User talk:78.28.54.83

Welcome!
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions&#32;so far. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some links to pages you may find useful:
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply  [ create a named account] . It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:
 * Create new pages and rename pages
 * Edit semi-protected pages
 * Upload images
 * Have your own watchlist, which shows when articles you are interested in have changed

Note that in order for the first three features to be available, you must have had an account for a certain number of days and made a certain number of edits.

If you edit without using a named account, your IP address (78.28.54.83) is used to identify you instead.

I hope that you, as a Wikipedian, decide to continue contributing to our project: an encyclopedia of human knowledge that anyone can edit. If you need help, check out Questions, or you can  to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;).

Happy editing! Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 02:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Andrea Alfaro WP:4RR
All yours. Still unsourced, promotional, WP:PRIMARY sources, inline external links, but at least the excessive bibliography was pruned. I will be excited to see your improvements. Kleuske (talk) 12:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree the content doesn't belong there. I do disagree with you and the other guy reverting it back and forth, that's all. I'm happy to assist you with requesting page protection if you need such assistance but do you really? 78.28.54.83 (talk) 13:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * As I said, WP:3RRNO and it's all yours. I won't touch it anymore. Kleuske (talk) 13:10, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The issue wasn't with you "touching" the article (I actually reverted it to "your" version after the other user got blocked because it was the last good one), the problem was with you essentially BAITING (intentionally or not) a new user, who, unlike you, didn't know any better, into an edit war which ended up with them getting blocked for it. Now, I don't want to accuse you of anything but if this is not an isolated incident then that's not great, to put it mildly. I will not be pursuing this further at this time but kindly do consider what I said. 78.28.54.83 (talk) 14:03, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I welcomed Y11111111, using a template explaining sources are required, responded to a request for help, explaining that sources are required and attempted three times to get them to stop or cite proper sources. Then you came along to lecture me. After explaining about WP:3RRNO (and my reasons for the exemption), you went on to imply I'm misusing the policies (please explain), so I left the matter in your capable hands at 13:04. Ymblanter blocked at 13:29, almost an hour after I last edited the article (12:35). Now kindly explain how exactly I was "BAITING (intentionally or not) a new user". Kleuske (talk) 18:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, who appointed you Grand Inquisitor of Wikipedia? Kindly shove the "will not be pursuing this further at this time" where he sun don't shine. Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 19:00, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to hear that you've taken what I said into consideration. The part I said I currently had no wish to further pursue I will not address, but I think it's only fair I answer your inquiry regarding what I consider a misuse of the 3rr exemption #7. You see, the idea behind that exemption is to enable editors to unrestrictedly remove content from BLPs that qualifies for revision deletion/suppression as in the case of such there is a sense of urgency. The exemption is not meant to be used to justify edit warring over insufficiently sourced content that, in the most basic of terms, carries no potential "real-world" ramifications if it's kept in the article. Yes, we probably want to delete it from the page anyway but if it's not libel/harassment/doxxing, etc., there really is no WP:DEADLINE and we can just take the matter to the talk page, which you did, and then, should talk page discussion prove fruitless, escalate it to an admin, either directly or via a noticeboard, which you didn't do; instead, you just kept reverting over and over, essentially banging your head against the wall (pardon my French). I wonder how many reverts it would've taken you to realize the pointlessness of the whole exercise had I not come along and something tells me I could learn the answer to that question if I cared enough to delve into your editing history but that would be a story for another time, wouldn't it? 78.28.54.83 (talk) 21:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah... "The policy means what I want it to mean". Clear. I do not "justify editwarring", I try to uphold WP:BLP and WP:V. If you don't like that, bad luck. And again, who appointed you Grand Inquisitor and how exactly was I "BAITING (intentionally or not) a new user". ? See WP:ASPERSIONS for details. Kleuske (talk) 08:33, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This must be the first time that I've ever seen an experienced editor get chided for politely and patiently explaining the relevant policies to a new good-faith editor instead of just getting them blocked. The latter does stop the edit war more efficiently, but I rather don't think it's the best approach. Huon (talk) 12:01, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, he was indeed politely and patiently explaining the relevant policies to a new good-faith editor while continuing to revert despite there being no urgent need to revert. 78.28.54.103 (talk) 13:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
 * For goodness' sake, Kleuske, would you be so kind as to stop playing the victim. This is an IP talk page, not a noticeboard; you are not standing trial here; nobody's accusing you of anything (I even specifically said that, and that's a direct quote from my message in this very thread, "I don't want to accuse you of anything.") There were no "aspersions" cast against you either; how can you rationally explain continuing to revert while engaged in a talk page discussion with the other user? There was no urgent need to do that; the BLP concerns you expressed were valid but didn't require immediate action. At the end of the day, WP:COMMONSENSE overrides everything else; the letter of the rule is one thing, the spirit of it is yet another and yes, you can argue technicalities but it won't get you anywhere with me and most of the time, it won't get you anywhere in any other venue, which is something you probably already know. Nobody dislikes your "upholding" Wikipedia's policies (obviously!), it's the way you went about it in one specific case that was put into question. If you don't like feedback, "bad luck." 78.28.54.103 (talk) 13:32, 23 March 2019 (UTC)