User talk:Swiftiefromthemid

Hello, I'm Plasticwonder. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Panties have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Plasticwonder (Cat got your tongue?) 14:56, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong. It was constructive and intentional. Please stop undoing my edits. Swiftiefromthemid (talk) 14:58, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war, according to the reverts you've made to Panties. This means that you are repeatedly reverting content back to how you think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree. Once it is known that there is a disagreement, users are expected to collaborate with others, avoid editing disruptively, and try to reach a consensus – rather than repeatedly reverting the changes made by other users.

Important points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive behavior – regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not engage in edit warring – even if you believe that you are right.

You need to discuss the disagreement on the article's talk page and work towards a revision that represents consensus among everyone involved. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution if discussions reach an impasse. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to engage in edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. Stop doing this. You have been undone multiple times. This has been discussed on the article's talk page and no-one has supported your changes. user: Plasticwonder's 3RR report was withdrawn because you self-reverted, but that does not mean you can wait two days and then restore your edit. And suggesting that the editors who disagree with your change are exhibiting "gender bias [1] is arguably a personal attack. Meters (talk) 21:48, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay so how does one collaborate if there is no discussion. Also, per the rules, it said I can't edit more than three times in a day. I don't feel there has been any collaboration. Just a bunch of people ignoring any points made and refusing to engage in good faith dialogue. Am I supposed to just quit because three people disagree with me? Swiftiefromthemid (talk) 22:16, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up, I opened a dispute here:

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Panties Swiftiefromthemid (talk) 22:23, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a discussion. No-one has agreed with you, and it was by four other editors, not three. And there are two additional editors who undid that change without as yet commenting in the talk page thread. I have added them to the dispute resolution thread, as well as the WP:TA who first attempted to make the change just before your account was created. Please tell us if that TA was you. Meters (talk) 09:52, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But there was no attempt to reach consensus. There was no collaboration. It was just a straight up stream of nos. I am willing to work together to find a way to be expansive, but I will continue to push this. Swiftiefromthemid (talk) 14:28, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is consensus. You have basically answered your own question. The "stream of nos" that you speak of is the consensus. I would advise you to read WP:STICK at this juncture. Plasticwonder (Cat got your tongue?) 17:36, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a broken system. Oh well. Congratulations on your victory. Have kind of lost interest at this point for now at least. Swiftiefromthemid (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the victory, I'm afraid. Every editor, no matter how long they have been editing, has been through frustrating moments where consensus goes against them, including me. It is something you have to accept if you want to edit here. No need to lose interest. But your push for certain edits against almost a unanimous view will not end well for you, and I am kinda going above and beyond to make sure that you remain in good standing, including ignoring the personal attack in the (rather ironic) edit summary here. It is ironic because had I been an asshole I would have just reported you (which I don't like doing to users), never reverted myself, and we wouldn't be having this conversation right now. Plasticwonder (Cat got your tongue?) 18:52, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a broken system. We edit by consensus, and, as Plasticwonder points out, you do not have consensus for your change. Multiple editors have undone the edit or commented on it on the talk page or in your dispute resolution board report. No-one has supported the change. There is a TA who made the first made the same edit, but that TA appears likely to have been you before you created your account. I've already asked you to clarify if that was you. Meters (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User talk:Swiftiefromthemid. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. I already pointed out that suggesting that the editors who disagree with your change are exhibiting "gender bias is arguably a personal attack. Accusing us of refusing to engage in good faith dialogue is a personal attack. Stop doing this. Meters (talk) 09:55, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that those are personal attacks. I feel that there was not good faith dialogue--I feel that there was no discussion. Gender bias can be unconscious, unintentional, etc. I didn't not say you were engaging in intentional gender bias. I suggested that the resulting article could be an issue of gender bias towards heteronormativity. I will keep pointing that out. To be clear, I do not agree that you "pointing out" something that you perceive to be true renders it true. You have accused me of engaging in personal attacks. That, in and of itself, is a personal attack. Stop doing this. Swiftiefromthemid (talk) 14:32, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I said that your "gender bias" comment was arguably a personal attack, but accusing us of "refusing to engage in good faith dialogue" is definitely a personal attack. Please retract that. Meters (talk) 19:32, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn’t a personal attack. I absolutely will not retract it. Swiftiefromthemid (talk) 19:36, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't complain then when editors are unwilling to see your side due to you not being willing to accept when you are in the wrong. Meters is actually being extremely fair as "refusing to engage in good faith dialogue" is actually a blatant falsehood as well, not just a personal attack. Plasticwonder (Cat got your tongue?) 19:38, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please take your edits to the talk page. I have started one here. Plasticwonder (Cat got your tongue?) 15:05, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please revert your edit. If you do not, I will be forced to get an admin involved. Plasticwonder (Cat got your tongue?) 15:06, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, my edit is a good edit. I did reply on the talk page. But I don't understand why you think you should be the ultimate decider on this. Swiftiefromthemid (talk) 15:08, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Swiftiefromthemid reported by User:Plasticwonder (Result: ). Thank you. Plasticwonder (Cat got your tongue?) 15:07, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]