Contents

User talk:Tommygunn7886: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 06:52, 23 May 2024

Happy editing! Peaceray (talk) 04:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave the accusations out of those edit summaries. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 20:35, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Adakiko. I noticed that in this edittoEye color, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Adakiko (talk) 20:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I remove the regions which claimed amber eyes are more common because upon looking at the source cited, none of the regions were mentioned. So I removed it as an unsourced claim. Tommygunn7886 (talk) 20:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a different edit. Drmies (talk) 20:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No it is not. The edit that was reverted was the edit about the different regions in which amber eyes are common. I have to ask from a personal view, without any insult implied, why are you following my account? Tommygunn7886 (talk) 20:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No it is. Adakiko linked this edit, where you removed "It has been proposed that blue eyes" etc. Also, no, I am not following you at all. I watch Recent changes. Drmies (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see another edit was reverted. The reason for that edit removal was due to the source being only a Spanish population. To imply globally that brown eyes are associated with more estrogen is a preposterous claim. Tommygunn7886 (talk) 20:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should ping the other user if you want an answer. Drmies (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Eye color 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. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:19, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough I was not aware of this rule. I apologize, gender idenity and trans visibility is something I am deeply passonate about as a trans man of color. Tommygunn7886 (talk) 06:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You violated the rule after you were warned below. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:52, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributionstoWikipedia. I noticed that your recent edit to Eye color did not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or to provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances that your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits, an adequate summary may be quite brief.

The edit summary field looks like this:

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary, and then click the "Save" button. Thanks! Adakiko (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Eye color 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. A Rainbow Footing It (talk) 03:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This message is to notify you that a discussion has been created at the Administrator's noticeboard regarding your recent behavior. Here is the link to that discussion. A Rainbow Footing It (talk) 04:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion moved to the following location: [1] A Rainbow Footing It (talk) 04:54, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for 48 hours from editing for contravening Wikipedia's policy against harassment. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

You failed to substantiate your grave personal attacks. The other editor seems to have neutrally summarized what a published source said. When your block expires, you are obligated to comply with Assume good faith. Cullen328 (talk) 06:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also WP:3RR. And in my opinion a dose of WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Not to mention making the article say the literal opposite of what you intend. Take a step back and see how things have gone off track and come back and make it right. There are proper ways to pursue the changes you think should be made. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]