User talk:Megasteel32

Fuck outta here

To reply to your edit summary[edit]

No, you technically can't do whatever you want on your talk page, it is still subject to Wikipedia's policies.

Thanks. Q ^{T C} 18:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, explain what policy it breaks, cause it ain't harassment. Megasteel32 (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Before you blanked it Synorem covered it pretty concisely. Thanks. Q ^{T C} 18:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was telling someone to fuck off, not putting a message on my page that says "Fuck outta here". Who am I harassing with that, the void? Megasteel32 (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Our page about civility can be found here if you need a reference, you could focus on this section Q ^{T C} 18:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If "Fuck" is gross profanity this site is doomed. Megasteel32 (talk) 18:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it is or isn't is not the focus @OverlordQ is trying to get across. Even if you were right - it is not enough. "Fuck outta here" is uncivil, and in the same article I have linked - it states that the civility rule includes user's talk pages. Synorem (talk) 23:04, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Synorem you're still here? and no, it's not uncivil, it's expressive. Megasteel32 (talk) 03:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since 2022, yes. Expressive comments can still be uncivil; they do not contrast. If you want to get nit-picky about it, your comment uses profanity and rudeness - as per to §1.a Identifying incivility. Again, very nit-picky, but you did ask. Synorem (talk) 03:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Synorem again, it's not excessive nor rude. Megasteel32 (talk) 03:53, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'fuck' is a listed obscenity - by definition, it is. Synorem (talk) 04:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April 2024[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Results of the 2024 Democratic Party presidential primaries. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Repeated vandalism may result in the loss of editing privileges. See WP:BRD Esolo5002 (talk) 03:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Esolo5002 I'm sorry but you're the one fucking with the article, misrepresenting votes. Please keep your Zionist biases out of your edits and accusations. Megasteel32 (talk) 03:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of language is totally unacceptable. I would advise you to not do this again if you do not want your account banned. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Esolo5002 Whomp whomp, no it's not. Excessive is, that ain't. I'd advise you to stop pearl clutching and be productive, ie. stop touching my edits without contributing to the talk page like I have. Megasteel32 (talk) 16:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the WP:BRD cycle suggests the onus is on you to take it to the talk page to seek consensus after a revert. However, because I have no interest in violating the WP:3RR, I have taken that step for you. You can participate on the ongoing discussion here. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Esolo5002 I already did Bozo, you apparently didn't check it. Megasteel32 (talk) 16:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you operate a second account that disagrees with you, you haven't. You did make a comment on a month old thread that was advocating for the creation of an uncommitted section. That section had already been created by the time you made that comment yesterday. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Esolo5002 Oh so you did read my comment but ignored it. Yeah you started a new thread for nothing lol. Megasteel32 (talk) 16:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well I got you to engage properly on the talk page! That way we can hear a wide breadth of opinions on what should be done. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and 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. Synorem (talk) 04:37, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

you really need to take your template messages elsewhere since you apparently are unaware of the full context. go to the talk page, there is already discussion about this, they are ignoring that. thank you! Megasteel32 (talk) 05:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a discussion, tend to the discussion: not the main article. Even if "they're ignoring it" I draw your attention to the second point - even if you believe you're right, do not edit war. Synorem (talk) 22:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

how can I tend to a discussion that someone is not present for? Megasteel32 (talk) 00:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you not just say there was a discussion about this? If you meant 'they're not responding' then as there is an unresolved dispute, it'd probably be best to get a third-party review. I can see this edit war reigniting without a proper solution. Synorem (talk) 00:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're currently being very annoying, please go away. Megasteel32 (talk) 06:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]