User talk:2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:E593:D7B6:401D:7455

Bad revert by registered editor
, don't leave an "unconstructive" tag on someone's page until you've spent a tiny amount of time actually looking into the mistake you're making. Edit warring and threatening IPs may be considered fun, but make sure you get your facts right in the first place. The agreed FAC version can be seen here. You'll note that "Further reading" is a subsection of the sources, references, etc. That was the correction I made: to put it back to that. You edit warred it into a different state and get your facts all the wrong way round. Please be careful next time, check what you are doing, and don't threaten people just because it's an IP making the change. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:E593:D7B6:401D:7455 (talk) 12:28, 7 July 2021 (UTC) It doesn't matter what you do whatsoever. If you want to change something that has been agreed upon on an FA, you MUST seek consensus on the talk page. Wretchskull (talk) 14:46, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * As to stalking me to Pengkhianatan G30S/PKI and reverting AWAY from the FA standard? Again, spend a couple of seconds checking what you're doing, not just lazily reverting without engaging you brain first. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:E593:D7B6:401D:7455 (talk) 12:30, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you look at the edits. It is not FA standard (excessive detail) and while it was that way when promoted, doesn't mean we must keep it that way, no edits whatsoever. Also would like to remind you not to harass editors.  Gerald WL  04:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I have put it back to a superior version than you left for it in. (Wp:FAOWN advises editors to discuss major changes first, and the article went backwards before my changes. If you don’t think it’s FA standard, try WP:FARC and see how far you go, as I don’t think you’re actually aware of what an FA is. I’d put good money on the fact you’ve never done one, and I doubt you’d be able to. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:4C04:2A8D:59F5:6633 (talk) 06:08, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a major change, but not one that harms the article, instead improves it. Understand the edit. You also seem to be trying to discourage me from making an FA (currently trying to)— you can't hit me, but you can hit others. I'm concerned to your presence on Wikipedia that does not abide by WP:AGF.  Gerald WL  08:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't improve the article: it makes it worse. It's sheer folly and arrogance to think that just because you think something is better it automatically is. If you think it's not to FA standard, go to WP:FARC, as you're "improvement" was nothing of the sort. I "understand the edit", but it's not a forward step. It makes the article worse. Please at least try to understand that you are not the best writer on WP (and Crisco, who wrote Pengkhianatan G30S/PKI, is a hundred times better than you appear to be). As to what I am trying to do, it's you who needs to remember WP:AGF. You don't know me, don't know how I think or what I do, so how you think you know what I am "trying" to do is a mystery. And I'm not trying to "hit" anyone. Again, where the aggression and bad faith comes from is a mystery. If you think you know what FA standard is, work on an article and take it through FAC. You'll see that a. you're not as good as you think you are; and b. there are reasons why FAs are the way they are, and why experienced writers put things the way they do. Once you've done that, then you can think about what constitutes "improving" an FA. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:89A0:C5A6:BF92:D084 (talk) 09:22, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , did you even bother to read what I had written above? Let me make this simple for you:
 * 1. The edit I made was largely to put it back to the FA version (with some minor changes).
 * 2. and I are engaging in a very civil discussion on the talk page about the changes.
 * As I've had to say before: do not revert simply because I am an IP. You need to actually check what you are doing before edit warring and exacerbating a situation. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:F546:12B9:F991:8A17 (talk) 15:10, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That's not my concern mate. I reverted your edits because you did not seek consensus BEFORE the change (adding citations to the lede, undue info, etc.). I do not really mind your changes as long as they adhere to wiki rules. I did not revert entirely because you're an IP, that is just silly. Wretchskull (talk) 15:13, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Then you still don't know what you are talking about (and I'm not your "mate"). It's clear you obviously still haven't looked at the history or know what you are doing. You still haven't managed to get into your skull that my changes reverted the article closer to how it was when it was made an FA. I didn't add undue information: I reverted the edit that took it away. If you're unable to understand any of this, I suggest you find a different toy to play with until you're old enough to know what you're doing. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:F546:12B9:F991:8A17 (talk) 15:20, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Well then, fair enough; apologies for the revert. What's up with the hostility? Wretchskull (talk) 18:56, 8 July 2021 (UTC)