User talk:Telefocus/Archive 1

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Bambi does not have an edit summary. You can use the edit summary field to explain your reasoning for an edit, or provide a description of what the edit changes. Summaries save time for other editors and reduce the chances your edit will be misunderstood. For some edits a summary may be quite brief.

Please provide an edit summary for every edit you make. With a Wikipedia account you can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Telefocus (talk) 21:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your SPI report

Given your relative inexperience and how obviously without merit your SPI report here is, I will assume in good faith that this is a genuine misunderstanding of what sockpuppetry is. You'll find the relevant guidelines at Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry. However, be aware that making baseless allegations of misconduct like this is disruptive and far more likely to result sanctions against you than the editors you've reported. Make sure you understand what it is you're reporting, before doing so. Sir Sputnik (talk) 00:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sir Sputnik: I understand what sockpuppetry is, my problem is the user I am alleging is one whom Chris(hopfully not) nor I have any affiliation with, felt the need to intervene, I do not understand how they coincedentally "stumbled" upon my user page and thought it a good idea to intervene in a discussion that had nothing to do with them. I think it is sockpuppetry because Chris used the account to make it seem like "others" supported his opinion. This was nothing to do with a personal grudge, I still genuinely think it is sockpupperty. Either that or it is meatpuppetry Hopefully this clarifies, Telefocus (talk) 02:57, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I've already said, the allegations your making are clearly without merit, and continuing to pursue them anyway is a personal against the editors question. Stop this now, or you will be the one facing sanctions for it. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:21, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 2022

Hi Telefocus! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Wikipedia:Vital articles/Level/2 several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/2, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:23, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Chris, I see you have a problem editing Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/2 without consensus, I had left you a message on your talk page about it. Either you are mistaken or you are trolling me. If you have an item you wish to add to Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/2, please discuss it on the appropriate talk page as mentioned previously. Continuing harrasment and trolling could result in a block. Thank you, Telefocus (talk) 18:17, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Chris, but this is completely irrelevant to what I am currently discussing with you. I have archived it to be disputed later. As I mentioned earlier, I believe you are trying to troll me, specifically now as you are responding with irrelevant posts. If you continue, I may need to request administrator attention. Please help come to a solution instead of obvious intents to poison discussions. Before you respond to this, I ask you read the five pillars. If you have questions or are new to Wikipedia as it appears, visit the Teahouse. Telefocus (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chris isn't completely new to Wikipedia, having made 45,000 edits over nine years here. More importantly, we have a process for discussing changes to the vital article lists and reaching consensus before making changes. Level 2 is limited to 100 topics. If you feel that Love should replace one of the current level 2 topics, such as Chemistry or Europe or Music, then you can start a new section at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/2. There are already several similar suggestions there on which you can model the case for the new entry being more vital than the proposed removal. Certes (talk) 23:02, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your intervention, but I am trying to reach a consensus with Chris, not Certes. If you have anything you wish to let me know about, you can start another section. Also, this is not about the edits that Telefocus has made to the article, but Chris'. I did not either ask for how many edits he has, as it is clearly visible on his User Page. Once again, changing the conversation to something irrelevant continues. Wikilawyering is something I see Chris is also trying to attempt. If this is a personalized attack by multiple accounts or sockpuppetry, I will need to report it. Especially because one of the accounts has nothing to do with this affair whatsoever. Hopefully you understand, Telefocus (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]