User talk:SunDawn
65.129.69.134
Hello! I just received the following message from you, "Hello, I'm SunDawn. I noticed that in this edit to Emma Smith, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you." I did not make a mistake in my edits, I merely forgot to input a reason in the Edit Summary box. Please restore my changes, as the text and sources were updated to come directly from our Church's database. Thanks! 65.129.69.134 (talk) 08:03, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hello, in Emma Smith you removed tons of content (12,155 bytes) without adequate explanation. Your reasoning that "it came directly from Church's database" is not reasonable enough for the deletion, as you place no source at all, and calling established material as questionable without any reasoning is not allowed. Please read on WP:V to read more about the need of establish verifiability. If you want to remove materials, please provide more explanation, as merely stating it is "incorrect" without sourcing is not adhering to the guidelines. I will also revert your changes to the previous stable reason, as your deletion is not constructive. If you have any questions please do ask. Thanks. ✠ SunDawn Ω (contact) 11:50, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Take a good look at the first thing Wikipedia says.
The article "oil sands in unnavigable. Do you understand that?
Show some respect to me. 49.183.10.84 (talk) 11:26, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hello 49.183.10.84 could you explain what you meant by unnavigable? You removed 28,780 bytes of content and references without clear explanation why. If you want to trim the content, please do not remove the references. For the time being, I reverted the article to its latest stable version before your work. Not to worry, it is very easy to return to your version but please do not remove too many content and references without clear explanation why. Looking at the article, it is pretty navigable, though it is fairly long. And can you please explain why you state still feature your beloved maple tree covered homeland and Don't worry, it still says Canada.? ✠ SunDawn Ω (contact) 11:43, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Look at yourself.
You didn't even take time to review my edit.
You can't understand what "unnavigable" means, even though it's at the top of the page.
You had 10 years to update the information, you haven't even taken your proposal to the talk page.
Undo your revert, or I'll make a formal complaint.
Does that make it clear? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.183.10.84 (talk) 12:01, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hello! Threatening will get you nowhere. Per the guideline WP:BRD, you made a bold move to remove all things you deem "too Canadian centric", while I reverted your edit as I disagreed, and then we arrive at the phase where we can discuss the problem. As I think you engage in good faith, please also do the same so we can discuss civilly. Doing formal complaint will go nowhere as both of us are acting in good faith. The maintenance tag on the article talks about the article being too long, which does not mean that it is unnavigable. On the other hand, I do think that your trimming is good, though I don't agree with all of your removals. I propose to revert to your version, and then I worked in edits I think should be in, is it good for you? ✠ SunDawn Ω (contact) 12:15, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- The proper procedure with contested changes is to revert to the stable version and to discuss changes form that state. I have restored to the original version, prior to the IP's massive changes. Meters (talk) 20:36, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
- I am more agreeable to that! Thank you. The IP has gain “some consensus” to delete Canadian-centric material on the talk page, and I do not want to discourage the IP, that is why I offer to go to his version and build on that. But I think it is better to go to stable and discuss from there. ✠ SunDawn Ω (contact) 00:13, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Possible cross-wiki abuse
Hello SunDawn,
I would like to ask if you can help with a bit of a problem, as I am not particularly good with Indonesian (bahasa Indonesia). There is a troublesome sockpuppeteer, Jellywings19 who has been active here for about a year now, and I suspect that they are also messing up id.wiki as well. But without as many users there, their activities are going largely unnoticed. I'm thinking about going to the stewards for a global lock, but I would like to make sure that they are indeed doing the same things there as they do here (I've tried checking myself, but I just don't think it will work).
What they do is this: They add unsourced and sometimes totally false destinations and airline fleet details to articles about Indonesian aviation. Any edits to non-Indonesian airports or airlines are usually to add Soekarno-Hatta Airport or Sultan Hasanuddin Airport to the destinations. Can you check the id.wiki contribs of: Yrochaortiz, Dictatrade, Junesbillyy and Unitedports
Other socks were active on id.wiki, but not as much, or it was too long ago to bother with. Basically, if they are also adding u sourced and potentially false information on id.wiki too, then let me know, and I'll ask for a global lock, and for all future socks to be glocked as well. Sorry about all this trouble. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 11:34, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- Hello! I will check the Indonesian wikipedia contributions for the three editors you mentioned. Thank you! ✠ SunDawn Ω (contact) 12:46, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Paul Han
Read the 4 sources I used in the article. My edit to Paul Han was not vandalism. Why did you revert it? 124.217.188.160 (talk) 13:14, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
- Please tell me which policy I violated. 124.217.188.160 (talk) 13:17, 22 May 2022 (UTC)