User talk:Yadomii

Welcome!

Hi Yadomii! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! 216.58.25.209 (talk) 21:19, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 2025

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, please note that there is a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Deviating from this style disturbs uniformity among articles and may cause readability or accessibility problems. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

Hi Yadomii! You don't need to save the same edit multiple times ([1], [2], [3], [4]), and might get in trouble if you do that 4 times in 24 hours. Multiple editors didn't like how the wording around the bold font appears to be forced into the first sentence. Part of our style guide explains this and gives more examples. Happy editing! 216.58.25.209 (talk) 21:25, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for your message. I’ve reviewed the Manual of Style again, and my edit follows the guidelines. I also checked the edit history and discussion, and I didn’t see any consensus against my version. If you believe there’s a specific issue, feel free to point it out so we can discuss it. Otherwise, I think the current wording works well.

Happy editing! Yadomii (talk) 21:34, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am afraid your edit does not follow the guidelines, specifically MOS:AVOIDBOLD, which has already been brought to your attention. The wording you are introducing does not work well because "the 2025 Turkish protests are protests in Turkey in 2025" is uninformative and quite goofy even. Surtsicna (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your feedback, but I’d like to understand the issue better. The present-tense wording follows a common structure used in similar articles. Could you clarify what specifically makes it "goofy" or uninformative? Also, MOS:AVOIDBOLD discourages excessive bolding, but my edit does not seem to violate that guideline. Yadomii (talk) 22:50, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are engaging in a discussion but simultaneously also edit warring. That is not helpful. Continuing to do so will result in breaking the 3-revert rule, for which you may be reported. Surtsicna (talk) 22:56, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in other protest articles, similar wording has been used, like 2011 Syrian protests, which starts with "are a series of major protests taking place in Syria." Why should this case be any different? Yadomii (talk) 22:54, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This case should not be different. None of those should contain superfluous bolding. This is clearly in contravention of MOS:AVOIDBOLD and unhelpful to the readers. MOS:AVOIDBOLD is not just against "excessive bolding". Clearly and explicitly it is against creating redundancy by introducing unnecessary bolding. Surtsicna (talk) 22:59, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at 2025 Turkish protests 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. 216.58.25.209 (talk) 22:57, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"I understand we have different views, but we are already addressing this on the talk page, so there’s no need to keep reverting my edits. If you believe the wording or bolding is wrong, let's discuss it and find a compromise, but undoing edits without consensus isn’t helpful. I’ve followed the guidelines as best as I can, and I believe my changes are in line with similar articles, so if you disagree, please provide a clear explanation instead of just reverting. We need to work together to resolve this, not escalate it. Yadomii (talk) 23:16, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. 216.58.25.209 (talk) 23:30, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing this up. I understand your concerns about the edits and agree that it's important to resolve this collaboratively. While I believe my changes were made in good faith to improve the article, I recognize that there are differing opinions on how to present the information. I have already raised the issue on the talk page, and I hope we can work together to find a compromise that respects all perspectives.

I also want to clarify that I am not attempting to engage in an edit war, but rather to address what I believe is an important aspect of the article. Let's focus on discussing the points on the talk page, where we can have a more thorough discussion, instead of continuing to revert edits. I’m open to hearing your thoughts and finding a solution that represents consensus. Yadomii (talk) 23:35, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

March 2025

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at 2025 Turkish protests. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. — Amakuru (talk) 23:36, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Amakuru,

Thank you for the block notification. I understand the importance of following Wikipedia's rules regarding edit warring. I would like to clarify that I did not intend to engage in edit warring, but was simply attempting to improve the article. However, I recognize that I exceeded the three-revert rule, and I will make sure to engage in discussions in the future before making further changes.

That being said, I would also like to point out that the other user, also repeatedly reverted my edits five times, since i believe both Surtsinca and 216.58.25.209 are the same User, based on Articles the both accounts edit, which could be seen as a violation of the same rule. I understand that blocking both parties may not be necessary, but I wanted to bring this to your attention as part of the ongoing situation. I would appreciate it if this could be reviewed.

Once the block expires, I will make sure to focus on seeking consensus through discussion and following the appropriate dispute resolution processes.

Thank you for your understanding. Yadomii (talk) 23:43, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop using AI to write your comments, as you did at [5].

The Articles the both accounts edit are shown at https://interaction-timeline.toolforge.org/?wiki=enwiki&user=Surtsicna&user=216.58.25.209&startDate=1740787200 . Accusations of sockpuppetry require evidence and should be made at WP:SPI. 216.58.25.209 (talk) 00:03, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I find it ironic that you’re accusing me of using AI while simultaneously avoiding addressing the actual issue. My message was written by me, and if it happens to be well-structured, that’s because I put effort into making my point clear. If you have a real concern, feel free to report it through the appropriate channels instead of making baseless claims.

As for the edit warring situation, I have acknowledged my mistake and will engage in discussion moving forward. However, you also repeatedly reverted my edits multiple times, which seems to be ignored here. If you're going to enforce Wikipedia's rules, at least apply them consistently. If you believe you did nothing wrong, then by the same logic, neither did I.

If you truly believe in fair enforcement of policies, I suggest you take this to WP:SPI or WP:ANI instead of making passive-aggressive accusations. Otherwise, I expect the same standards to be applied to everyone involved. Yadomii (talk) 12:58, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]