User talk:175.211.151.46

August 2022
Hello, I'm Zippybonzo. I noticed that you recently removed content from Section 377A of the Penal Code (Singapore) without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Zippybonzo &#124; Talk (he&#124;him) 13:11, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Section 377A of the Penal Code (Singapore), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Zippybonzo &#124; Talk (he&#124;him) 13:13, 21 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Did you even bother to read the edit summary? You do know blindly reverting is also disruptive editing? 175.211.151.46 (talk) 13:16, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * My fault - the tool doesn't make it easy to see the edit summary - my apologies for that - I didn't take much care to look at the summary as it looked a lot like disruption. Zippybonzo &#124; Talk (he&#124;him) 13:19, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't - the tool that is used isn't that great - I will go back to using RedWarn which is simpler for me. Zippybonzo &#124; Talk (he&#124;him) 13:21, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.''Remember that it's edit warring even if you're right. Thank you,'' ;;  Maddy  ♥︎(they/she)♥︎ ::  talk   13:19, 21 August 2022 (UTC)