Your attention is politely drawn to WP:HOUND. MapReader (talk) 09:35, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits that I've reverted are disruptive, I'm not the only person to revert them. Please stop. Indagate (talk) 09:40, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much, you are the only person to revert them. I'm keeping the diffs as if you continue to revert I anticipate this will lead to a lengthy ANI. You are aware that it is only legitimate to track an individual editor's edits over an extended period if they are breaching WP policy, which I am not. Indeed my edits reflect the spirit of the recently closed RFC whereas yours do not. Please desist. MapReader (talk) 09:55, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the only person, noticed several others, here's an example from previous discussion where you edit warred over it [1], and a recent example [2]. Your edits go against MOS:VAR as are replacing an existing style with your preferred, same reason the templates you don't like can't be added to articles already using similar wording by editors who prefer them, works both ways. As I've told you before, the quoted text is always included for Metacritic across Wikipedia projects except where you've removed it as far as I've seen, so there's clear consensus for its inclusion, please get consensus before continuing to remove it as your continued removals are disruptive. Indagate (talk) 10:05, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary, you contributed to the recently closed RfC and expressed what is clearly a minority (lone) view; as such it is your continuing reverts that meet the critieria for being disruptive, being tendentious, in pursuit of a minority viewpoint, and failing to recognise community input. If editors following a particular article wish to contest any proposed change, of course they are free to do so, but your HOUNDing is disruptive and unwelcome. MapReader (talk) 10:10, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That was about using the prose templates, not about quoting the text, so different issue as I said to you in that discussion. You have repeatedly removed the quoted text from articles not using the prose templates, including the Black Panther example I linked above, so the RfC closure cannot be used as consensus for your disruptive edits. That was only closed this morning, previous TfD's with more participants kept the prose templates anyway. The closure said is just a recommendation etc so can't use to remove templates, still goes against MOS:VAR where already in place. When you edit articles that are watched like popular and recent media like examples I linked above, you are reverted by other people. There is implied consensus for including the quoted text as standard practice across Film and TV articles, no reason for going against that on individual articles unless you can give it, so you are going against the broad consensus for including. Please respect the standard practice and stop your disruptive editing unless you can get consensus. Indagate (talk) 10:23, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we clearly have a difference of view. We have established that you are, to quote from the policy, "following another user around". I have politely drawn your attention to WP:HOUND and made it clear that your doing so is unwelcome. As an experienced editor you will have to decide what regard, if any, you wish to give. MapReader (talk) 10:27, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have politely drawn your attention to MOS:VAR, and that removing prose templates goes against that. and the standard practice of including quoted text so no consensus for your edits. Indagate (talk) 10:36, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That only flies if you stick to your ‘Alice in Wonderland’ position that "style" means whatever you might want it to mean. Respecting WP:TG and not using a template to produce plain text isn’t style, and neither is removing puff like "universal acclaim" when a film or TV show has cited negative reviews. They’re simple edits, with which other editors are entitled to disagree - but not by following someone from page to page. MapReader (talk) 14:13, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No need to insult an opinion, everyone's entitled to their own opinion, just not entitled to edit against consensus as you do. WP:TG was used as an argument in TfD's which resulted in kept / no consensus, the guideline says "normally" so exceptions can be made for boilerplate text that doesn't need to be edited at an article level. Phrases like "universal acclaim" are included in quotation marks so is clear they're coming from Metacritic, same as phrases for other Metacritic scores. Not okay to include "universal acclaim" in WP voice though. This has been said by me and others in previous discussions including RfC's and TfD's. I'll revert anyone making that particular edit of removing the quoted text but you're the only person making it that I've seen. I've not reverted your other edits. Shouldn't call it a "simple edit" when it goes against standard practice, removing valid cited information, you keep avoiding getting consensus for as you can't. Please stop making this edit without getting consensus. Indagate (talk) 14:37, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’d simply invite you, once again, to review your edit history given WP:HOUND. Following another editor from page to page is very clearly deprecated WP behaviour. MapReader (talk) 14:40, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd simply ask you, once again, to not keep making an edit that I and several others have reverted, and is against standard practice, so clearly disputed. Wikipedia works via consensus, not trying to force your preferred style into any article you can. This is clearly disruptive editing. Closing discussion as this is not productive. Indagate (talk) 14:50, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]