User talk:62.248.185.87

May 2020
Hello, I'm CrazyBoy826. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Deep Learning Super Sampling have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse. Thanks.CrazyBoy826 17:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Highly inappropriate reversion for an edit which was given good basis both on the edit summary as well as talk page. The cited article directly contradicted the claims made in the wikipedia page. The issue was brought to the attention of the writer of the article over a month and a half ago, and was not fixed. The sole writer of the article which seems entirely to be an advert directly commented: "I don't remember where I found it" as such the claim definitely cannot be in Wikipedia and your reversion of my removal of a baseless claim was highly inappropriate. 62.248.185.87 (talk) 18:19, 26 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Just to reiterate how highly inappropriate CrazyBoy826 reversal of an edit of the article was, the reversal was done in less than a minute of after the edit, despite the supposed source material which the edit concerned being a 2716 word article. As it's physically impossible to read a 2716 word article in less than a minute, it can be factually concluded that CrazyBoy826 never even read what the edit was about and decided to reverse it anyway. 62.248.185.87 (talk) 13:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Please be constructive
You did not edit anything on the article except for adding non constructive critics with no factual basis. Please stop this non constructive behavior in the future. Hervegirod (talk) 23:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

May 2020
Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks can easily be misinterpreted, or viewed as harassment. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. Thank you. CrazyBoy826 23:43, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You still haven't addressed the points made in the edit summary in any manner, something which you should have done before reversing edits in the first place. Rather you've opted to derail the issue by launching baseless personal attacks on a user talk page. Again the cited source did not say what the sentence claimed, which is something I've already went through in the talk page of the article.


 * The article cited in the non source of the claim was 2716 words long, yet you reversed the edit in less than a minute after it was made! You never even read it before reversing the edit - heck I doubt you read the talk page, because even that would have taken you far more than a minute.


 * Reversing edits without reading the source material, refusing to participate in discussion of the actual substance in talk page of the article, and rather instead opting to launch personal attacks on user page is not good faith participation. 62.248.185.87 (talk) 13:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like you to assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Deep Learning Super Sampling. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.CrazyBoy826 23:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)


 * You've still not responded to the edit comment in the edit summary of the edit you reversed, still haven't addressed why you reversed a change concerning the supposed source material, a 2716 word article, less than 60 seconds after the edit was made (otherwise said without ever even reading what the edit was about), refuse to participate in the talk page of the actual article, refuse to discuss the article or the edit even in the user talk page (which is the wrong place to have this conversation in the first place), and yet instead continue spam the user comment page by repeatedly making baseless accusations of not being constructive while not yourself doing anything to address the actual article, the dispute, the commentary I left in the edit summary, or the issues I brought up in the talk page of the article. At this point what you are doing is just downright trolling. 62.248.185.87 (talk) 23:22, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You have been mentioned at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Your edits at Deep Learning Super Sampling are unnecessarily aggressive and I will semi-protect the article unless you desist. Instead, engage in a discussion on article talk. Some comments have been made there but I don't see a meaningful and good-faith engagement with the replies. Johnuniq (talk) 02:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You are barking at the wrong tree. I've written very extensively why I've made the edits, where as there isn't a single comment by CrazyBoy826, even though they are reversing edits concerning 2716 word reference material less than 60 seconds after they've been made, or in other words, reversing changes without knowing what they are about. 62.248.185.87 (talk) 12:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)