User talk:24.1.0.28

Request to stop Talk page messages
Please don't edit war with a user on their own user talk page. If they removed your message, that implies they read it (look for the edit summary). El_C 20:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Please stop writing messages on that user talk page after you were explicitly asked not to do so. Concerns about the article belong on the article talk page, anyway. El_C 20:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

FlightTime
Stop posting to my talk. I have challenged your edits, if you think I'm in error, then take it to the article's talk page, this is how we do stuff around here. Cheers, -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 20:56, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
 * , you are not talking to a beginner here, but to a longstanding and well-versed academic editor (who just happens to not log). And all parties looking in, Admins and other editors, know and acknowledge what you have not yet—that [1] I did indeed create an article Talk page entry; [2] I did indeed create extensive Edit Summaries over the course of several hours for each of the many edits; [3] I did indeed post an "in use" tag to indicate I was still working to cleanup the problems I discovered; [4] On the other hand, you did not reply to the article Talk page entry;  [5] When asked to re-consider, at your Talk, that you rescind the revert, that you deleted rather than replied to the message; and [6] Your carte blanche reversions removed the new "Federal legislative career" and "Personal life" sections and their newly added, properly formatted sources, as shown here, and with those and other redactions you completely gutted the improved References at which I was aiming (cf. this version with your post-reversion file, with its twitter and other non-references).
 * Based on these, I think a case can be made regarding who was careful and who was not, and that a fast visit and edit with carte blanche reversions is a aggressive and disrespectful approach to a devoted editor making hours of careful scholastic edits. And I can only surmise that you have a beef, based on the fact that I edit without logging (despite even Mr Wales himself continuing to support this mode of editing), or that you are concerned for appearance over substance (which, had you looked even here, you would have seen an improving situation). We'll see how this goes, but my edits were careful, hard work, and I'm pretty sure they will ultimately stand up to slower, more careful scrutiny. Cheers. [A Doc.]

July 2019
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Ben Cline; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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. - FlightTime  ( open channel ) 21:04, 24 July 2019 (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.


 * I have removed Ben Cline and your talk from my watchlist. Good luck with your tenure here. Cheers, -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 21:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)