Jump to content

User talk:Zazpot/Archive 33

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33

Wikidata weekly summary #622

Wikidata weekly summary #623

Wikidata weekly summary #622

Wikidata weekly summary #624

Response edits on Vondel

Do you realize that I'm the one who wrote the entire article? The text I removed at the Vondel article contained errors and the lead contained simply too much puffery. 213.124.169.92 (talk) 14:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

@213.124.169.92: this shows the majority (46%) of the article's edits as having been made by 213.124.169.240. That IP address is in the same range as yours, but it is not the same as yours. Moreover, there could be any number of users on those IP addresses. So, I simply have no way of knowing whether you are the author of the Joost van den Vondel article. If you want to establish authorship of your edits, you should sign in before making them.
As for your unexplained removal of content, Wikipedia's guidance is clear: "Unexplained content removal (UCR) occurs when the reason is not obvious; the edit is then open to being promptly reverted." As such, I will revert your deletion of that content. Zazpot (talk) 15:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Are you serious? So there's an IP that's almost as close as this one that is coincidentally also editing the article of a very specific author. But apart from that, didn't I just gave you my explanations? Still you reverted it back. What's the meaning of this? 213.124.169.92 (talk) 15:54, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
@213.124.169.92: Are you serious? Yes. What's the meaning of this? The meaning of my reversions was explained in the discussion above, and in the edit summary of the reversion edits themselves: 12.
Please, in future, explain your own edits in the edit summary. I am glad to see you have now done this for your deletion of text from the article's lede. Thank you. Zazpot (talk) 16:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
I really don't understand the added value of this. It seems to me you are writing on matters you know next to nothing about. Why? Even if I gave you an explanation, what is your expertise on the work of Vondel? In other words: can you assess the edit I just made? I could give a summary that made no sense whatsoever, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
Another example, you just reverted the edit of another user on Spinoza's page, even though the original edit seems to be a perfectly reasonable one. What is the idea behind your actions? An anonymous user cannot make valuable contributions to Wikipedia? 213.124.169.92 (talk) 16:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
@213.124.169.92: What is the idea behind your actions? ... I really don't understand ... this. Then please read the guidance linked above. An anonymous user cannot make valuable contributions to Wikipedia? Absolutely they can, but they cannot expect other editors to treat earlier edits as necessarily having been made by them, because more than one user might share an IP address. They especially cannot expect such edits to be necessarily treated as theirs if those edits were made from a different IP address. (And even if those edits could somehow be tied to them, WP:OWN applies.) Can you assess the edit I just made? Yes: as previously mentioned, it was an unexplained removal of content, in breach of Wikipedia guidance. Subsequently, an edit summary was provided with a reasonable rationale was provided for the removal. Thanks for the chat, we're done here. Zazpot (talk) 16:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
I was talking about the edits themselves, not in connection to previous ones. If you would've had the slightest amount of knowledge on philosophy or Dutch literature, you wouldn've have made the edits you just made. It seems you are commenting and editing on everything you feel like reacting to, which is absurd in my view. You're not considering the content at all (how can you, you don't know what you're talking about). Instead, you're only following certain Wikipedia guidelines in which you're so entangled that you ignore whether the edits contain actual facts or not; this is really a worrisome development: people who are writing about things they know nothing about. 213.124.169.92 (talk) 18:12, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
You are making a lot of assumptions here, and sadly they are not correct. I'm sorry you feel aggrieved, and I hope that with reflection and study you will understand why I made those edits. Goodbye. Zazpot (talk) 18:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Assumptions that are - unfortunately for Wikipedia and its readers - logically derived from your actions. What makes you think I feel aggrieved? I'm just baffled that some people feel the need to revert edits made on subjects they evidently don't know anything about, why would you do that? Unless the entire article on String Theory is vandalized, I wouldn't dare participating in the discussions/edits that are being held on those pages. "In der Beschränkung zeigt sich erst der Meister"; it wouldn't be a bad idea for you to reflect on that. 213.124.169.92 (talk) 18:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)