User talk:178.220.255.24

October 2022
Hello, I'm Moops. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions&#32;to Law enforcement 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. — Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 20:34, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Law enforcement. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. — Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 20:36, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Law enforcement, you may be blocked from editing. — Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 20:37, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Read edit summaries and dont randomly restore content what is not sourced as I suspect just for number of edits or so.178.220.255.24 (talk) 20:39, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Law enforcement. — Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 20:41, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Hi 178.220.255.24! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Law enforcement several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree&#32;at, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Unburnable (talk) 20:46, 29 October 2022 (UTC)


 * removal of unsourced material so that is it. 178.220.255.24 (talk) 20:50, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Edits to Law enforcement
This IP user is engaged in an edit war regarding page Law enforcement. Please note that in the content removal edit summaries, this user provides a decent argument that the sentences need to be refactored to provide a global perspective. The sentences are relevant and shouldn't be removed, but they may need to get a (easy to find) citation and be rewritten a bit. Unburnable (talk) 20:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I explained all in my edit summaries but that user just abuse his rights. It should be removed as that movements what are noted and problems are just about the U.S and the western perspective and that page is about global persepctve. And since when removal of unsourced material is vandalism.178.220.255.24 (talk) 20:48, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The sentences may need to be more specific, but they aren't only relevant to U.S. and western perspectives. See: https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/police-killings-by-country, https://thewire.in/government/why-police-brutality-and-torture-are-endemic-in-india et al. Unburnable (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Defund and abolition movements is not widespread and by their articles not supported by population or politicians at all. Its specific western and mostly the us movements. And considering we dont do any advocacy its pretty clear and majority of a law enforcements has own pages but not general article. 178.220.255.24 (talk) 20:57, 29 October 2022 (UTC)