Often on Wikipedia, editors will disagree with widely accepted policies and guidelines, or with a more specific type of consensus. Fighting against the majority, and those more widely respected than yourself, can present difficulties. Nonetheless, if you have read their arguments and remain convinced that your position is right, there is nothing wrong with stating your points. Even a consensus can make a bad decision sometimes, and you do the encyclopedia a favor by pointing it out. Remember the Abilene paradox.
If most people are disagreeing with you, they may have a good reason for it.
If you are edit warring on specious grounds, people will become extremely annoyed with you, and you could violate the rules.
Most uphill battles involve some degree of trying to own Wikipedia articles, or not agreeing with what other people have to say
Fighting an uphill battle hardly ever gets you a victory-- and even if you do win in content, you could lose a lot of respect in the eyes of your fellow editors. (But if you are in the right, that is more a reflection on them than on you.)
You're the only person reverting to a specific version...
Jeff "never puts away anything, especially oven mitts" Cliff, Bringer of Nightmares 🏴☠️🦝🐙 🇱🇧🧯 🇨🇦🐧
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the