User talk:117.252.158.251

March 2024
Hello, I'm 2003 LN6. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions&#32;to Copper(II) sulfate have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. //● →█2003  LN  6█→ ●// 16:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)


 * 2003 LN6, the article Copper (II) sulphate is filled with messy errors and no improvements at all and so i removed all those messy mistakes and improved the article completely now, so they are unconstructive and i removed them as Sulphur is used widely by both IUPAC and Wikipedia while Sulfur is removed by all of them as it is a wrong spelling of Sulphur, so with that intention to remove this wrong word and correct the article, i completely removed all those wrong mistakes and corrected this article and so, understand what i did and do not interrupt my corrections and improvements to this article now. 117.252.158.251 (talk) 16:21, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Copper(II) sulfate. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.  Velella  Velella Talk  16:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * It may also be of interest that the spelling sulfur was adopted by the Royal Society of Chemistry in 1992 as the correct spelling when the word is used in its scientific/ chemistry context. That is about as British as you can get.  Velella  Velella Talk 16:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Historically sulphur has been the typical form in British English, while sulfur is usual in American English, having emerged as a variant spelling among chemists in the 1920s, that is as British as you can get. And you may tell me a million times, but that means nothing if you don't follow your own Wikipedia policy of respecting all forms of English and following to write all forms of English in writing Sulphur and violate in outrightly by writing Sulfur everywhere instead of Sulphur by not making both Sulphur and Sulfur exist together and Sulphur is used everywhere on Wikipedia and Sulphur is used everywhere and Sulfur is not used everywhere is just absolute hypocrisy at its best. 2409:40F4:10FC:58B5:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 09:31, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Velella, you are vandalizing and doing edit warring with me and everyone on Wikipedia in Copper(I) sulphate, which is wrong and if you do edit warring again, you will be blocked from editing on Wikipedia now itself. 2409:40F4:10FC:58B5:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 09:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)