| Revision as of 20:29, 23 May 2014 editUser931 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,137 edits →Discussion on Admin Notice Board← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:30, 23 May 2014 edit undoUser931 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,137 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| == How we do things == | |||
| really, the way you are conducting yourself is not helpful - and especially not helpful to you. If you ever want to escalate this to some kind of dispute resolution, other editors will look at how the parties have conducted themselves, and what their arguments have been, based on policies and guidelines. If you want the content you are arguing for to remain in the article, you should a) stop making personal attacks in edit notes, as you have done and and especially here and in your one appearance on the Talk page right after you made the last comment, . We've made good faith efforts to engage with you on your own Talk page, which you did not respond to and instead deleted in . Please actually engage with the policy-and-guideline-based justifications that have been provided on Talk since May 17 , . The history of your behavior is not going to help you if this goes to dispute resolution. All of our dispute resolution guidelines call for parties to make good faith efforts to actually discuss and work through their differences on Talk. Please see all of ] and especially ]. Thanks! ] (]) 11:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ] You currently appear to be engaged in an ]. Users are expected to ] with others, to avoid editing ], and to ] rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.<br> | |||
| Please be particularly aware, ] states: | |||
| # '''Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made'''; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts. | |||
| # '''Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.''' | |||
| If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's ] to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents ] among editors. You can post a request for help at an ] or seek ]. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary ]. If you engage in an edit war, you '''may be ] from editing.'''<!-- Template:uw-ew --> ] (]) 13:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| == Discussion on Admin Notice Board == | == Discussion on Admin Notice Board == | ||
| :User931, shows that you made four reverts at ] on 21 May (Four edits are marked as 'Undid'). This clearly breaks the ] rule, which sanctions more than three reverts in a 24 hour period. Can you reply to this message and explain why you should not be blocked? Looking forward to your reply, ] (]) 04:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC) | :User931, shows that you made four reverts at ] on 21 May (Four edits are marked as 'Undid'). This clearly breaks the ] rule, which sanctions more than three reverts in a 24 hour period. Can you reply to this message and explain why you should not be blocked? Looking forward to your reply, ] (]) 04:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 20:30, 23 May 2014
Discussion on Admin Notice Board
- User931, your contribution history shows that you made four reverts at Isotretinoin on 21 May (Four edits are marked as 'Undid'). This clearly breaks the WP:3RR rule, which sanctions more than three reverts in a 24 hour period. Can you reply to this message and explain why you should not be blocked? Looking forward to your reply, EdJohnston (talk) 04:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
As I've said several times, this Formerly 98 all of a sudden started to delete non-original research referenced text relevant to the topic without first opening up a discussion and letting other people express their opinion about the change. User:User931 21:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)