User talk:Fanfanboy/Archives/2024/February

Policy Question

Hello, I have reviewed a policy some time ago and have some practical questions.

""The Arbitration Committee has expressed the principle that "When either of two styles is acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change."" Manual of Style

""If discussion fails to reach a consensus regarding which of two or more competing styles to use at all, then default to the style that was used in the first post-stub version of the article in which one of the applicable styles appeared. (This fall-back position does not give unchallengable primacy to that particular style during consensus discussion, nor give the editor who imposed that earliest style any more say in the discussion.)""

When people repeatedly maintain that one style takes precedent over the other while both are fairly adequate, or the new introduction has some issues not present in the original, how should one approach this problem? My initial impression was that in the absence of substantial contribution the original style should generally take precedent until some common understanding takes place. StuckMuck (talk) 00:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I'm going to be honest here, I'm not the most experienced with Wikipedia and most of what I do is revert edits (whether in good or bad faith), and I would highly recommend talking to a more experienced editor who has a couple thousand edits.

However, in my opinion I feel that your interpretation of the policy is correct. So yeah, I think the original style should take precedent until consensus is reached. Fanfanboy (talk) 14:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Rollback

Hi Fanfanboy. After reviewing your request, I have enabled rollback on your account. Please keep the following things in mind while using rollback:

• Being granted rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle or Ultraviolet. It just adds a [Rollback] button next to a page's latest live revision - that's all. It does not grant you any additional "status" on Wikipedia, nor does it change how Wikipedia policies apply to you.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear and unambiguous cases of vandalism only. Never use rollback to revert good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war, and it should never be used in a content-related dispute to restore the page to your preferred revision. If rollback is abused or used for this purpose or any other inappropriate purpose, the rights will be revoked.
• Use common sense. If you're not sure about something, ask!

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Fastily 10:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Got it, thanks! Fanfanboy (talk) 13:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Sometimes I make mistakes too when reverting edits. Keep up the good work! 94rain Talk 23:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Fanfanboy (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Yet another barnstar for you!

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		You've beaten me and my Huggle to a few reverts today. Quick moves, cowboy. Have a well deserved barnstar! Synorem (talk) 13:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Fanfanboy (talk) 14:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Edited Sergio Estrada Cajigal page

It’s not a wrong edited or removed content. It was full of lies and wrong information about this person 2806:104E:19:817A:11D8:83BE:C699:CC3B (talk) 16:52, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Then take that up to the articles talk page because the information removed was cited. Fanfanboy (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)