Let’s take a step back and stick to the relevant questions and topics at hand without diverging too much. I personally lack the personal time to start collateralising into new debates which will result in no constructive outcome and / or are not interesting to me. I assume you also have a similar mindset. Vested interests.

Vested interests which originate from within the logic producing substrates of our prefrontal cortexes. Observe how I didn’t mention [our] logic gates, MOSFETs or dies?

Quite directly you have your answer, it stands to be freely derived by the reader... >w< Ekecdnkoewihdouuepiw (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! HansVonStuttgart (talk) 08:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)