ButterCashier

Hello ButterCashier, a few minutes ago, you reverted some edits I made to the page uniform civil code. You wrote that the edits were non-constructive. Could you kindly provide further details or clarification on this matter? I would greatly appreciate it. Ummertheone (talk) 09:23, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi and thanks for editing! Having a look at the Uniform Civil Code page, I reverted edits from an IP user's edit, which I deemed did not add anything constructive to the article. The page reverted to the most previous edit prior to their involvement, which is your version of the page. Hence, I have not actually reverted your edits, but another user's. I hope this helps. ButterCashier (talk) 10:01, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Got it. Thank u 27.63.10.7 (talk) 15:22, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I got it. Thank you. I made that last "got it. thank u" comment from my phone where I am not logged in, so it shows my IP. Thanks again. Ummertheone (talk) 15:36, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

You should have waited atleast for a minute after I removed the content at Next Indian general election. Please see the edit now. It is supported with a reliable source. Shaan Sengupta^Talk 13:51, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi and thanks for editing! Concerning your edits on the Next Indian general election page, I saw you had removed some information and thought it erroneous, thus reverted the edit. Perhaps this was judged too hastily, based on your subsequent work. If possible, it's generally better to finish the full edit in one go, using the preview to see how your edit affects the page, rather than use multiple edits, leaving the page incomplete during the process, to leave the page in a superior state. I apologise about the revert and hope we may both learn from this experience. ButterCashier (talk) 13:54, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

The page was edited heavily. That's why thought to edit it in part. Sure we all learn from each other. Cheers buddy! Shaan Sengupta^Talk 14:33, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Please explain why you are reverting me with RedWarn on Sonic X-treme using an anti-vandalism tool on edits that clearly are not vandalism and leaving an inadequate edit summary in return. Red Phoenix ^talk 19:54, 25 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I thought it was more standard to write the name of the company, in this case, IGN, rather than simply referring to the author. I used RedWarn since I am used to using it to revert any edits. This is a bad idea for non-vandalism, then? I suppose that ought to be self-explanatory. Sorry. ButterCashier (talk) 07:29, 26 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

It’s absolutely an inappropriate use of RedWarn, for the same reason rollback can’t be used for anything other than obvious vandalism. For an edit like this, you should explain your change with an edit summary, and you can’t do that with a canned “reverting good faith edits”. I appreciate that you recognize the mistake and I’m sure you’ll use anti-vandalism tools well in the future.

On the subject of credit - yes, the publication should be mentioned, but if someone is credited in that article as having written the source, then that person should be credited for their words as it is presented as their words, whether or not it represents the journal as a whole. This should still come with recognition that said person writes for said publication in the text itself, of course, which in this case was done in the same main section two paragraphs above where it was acknowledged Travis Fahs writes for IGN. If there is no writer credited for an article or it’s just credited to “Staff”, then the claims can be said to be that of the publication itself. Red Phoenix ^talk 13:54, 26 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

You got trouted for warning me about a test edit despite I reverting it. 85.101.217.58 (talk) 08:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi and thanks for editing! Sorry about that. I saw you reverted it but wanted to write a message on your talk page about how edit tests should be done - using your sandbox, a good reason to use an account here. I'll revert my edit. ButterCashier (talk) 08:02, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. 85.101.217.58 (talk) 08:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

FYI, ButterCashier, that IP may or may not be a sock of either AudiGuy-1204orLithuaniaball2, and has been blocked as such. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 12:13, 31 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello, ButterCashier. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Professor Layton and the New World of Steam".

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 deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, ButterCashier. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Tales of the TARDIS".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Your recent editing history 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; read about 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. Note whilst you have not breached 3RR the page is under 1RR restrictions, thus you are in breach of editwar. 16:25, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I wouldn't really call it a war, though, more a pacifistic contention of semantics, but that's another matter. Incidentally, you might want to sign your edits on talk pages, by ending an edit with four tildes, like so. ButterCashier (talk) 19:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply