User talk:RustlingLeaves

Edit warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on 2017 Finsbury Park attack. 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. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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.
 * 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.

I have locked the page for a day to stop the edit warring. Please do not resume it when the protection expires. If you have a disagreement with another editor, discuss it on the talk page. If you keep reverting the other person you can be blocked. --MelanieN (talk) 23:07, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

@MelanieN Hello. I wouldn't say I was "currently" engaged, depends on the time-parameter. I let it go and Funkinwolf got their preferred nomenclature. If you look at the history I gave my reasons, was friendly, and invited Funkinwolf to the talk page (I even used the phrase "come and have a chat?", how friendly is that, heh). But Funkinwolf kept edit warring without even saying anything. When they finally did it was just to tell me there was a consensus. Which there obviously wasn't, because there was an ongoing discussion and it wasn't just me. I was participating in the discussion and explicitly invited them to it. But I thank you for your warning and advice. I looked it up and I see three reverts count as a war. The next time there is a similar dispute (which judging by that article will be soon) I'll post a request as per your suggestion. RustlingLeaves (talk) 23:36, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Good. As you found out, there isn't a firm definition of an edit war, but there is a kind of "bright line" called the three revert rule. If you make more than three reverts, you are very likely to be given an temporary block. You and Funkinwolf went way beyond that. And I notice some recent reverting (not to that level) between you and InedibleHulk. So be aware: instead of reverting each other and arguing in edit summaries, take it to the talk page. --MelanieN (talk) 23:52, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion about "Whitewashing in film"
Hi @RustlingLeaves - I saw your discussion a few months back on the Whitewashing in film talk page. I'm not sure I agree with your comment and have pinged you for discussion. There are reliable sources discussing the "whitewashing" of Jennifer Connelly playing a Salvadoran character, and various Hispanic actresses have talked about racism/discrimination they've faced for being Hispanic.

Furthermore, if you're saying that Hispanics aren't a "race", then I'd like to know your opinions about Asians and the many examples pertaining "Asians" and "whitewashing" in the page that might as well be removed because Asia isn't a "race", but a diverse region filled with over 4 billion that come in every skin colour, race and ethnicity. Because apparently, Natalie Portman playing an "Asian" character counts as "whitewashing" despite Israel being a West Asian country with a large population that has European Jewish ancestry. There are tons of European minorities due to colonialism all over Asia; most of Russia is geographically Asian.

Because Afro-Asians/Black Asians, Brown Asians, White Asians (like Natalie Portman, if that means European descent) and Yellow Asians (aka ethnic East Asians) exist, and you seemed to make a big deal about people confusing "race" with country/ethnicity. Clear Looking Glass (talk) 11:12, 15 January 2024 (UTC)