| Revision as of 04:28, 23 May 2014 editEdJohnston (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Checkusers, Administrators71,226 edits →Discussion on Admin Notice Board: You have violated the WP:3RR rule on 21 May← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:29, 23 May 2014 edit undoUser931 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users2,137 edits →Discussion on Admin Notice BoardNext edit → | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
| == 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) | ||
| 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. ] 21:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC) | |||
| ] There is currently a discussion at the ] regarding disruptive editing. The thread is ].The discussion is about the topic ]. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> Thank you. —] (]) 14:20, 21 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 20:29, 23 May 2014
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 here and here and especially here here and in your one appearance on the Talk page right after you made the last comment, here. 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 this dif. Please actually engage with the policy-and-guideline-based justifications that have been provided on Talk since May 17 , here. 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 Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution and especially Misplaced Pages:Dispute_resolution#Discuss_with_the_other_party. Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 11:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware, Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring 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 talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Deli nk (talk) 13:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
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)