User talk:2601:647:6100:5D00:B8E4:1283:42CF:8E43

Discussion about changes
Your statement edit is pushing a vegan agenda "speciesism" do you know what that one sounds like? Like: edit is pushing an omnivore agenda "dogmatic"

Your statement is not a justification, but only an assumption without evidence or anything else. However, the initiator of the amendment has presented arguments and more. You, on the other hand, only write a statement without any proof or anything else.

Why are you changing it at all? You can make changes without an account, that's clear. However, it is a bit strange that all reverts, which are against it, do not come from a logged-in user. FreakyN (talk) 08:08, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Evidence of agenda pushing: https://www.reddit.com/r/vegan/comments/od7ujf/i_just_changed_the_wikipedia_page_of_social/ 2601:647:6100:5D00:B8E4:1283:42CF:8E43 (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Disagree. While I acknowledge your concern with agenda pushing on an external social media platform, it is my understanding that here on Wikipedia, we consider edits based on their merit. I have posted why I support the original edit on the social equality talk page. It appears to be valid so if you have further concerns, please address them on the merits of the edit alone.
 * TomekBotwicz (talk) 20:27, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

I have reverted your last edit on grounds of the Wikipedia article on reverting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reverting. It states: "Edit summaries, always a good practice, are particularly important when reverting. Provide a valid and informative explanation including, if possible, a link to the Wikipedia principle you believe justifies the reversion." You have not provided a valid or informative explanation that justifies the reversion, as you have never challenged the edit itself, only circumstances surrounding the edit. As TomekBotwicz said, edits should be considered based on their merit. According to the logic you used to revert the initial edit, any true fact could be disregarded as "agenda pushing" if someone deems it that way, and that would then justify removing this fact from Wikipedia. If you wish to revert the edit once more, please give a substantive explanation as to not engage in edit warring.