Talk:Peacekeeping Operations Center

Unexplained reversions

This article was copy-edited in March 2020, and no-one had complained about the c/e. Today, both I and @Jonesey95: have reverted changes by a brand-new but not naive account @Kalevipoiss: (courtesy ping), who has not explained his or her reversions in edit summaries or on this talk page. Here is the first reversion (that account's first edit), here is Jonesey's reversion, and here is my reversion. I'm bringing this here because it's usual to edit the current version rather than revert to an older version without explanation. I have no particular interest in this matter; it came to light when the c/e template was restored. Baffle☿gab 14:54, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Kalevipoiss, additional sources and improvements are welcome, but please work from the current revision. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

What's the difference, it's nearly the same text, only expanded with sources. Kalevipoiss (talk) 18:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

You have violated the three-revert rule, which can lead to a block. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:20, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 August 2020

Revert article back to this version:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Peacekeeping_Operations_Center&oldid=971047102

before the removal of content and sources. Kalevipoiss (talk) 16:34, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

To editor Kalevipoiss:  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 17:59, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Kalevipoiss, as you have been told repeatedly, you are welcome to make a proposal to add references to the existing article. Reverting to a version that existed prior to edits that clarified the article via copy editing would be counterproductive. Before the article was protected, you were given many opportunities to edit the current article. Your disruptive actions led directly to the article's protection. Now we get to do it the hard way. Please propose specific additions or changes to the article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

You are the guy who keeps deleting sources and content. Why should I discuss anything with you if you so blatantly delete obvious sources? I am not going to spoon-feed you on the sources you deleted multiple times, when you can check them out yourself. Only disruptive action was your deletion of sources and your blatant vandalism. Kalevipoiss (talk) 16:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Please do not assume the gender of people who have not identified their gender to you and whom you never met. I have explained multiple times why your additions were reverted. I have no plans to explain again. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

And I have no intention to discuss anything with a vandal such as yourself, man. Kalevipoiss (talk) 17:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)