User talk:2409:40F3:18:BAEF:8000:0:0:0

May 2023

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions—specifically this edit to 2018 (film)—because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 10:52, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

May 2023

Don't remove reference Wiki-Writesup (talk) 11:59, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need of excessive references 2409:40F3:18:BAEF:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 12:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reference and source and autotic. Wiki-Writesup (talk) 15:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't make WP:EDITWAR Wiki-Writesup (talk) 15:24, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The same applies to you 2409:40F3:18:BAEF:8000:0:0:0 (talk) 15:56, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 2409:40F3:18:BAEF:8000:0:0:0! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of 2018 (film) 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 Talk:2018 (film), 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. Grachester (talk) 16:11, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IP, there's a couple of issues with the edits you're making. First, please only use quality reliable sources. Blogs in particular are considered self-published sources and shouldn't be used. The lead should be a summary of what's in the article, not introducing new elements and not pushing a POV. There's a single critical review in the article. One. Any thought of summarizing, let alone calling critical acclaim is frankly ludicrous. Some of what you're trying to add may be relevant in the body, but not in the lead. Please use the article talk page to discuss edits. Ravensfire (talk) 18:33, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.