User talk:Seany91
July 2024[edit]
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Jonatan Giráldez. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. I have soft-reverted your edits, reinstating all of the perfectly valid information that you had no reason or explanation to remove, while taking your updates and now correctly stating that Giráldez took over on paper on 7 July. That is all you needed to do - any further inexplicably broad removals of information with no explanation given will be considered deliberate vandalism. Kingsif (talk) 21:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think it's clear that my edits were not vandalism, given that my edits include clear summaries and sources. If there are concerns, please actually state them. Thanks. Seany91 (talk) 22:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- As I actually stated, your edits removed a lot of information that had nothing to do with the date Giráldez took over, and you gave no explanation for removing this information. You are free to provide an explanation or start a discussion. Kingsif (talk) 22:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- I did. Seany91 (talk) 22:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- You clearly didn't actually look at what you removed. Kingsif (talk) 22:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- I actually did. Thanks for questioning my reading comprehension. Seany91 (talk) 22:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm replying on the talkpage breaking down your edits, but either you genuinely believe you have explained everything and didn't read what you removed, or you're lying. Because a lot of stuff you removed, no explanation. Kingsif (talk) 22:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, as you should. Seany91 (talk) 22:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yup, and separate but on the same article - you're supposed to start talkpage discussions for prose issues before adding warning tags. I'd be impressed if you could find content to quote for puffery, though, the article really manages to be bland about nigh indomitability. Kingsif (talk) 22:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- There's no hard requirements about having discussions before adding tags. I followed WP:BRD and if you have issues with that you could bring them up respectfully as opposed to calling other people's edits "ridiculous." Seany91 (talk) 22:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, well, 1. apologies for my last revert that I marked as procedural. Self-reverted in acknowledgement 2. I have made that detailed reply at the article talkpage, and you have not responded. I do not think it is proper for you to be reinstating your version of content while there's a discussion open that it seems like you're ignoring. 3. BRD is eminently questionable here, as both of us could claim that the other's edits were bold, we reverted. But again, you're not taking part in the discussion.
- And 4. full disclosure, I said "ridiculous" because I felt, but would never want to accuse, that you just didn't like some of the unrelated content, couldn't think of a reason for removal, so deleted it while making legit changes and hoped the legit changes would cover for you. So instead I said "ridiculous", and if you would actually discuss the changes, I will graciously apologise. Kingsif (talk) 23:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- I've engaged comprehensively on the article's talk page. Other editors can judge for themselves, and I'm out. For the record, I think I'm owed a comprehensive apology, but this is WP and if you want to own that page and argue every point, then so be it. That is not why I'm on WP; you do you. Seany91 (talk) 23:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- I've replied there, but I'll give you that apology here: instead of just templating you for "unexplained removal of sourced information", I could have started discussion about the inclusion of the other information first. Still, likewise, you could have mentioned your PUFFERY concern in the initial edit reason or at least much sooner.
- And seriously, I'm not trying to OWN, I did think your editing was wrong, but I am glad there is discussion now at least. I hope we can contribute effectively together in future, if you don't respond there again. Kingsif (talk) 23:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- I've engaged comprehensively on the article's talk page. Other editors can judge for themselves, and I'm out. For the record, I think I'm owed a comprehensive apology, but this is WP and if you want to own that page and argue every point, then so be it. That is not why I'm on WP; you do you. Seany91 (talk) 23:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- There's no hard requirements about having discussions before adding tags. I followed WP:BRD and if you have issues with that you could bring them up respectfully as opposed to calling other people's edits "ridiculous." Seany91 (talk) 22:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yup, and separate but on the same article - you're supposed to start talkpage discussions for prose issues before adding warning tags. I'd be impressed if you could find content to quote for puffery, though, the article really manages to be bland about nigh indomitability. Kingsif (talk) 22:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, as you should. Seany91 (talk) 22:25, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm replying on the talkpage breaking down your edits, but either you genuinely believe you have explained everything and didn't read what you removed, or you're lying. Because a lot of stuff you removed, no explanation. Kingsif (talk) 22:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- I actually did. Thanks for questioning my reading comprehension. Seany91 (talk) 22:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- You clearly didn't actually look at what you removed. Kingsif (talk) 22:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- I did. Seany91 (talk) 22:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
- As I actually stated, your edits removed a lot of information that had nothing to do with the date Giráldez took over, and you gave no explanation for removing this information. You are free to provide an explanation or start a discussion. Kingsif (talk) 22:17, 7 July 2024 (UTC)