User talk:Ramos Ovenready

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at British Army. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges.

Added note

Good faith edits, by experinced editors in good standing, clearly supported by edit summaries with links to relevant policies and guidelines, are not "vandalism". Reverting as such is considered a

WP:VANDALISM even by a whisker. If you know the edit to be wrong, I am happy to listen and to immoderate, but it's not vandalism. --Ramos Ovenready (talk) 19:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

The "mass-blanking" as you call it, was a justifiable revert of unsourced content. That was explained by

WP:ONUS

, as well as clear explanations, like: "not in the source cited" (x2) and "as previously requested, please do not add unsourced material to wikipedia"

You have so far refused to engage on the article talk page, as you should have after your first revert, (like both Dormskirk and I have), you've provided nothing of substance in the your reply here, and your edit summaries on British Army so far consist of;

1. [1]: "looks like vandalism"
2. [2] "Last decent version, no consensus by the user who keeps removing"
3. [3] "Last stable - no consensus for removing editor"

Now, I see that you just joined a couple weeks ago and only have about 30 or so edits, and I realize that there is a steep learning curve for new editors. But none-the-less the responsibility is on you to know what your doing here when you edit articles and interact with other users. This is why I added the 'welcome' template for you, it contains a good deal of information for new and inexperienced users. I also know that it seems like a lot of rules have suddenly been listed off, but each one relates to the dispute that you have involved yourself in, and like the welcome template, I strongly encourage you to read through the information that has been provided to you, so that you can edit and interact knowledgeably. While we're at it, I would also suggest checking out the

wolf 20:34, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Alright. I can't quite scrutinise the British Army inclusion/removal but I am pretty certain you both made your removals in good faith and so I will let sleeping dogs lie, and I suppose I'll read more and more about the rules. Thanks for everything. ~--Ramos Ovenready (talk) 20:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you self-revert yourself on Shambuka? Are you thinking of me as some vandal or random editor?

Your unexplained revert here is unwarranted. Check the history carefully; I removed restored last good version and reverted recent edits by a disruptive copyrights violator because he only misrepresented unreliable blogs. 117.99.104.99 (talk) 21:10, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have done the revert, but you need to be careful and stop doing such bad edits. If you really want to edit around something then go and write about some subject or expland the article of your interest before you understand what really

Yep I was totally wrong. Sorry. Fixed. --Ramos Ovenready (talk) 21:33, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and have a nice day. 117.99.104.99 (talk) 21:36, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]