My edits are being reverted despite satisfying all the project's requirements and complying with its policies. Not the most constructive approach to welcoming a new user. — Luke904 (talk) 11:05, 26 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

AC, you yourself know you're block evading, and even if you weren't, no chance you're not a sock of someone as the toning of your comment is far too experienced for a newbie. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 11:11, 26 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

"New user" my arse. It would be so easy to pass yourself off as a convincing new user and turn a new page if you really wanted to, but you couldn't resist immediately carrying on fighting old edit wars in your "first" edits.😆--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:43, 26 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

especially when your first edit was just the same tone as a discussion that Ikan and I had with you last week on WD. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 12:54, 26 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Correlation does not imply causation. — Luke904 (talk) 21:12, 26 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

The fact that you know how to link to Wikipedia as a so called "brand new user" who only has six global edits is an obvious sign it's you AC. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 22:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Anyone can link to Wikipedia, that's hardly a secret. Just google how to do it. So unless you have CheckUser evidence to support your hypothesis, your "fact" is little more than a wild guess.

It also doesn't change that my actions reverting this textbook example of page blanking vandalism were necessary. If a vandal deletes 92% of an article's content, leaving just enough text to avoid triggering the page blanking filter, such obviously malicious edits must be reverted as fast as possible. If not, this is extremely harmful to the project because:

1. it deprives our readers of the travel content they are looking for,
2. it could "inspire" other vandals to adopt similar behaviour if vandalism to (relatively) high profile articles remains unaddressed,
3. it discourages any other established editor from making further contributions if any vandal is allowed to destroy constructive editing efforts.

So who exactly reverted the vandalism is unimportant, I merely took the initiative because no one else did. — Luke904 (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

m:SRCU#[email protected] SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 20:31, 27 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

I'm impressed and surprised, this is the first time in over 3 years that someone bothers to check before spewing the usual insults. I was curious if you'd actually do the effort or are just here to argue for the sake of arguing. But you did, and you'll find that your efforts will be rewarded. You've regained some of the credibility you lost by deleting useful articles a few weeks ago (which I still think is not acceptable without discussing this on a talk page first). I was disappointed you evaded the conflict resolution process on Meta on that subject and concluded you're not here to seriously build a travel guide. But perhaps I have misjudged your character after all.

Are you intentionally ignoring the 3 strong arguments in favour of reverting page blanking vandalism I offered above? — Luke904 (talk) 00:07, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Oh, so you're not really a "new user" as what you mentioned above. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 00:17, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Sotiale has just confirmed you, Luke906 and ArticCynda are the same person by doing a CU check. Revoking your talk page access in line with the same conditions with your sockmaster account. Pinging @ThunderingTyphoons!: about this. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta.wikimedia) 05:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

The system works. Thanks, SHB2000!--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:41, 28 November 2021 (UTC)Reply