User talk:2607:FEA8:7221:F600:A4BE:B154:27E9:39FD

April 2024
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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. Rlendog (talk) 17:26, 8 April 2024 (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.

 Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. Bbb23 (talk) 19:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

I created a discussion that was going to discuss a new consensus, but unfortunately the user who was disputing hijacked it and made a big fuss, the plan was to present the new evidence, and see if there was agreement on the new information. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kingdom_of_the_Planet_of_the_Apes#Confirming_Mae's_name. Had he not made a big argument about it, then another vote could have occurred in peace and the issue would have been resolved that way. 2607:FEA8:7221:F600:A4BE:B154:27E9:39FD (talk) 22:32, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
 * A lot of what you wrote above is inaccurate, missing the point, or misinterpreting Wikipedia's guidelines, but I'll say this: if your bold edit is reverted — and by more than one editor — the proper procedure is to revert back, retain the WP:STATUSQUO, and discuss on the article's talk page to gain consensus for your proposed change. When something has been in place on an article for a very long time, and more than one editor has contested your change, it means there is consensus for the status quo, or at least, no consensus for  proposed change. Repeatedly restoring your desired change that the community disagrees with is disruptive.
 * The discussion at Talk:Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes is continuing without you and making good progress. You are encouraged to rejoin the discussion once your block lifts in 72 hours, but please do not merely restate arguments (which I find illogical and, frankly, bizarre) and go around in circles.
 * InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You do have a couple of problems with that theory that more than one person disagreed. As far as I saw, you were the only one who objected, not a community or multiple people, there was nobody else saying it was inaccurate. Secondly, you never provided any proof that it is desirable to use two different names for characters under Wikipedia's standards, just your own word, and your use of "dude" for your first revert certainly came off as very insulting, where I never made any such insinuations and gave you proof to back up my claims. And number three, I did make the offer of having a new consensus created, because Wikipedia says they can be changed in the light of new information. So, according to Wikipedia's policies, I really did not do anything that wrong, and I did not try to make this such a big deal. 2607:FEA8:7221:F600:A4BE:B154:27E9:39FD (talk) 03:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not how it works. You have been pushing for this (oddly specific) change for months now; multiple editors have reverted you (check the page history and talk page), and none have been persuaded by your arguments. This morning, when you attempted to once again reinstate your change, your edit was reverted by another user, and then by me. A third user disagreed with your proposed change on the talk page.
 * As for why it is desirable to include both names, I would have been more than happy to explain if that's what you wanted to know, but all you kept doing was repeat "this is wrong and this is outdated", a claim that does not hold water. Not everything is codified in policies and guidelines, but this is just common sense. The purpose of the Cast section is to identify the principal actors seen and heard onscreen; if readers hear "Nova" (which, again, has been extensively used in marketing) but fail to find that name in the Cast section, that isn't going to be helpful. This is also how we have been dealing with fictional characters with multiple names for years. But really, I shouldn't be the one explaining why we include both names;  should be the one explaining why you think we should essentially conceal information that is sourced, accurate, and pertinent from readers. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)