User talk:JacktheBrown

Archives

Index 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 1 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Your recent editing history at Southern question shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:15, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FlightTime: where's the edit war? You asked me a question and restored your change without waiting (I answered you), don't be impatient. It's too easy to send a warning, less easy to be patient. I wish you a good night. JacktheBrown (talk) 00:34, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI but generally you shouldn't edit comments after they have been replied to. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:37, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ActivelyDisinterested: you're right. I just wanted to change the sentence about climate change, the existence of which has been scientifically proven. JacktheBrown (talk) 14:47, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries I don't mind, but be careful some editors can get upset by it. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:07, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit as 'very renowned' is not good English. In general, something/someone is either renowned or not (unrenowned isn't used much these days). I guess if you're looking to expand on 'renowned' then world renowned might be a qualifier.

'Famous for' would probably be too flowery although I personally wouldn't object.

Hope this is ok. I'm not great at explaining things sometimes. Knitsey (talk) 17:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Knitsey: all right, no problem. JacktheBrown (talk) 18:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, because you eliminated content with a source and added information without a source (for certain statements, sources are really needed). Hi, LukeWiller (talk) 17:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Hi, because this sentence has a reliable source. LukeWiller (talk) 17:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC) .[reply]

In this edit, you acknowledge that you are commenting about something that you are not permitted to comment about (presumably the RfC on The Telegraph and transgender topics). I'm not sure why you would think this is okay. It's not. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]