Talk:Zack Gelof

Zero-edit deletion
An editor just made a zero-edit-summary deletion. That's reserved for vandalism. There was no vandalism being deleted. So a revert was in order. Let's avoid such improper editing, please. Edit summaries are always good, and necessary in situations like this. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:6C33:C3A2:EF96:6009 (talk) 04:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)


 * This is weird. User:Yankees10 has done it again. And is now edit warring with a series of zero-edit-summary deletions. Yankees10 .. this is not like you; really bizarre. Has someone hacked your account? --2603:7000:2101:AA00:6C33:C3A2:EF96:6009 (talk) 04:59, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * What are you even talking about. Your edit summary did not explain why you reverted my entire edit. If there's any "vandalism" here it's from you.-- Yankees10 05:09, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You made a deletion in the first place. With zero edit summary. I left edit summaries all along the way. And you went on deleting - without any edit summary. I left a message here. You deleted thereafter, without an edit summary. To make matters worse -- using Rollback, the anti-vandalism tool. So, inasmuch as you have made a series of zero-edit-summary-deletions, and I've questioned this numerous times, here and in edit summaries, and you still fail to explain why you engaged in the deletion in the first place (and the second place) - pray tell. What's up? BTW, I never said you committed vandalism. I said zero edit summaries are reserved for deletions of obvious vandalism. You are not editing properly, but you haven't even read properly what I've written. What's going on? You're better than this.--2603:7000:2101:AA00:6C33:C3A2:EF96:6009 (talk) 05:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "You made a deletion in the first place. With zero edit summary" You're literally not even explaining which part of my edit was the "deletion" part. Are you referring to the sportskeeda reference which almost certainly is not a reliable source and does not belong on Wikipedia or the "American-Israeli" part which isn't standard because the intro is meant for a players nationality not heritage/ancestry? Anyhow, you never explained why you reverted my entire edit (changing to infielder, categories) instead of just adding back the part you think belongs there. The entire edit should not have been reverted. Using your own words, YOU are not "editing properly"-- Yankees10 05:44, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. Obviously. That is the part of your edit that was a deletion. What is your basis for claiming that the ref is not an wp:rs? And it is that ref that supports the citizenship - one is of course not a citizen due to one's ancestry unless the state in question grants such citizenship (even if they grant it based on that ancestry). That's the part I'm focused on. You must agree that one should not use tools for such a revert unless vandalism is involved, and should not engage in a zero-edit-deletion which you did -- the first step in kicking off this entire kerfluffle. If you can evidence that the ref is not RS, I am fine with its removal (if done appropriately). But you haven't done so, and I do not see your claim as ipso facto valid. But I am willing to listen. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:6C33:C3A2:EF96:6009 (talk) 06:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)