User talk:120.16.220.60

Hello, I'm EN-Jungwon. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to American Samoa—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. EN-Jungwon^Talk 13:17, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was a good faith edit. The original article has an extra space at the top of the web page which makes it less presentable. 120.16.220.60 (talk) 14:33, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you recently removed maintenance templates from Territory. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Please see Help:Maintenance template removal for further information on when maintenance templates should or should not be removed. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. DrKay (talk) 14:23, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These templates are not necessary. Those references you've ask for can be easily found with some simple research within Wikipedia. I don't know why you like to follow other people and check every edit they make. How would you feel if I do the same to you. 120.16.220.60 (talk) 14:28, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Microstate 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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. DrKay (talk) 14:24, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop threatening me in my talk page. I have participated in the discussion and inserted edit summaries explaining my edits. You are the one who deleted the explanatory notes which had been inserted in the article since December 2013, after being challenged by me, started to revert my edits, then followed me around, reverted my other good faith edits without giving proper reasons. If someone should be warned about their behavior, it should be you, not me. 120.16.220.60 (talk) 17:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Your recent editing history at Territory 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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.
You have now performed three reverts on this article in the last 24 hours. A further revert will be a breach of a bright line rule. DrKay (talk) 14:52, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop threatening me in my talk page. I have participated in the discussion and inserted edit summaries explaining my edits. You are the one who deleted the explanatory notes which had been inserted in the article since December 2013, after being challenged by me, started to revert my edits, then followed me around, reverted my other good faith edits without giving proper reasons. If someone should be warned about their behavior, it should be you, not me. 120.16.220.60 (talk) 17:08, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't deleted any explanatory notes, or indeed any content, from this article. I have only inserted maintenance templates and removed repetition: some paragraphs had been duplicated. At least one of those duplications was inserted by you today[1]. DrKay (talk) 19:14, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes, I was in the middle of editing, I was going to delete the repetition. So thanks for doing it for me.

Yes, you haven't deleted any explanatory notes from this article, but you've deleted explanatory notes in the Microstate article. I tried to reinstated them, you just kept deleting them until I showed you the fact that those notes have been there for 7 years without causing any disputes. 120.16.220.60 (talk) 19:26, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Antarctic. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Serols (talk) 15:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for informing me. It was a mistake, not intentional. 120.16.220.60 (talk) 15:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]