User talk:2605:59C8:3194:9810:B4F1:51:AA38:A3F1

May 2024
Hello, I'm RomeshKubajali. I noticed that you recently removed content from Biola University 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. RomeshKubajali (talk) 22:12, 24 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi @RomeshKubajali, my apologies.
 * The update removes references to "The Biola Queer Underground" as it isn't suitable for a heading generally considered reserved for information about student organizations. BQU was not officially recognized at the time and was instead responded to with a statement on Biblical Sexuality (linked in the edit) that refuted their claims. My edit provides context to this that balances the previously-overrepresented statement on the brief occurrence of BQU. In hindsight, it might be sufficient to place the entire subject under a smaller subheading within the "Student Organizations" heading. 2605:59C8:3194:9810:B4F1:51:AA38:A3F1 (talk) 22:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I understand you were trying to improve the article, however you cannot remove referenced content while doing so without a very good reason. You may add additional information to the article and if you do have a good reason to remove something make sure you explain it in the edit summary so that other users do not think you are vandalising. RomeshKubajali (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your understanding. I have included a summary that explains the reason for the change and links this conversation for context. Further followup can be found on the talk page for the affected page. Again, thank you for the help Romesh. 2605:59C8:3194:9810:B4F1:51:AA38:A3F1 (talk) 22:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage editors. Please see what is not vandalism for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. Egsan Bacon (talk) 22:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @Egsan Bacon I think you meant to template me after mislabelled this user's contribution as vandalism in my edit summary. I misread the diff and realised my mistake after double checking before putting a template on this talk page. I apologise for the mistake and will make sure to be more careful in the future. RomeshKubajali (talk) 23:28, 24 May 2024 (UTC)


 * @RomeshKubajali Being careful is always a good thing, but I did intend to send that to the IP, who mislabeled edits as vandalism twice: . Egsan Bacon (talk) 23:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * That makes more sense, I assumed it was meant for me after I made a mistake. RomeshKubajali (talk) 23:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Biola University, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you would like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.  Yoshi24517 ( Chat ) ( Very Busy ) 22:43, 24 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Information.svg Hi @Yoshi24517, unfortunately your removal of my reversion doesn't appear to be constructive either. Please carefully consider the edit summary for each change. Thanks! Please also see what is not vandalism for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. --2605:59C8:3194:9810:B4F1:51:AA38:A3F1 2605:59C8:3194:9810:B4F1:51:AA38:A3F1 (talk) 22:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You realize I'm an AV patroller with over 48,000 edits? While I thank you for the feedback, I know what vandalism is already. Thanks, and have a nice day!  Yoshi24517 ( Chat ) ( Very Busy ) 22:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi @Yoshi24517, thank you for your contribution to my talk page! I'm currently very busy right now and have many other messages to review and respond to. Please allow for up to 72 hours for a response! Much appreciated @Yoshi24517 2605:59C8:3194:9810:B4F1:51:AA38:A3F1 (talk) 22:54, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with the edit summary Yoshi24517 left you, and they didn't mention anything about vandalism. Egsan Bacon (talk) 22:52, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi @Egsan Bacon, thank you for your contribution to my talk page! I'm currently very busy right now and have many other messages to review and respond to. Please allow for up to 72 hours for a response! Much appreciated @Egsan Bacon! 2605:59C8:3194:9810:B4F1:51:AA38:A3F1 2605:59C8:3194:9810:B4F1:51:AA38:A3F1 (talk) 22:55, 24 May 2024 (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; read about 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.-- Ponyo bons mots 22:53, 24 May 2024 (UTC)