User talk:71.193.20.55

May 2022
Hello, I'm Blaze Wolf. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to TimedText:Lady GaGa-Poker Face.ogg.en.srt—because it 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 Help desk. Thanks. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:56, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at TimedText:Lady GaGa-Poker Face.ogg.en.srt. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:01, 18 May 2022 (UTC)


 * The edits were neither unconstructive nor vandalism. You're highly off-base here. 71.193.20.55 (talk) 19:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at TimedText:Lady GaGa-Poker Face.ogg.en.srt, you may be blocked from editing. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 20:10, 18 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I am not disruptively editing. You are, but I am just making a simple correction.  Nor am I vandalizing Wikipedia.  You're interfering with a correction, pure and simple.  And stop threatening me you highly unkind, barbaric individual.  Please assume good faith. -- 71.193.20.55 (talk) 21:26, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

"Poker Face" lyrics
If an editor asks you to stop commenting on their talkpage, please respect that. It sounds like you and Blaze Wolf are in a content dispute. The correct next step is to start a discussion at TimedText talk:Lady GaGa-Poker Face.ogg.en.srt. You should then cross-post to Talk:Poker Face (song), inviting others to join the discussion. -- Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 20:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Okay, although he never asked me to stop commenting on his talk page. 71.193.20.55 (talk) 20:24, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I began the lyric discussion on the talk page as suggested. I'll proceed to cross-post on the page you suggested.  I left the edit-warring user, already in clear violation of Wiki rules, a warning on his talk page.  Again, outside of removing a given section I had added twice in good faith, there was no notice to stop posting on his talk page in general.  I will not make the mistake of again adding removed sections, however. 71.193.20.55 (talk) 20:32, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I see you've introduced the edit again. Another thing to keep in mind is that Wikipedia, and the article, will still be there in a couple of days. You risk being blocked for edit warring yourself (ultimately, your edit is not the status quo, yet). Best to let the discussion happen, and correct an article when the dust settles. It usually does no harm to let such a slightly incorrect article be inaccurate for a few days. Here, I don't think there's a risk of someone making a harmful decision based on the wrong information. Cheers.  signed, Willondon (talk)  21:26, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * hehehe Well, good point, and well taken.  Still, according to my reading of WP:3RR, I believe I essentially must set the article back to the original point of the first revert.  I'm not sure there's any other way to read that rule.  It's the reverts by an irrational, obstinate user that are the problem, not the original edit or correction to the text.  With living people and some subjects, obviously the standard for the text is higher and the sourcing must be iron-clad or the text must be discarded entirely, but there was no sourcing on that page to begin with, so there is no referenced or sourced status quo to begin with.  Plus, my corrected lyrics have the benefit of very clearly being accurate. ;-) -- 71.193.20.55 (talk) 21:33, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You can get bitten, trying to wikilawyer the rules too much. I'm not going to reread them, but the first revert restores the article to the status quo, and my understanding is that's where the article should stay until consensus is reached. Most edit warriors, on both sides, feel that theirs is the base state from which any argument must triumph to unseat it. May main advice is to let discussion settle. I know, with an inaccurate lyric, instead of having a satisfying sensual experience, someone could lose an eye. I still think the risk is very low.  signed, Willondon (talk)  21:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * | :-/ Ugghh.  My point is that I made a good correction, and someone who didn't want to listen just reverted it without even bothering to look up the lyrics.  The whole thing is stupid and wrong. 71.193.20.55 (talk) 21:52, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, here's the portion of the rule that clearly supports my point that my original correction should be where the article sits while being discussed, all things considered:
 * "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page — whether involving the same or different material — within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that manually reverses or undoes other editors' actions — whether in whole or in part — counts as a revert. Violations of this rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours. [...]
 * The term "revert" is defined as any edit (or administrative action) that reverses or undoes the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material [...]."
 * Now, that's pretty clear. He should not revert me a fourth time.  My original edit was a correction and addition to the page, not in any way a revert.  Thus, there's no way that shouldn't be where the page is left unless the reverting user has a good reason to revert the edit.  Which of course, he does not. -- 71.193.20.55 (talk) 22:04, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, let things settle. Wikipedia is sometimes stupid and wrong, but only for editors. Wikipedia itself plods along and improves with crowd-massed contributions and conflict. As an editor, you don't want to be the part that gets ground away by the machine.
 * My seven? year-old daughter asked me what "poker face" meant when it became a hit. She seemed to think was an enthusiastic expression of love. I had a vague recollection of the lyrics, and certainly no knowledge of modern interpretation, so I explained that in poker, even if you're excited about a good hand, you don't want people to know that, or you might lose by scaring bettors away, so you keep an expressionless "poker face"; and she's in love, but she doesn't want him to know that, so she's keeping a "poker face". Two take aways from this little story: (1) Lady Gaga is a talented lyricist weaving many layers into her art; (2) parents and children realize at varying times, that the parents are often faking it, and full of shit.  signed, Willondon (talk)  22:13, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * LOL xD 71.193.20.55 (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * :-) I did genuinely laugh out loud there, and I have appreciated all of your kind input. 71.193.20.55 (talk) 22:38, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I replied on the talk page -- Guerillero  Parlez Moi 22:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

New message from Tamzin
-- Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she/they) 23:13, 18 May 2022 (UTC)