This is the talk page. For the user page, see User:TG-article.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TG-article.
I hate to say this, but your edits on airplane and accident articles are becoming disruptive. You are edit warring all over the place for your preferred versions (you've already been blocked twice for edit warring), you're continually trying to push what you think is right, you're making up rules about inclusions for things and continuing to generally be disruptive. I think you genuinely wish to help improve the encyclopaedia, but you're not going about it the right way. You need to stop edit warring. You need to stop thinking you know what's right. You need to start using talk pages to obtain WP:CONSENSUS. And you need to stop trying to alter everything you disagree with. If someone reverts you, reverting back and saying you think this is right is completely the wrong way to go about it. The amount of your edits that have been reverted is extremely concerning, and points towards being a time sink on the rest of the community while adding little. Additionally you really need to read WP:SDESC and understanding the point of short descriptions, it's not actually a description just a disambiguator to ensure people are locating the correct article, and it's definitely not a summary. And you need to stop trying to expand basic English words an concepts and trying to explain them. This is the English language Wikipedia, it's target audience is native and fluent English speakers. Finally, you have to change your signature. It's been raised several times and your current signature if against WP:SIGAPP which is a policy that has to be followed. Canterbury Tailtalk15:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Futher conceners about inappropriate editing: (1) do not make changes to your existing post in a discussion after someone has replied to you such as this edit where you add more evidence after someone has replied to you. Instead this should be added as a later reply, or at the very minimum you need to include an addendum to your prior comment and note when you edited your initial comment. (2) your rationale for these MOS edits errantly attribute your correction to a policy that says avoid versus may not which is a significant difference. (3) I also agree that your signature is problematic as it provides extremely low contrast if you are not using dark mode viewing, and should be changed. I will add that there are a lot of good edits that you've been making, but there has also been a significant number of errors that are being disruptive. TiggerJay(talk)16:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked due to your continued disruptive editing, which at this point seems to be deliberate. You are ignoring everything everyone is saying to you, continuing edit wars, don't know how to use the definite article and continue with edits against the MOS and disruptive short description edits. I'm not sure if you don't understand what is being said to you, or if you're deliberately ignoring what is being said to you, but at this point it doesn't matter as you're wasting the time of other editors. If you continue this when you return from your block, the next block will be indefinite. And you still have to fix your signature.
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 ~~~~}}.
The last time this user was blocked, the first thing they did was place a notice at the top of this talk page stating the length of their block. So they obviously understand how to use talk pages, but refuse to engage on it… pretty egregious case of refusing to communicate. Danners430 (talk) 03:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I've noticed that too. Adding to this, this has been a billionth time that someone has explained to this User about the problems regarding his signature. Instead of fixing it, he re-configures it using the same yellow color. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 03:27, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TG-article I can’t state for certain, but I’m willing to guess that this will likely be your last chance. Communication is required - it’s not optional. You’re obviously ignoring discussions instead of engaging with them, and I’m willing to bet that will count against you when administrators review your block. You’re invited to join the discussion and respond. Danners430 (talk) 14:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They know how to use talk pages, but don't. I indicated above that the next block will be indefinite if they continue their current editing pattern. The fact that it could be interpreted that they're taking the block as a badge of honour instead of trying to correct their behaviour and collaborate with the community is tempting me to change the block to indefinite now. Indefinite does not necessarily mean permanent, but I think the lack of respect for the community and general behaviour at this point is leaning towards requiring responses and assurances to the community and acknowledgement of their actions in order to re-obtain editing rights. There is no evidence they're interested in change, and I think we'll be back here in a week. Canterbury Tailtalk15:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
