User talk:2601:246:C700:558:5C1:D9A9:44E9:AF73

March 2022
Please do not add commentary to articles, as you did at Rotten Tomatoes. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to discuss the article, please use Talk:Rotten Tomatoes. Thank you.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 18:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC) Please do not insert fringe or undue weight content into articles, as you did to Rotten Tomatoes. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Please use the article's talk page to discuss the material and its appropriate weight within the article. Thank you.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 18:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that's not how we work. I've pointed you to the talk page and ask you to use that to properly gain consensus. Please use that over condescending and insulting other editors, along with threats of 'admin action'.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 19:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Please stay off my talk page, stop with the threats, and again, please use the RT page to advocate for your changes rather than trying to force them in through misguided 'admin action'. I assure you, a long rambling paragraph of hidden text has never been welcomed by even the most experienced administrator into an article.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 19:13, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * As already noted, @User:Mrschimpf, I did not take issue with your dislike of the in-text notes, but rather with your throwing baby out with bath. You apply a standard requiring this editor to seek consensus before any editing (not a WP expectation, hence the inference of anti-IP bias), and you remove editing of a couple hours that corrected repeated violations of WP:VER. Yours is the destructive editing, not mine. Redaction of the in-text note would have seen no strong response from me. You are punishing another, an IP editor, whose style differs, by reverting, and in so doing, removing valid edits that support WP:VER and other WP principles. 2601:246:C700:558:5C1:D9A9:44E9:AF73 (talk) 19:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I will do, @User:Mrschimpf, as you ask (re: not writing further on your Talk page, as was already indicated there). But your unwillingness to engage in a space where others will see your actions is also telling. Otherwise, I need no guidance on how "we" work. We are to edit boldly, especially when WP policies and guidelines are violated. It is you, and not I, that are out of line here. I do the same sorts of bold edits on a regular basis, and by others am respected for them (with edits adjusted, notes being read and redacted as necessary, etc.). Your finding my approach condescending is as much a problem of yours (based on a track record of my editing without objection) as it is of mine. Moreover, you have failed to judge the individual edits—there is nothing that says every edit must be pre-vetted by discussion. Yours appears to be an anti-IP editing bias, an apparent unwillingness to engage the actual issues raised, and some personal bias against others that know "their stuff" and proceed accordingly. We will see what others say about who is out of line. 2601:246:C700:558:5C1:D9A9:44E9:AF73 (talk) 19:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * My reversion of your edit was based on the long hidden text (which outside short notes, is generally not advised for that type of editing) and the addition of a reference already listed. Your edits are more appropriate for discussion on a talk page than in article space, and the unusualness of forcing that text in through a first IP edit, which is generally an attempt by editors to force in changes they don't want to do through a signed account.
 * And I have generally taken a very dim view of 'IP gamers', which take advantage of their connection's dynamic IPs switching every hour/day/week to run roughshod and make edit accountability impossible to other editors and admins. So if I am 'biased against IPs', it's because I'm biased against attempts to compromise article consensus using that tactic. As the admin has agreed with my action (and had no idea who you were because you're on a different IPv6 address), I consider this closed and again point you towards the talk page, which is still waiting for you to edit just as much as it did on Monday.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 23:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC)