Revision as of 00:59, 7 January 2015 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,303,439 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to User talk:DHeyward/Archive 15) (bot← Previous edit | Revision as of 04:50, 8 January 2015 edit undoNorthBySouthBaranof (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers33,477 edits Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Anita Sarkeesian. (TW)Next edit → | ||
Line 155: | Line 155: | ||
{{Center|1=<small>Send New Year cheer by adding {{tls|Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.</small>}} | {{Center|1=<small>Send New Year cheer by adding {{tls|Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.</small>}} | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
== January 2015 == | |||
] Your recent editing history at ] shows that you are currently engaged in an ]. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See ] for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ]. | |||
'''Being involved in an edit war can result in your being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—'''even if you don't violate the three-revert rule'''—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.{{Break}}''I suggest you self-revert.''<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ] (]) 04:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:50, 8 January 2015
- /Archive 1 Created May 1. 2006
- /Archive 2 Created August 24, 2006
- /Archive 3 Created September 30, 2006
- /Archive 4 Created November 19, 2006
- /Archive 5 Created 05:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- /Archive 6 Created 15:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- /Archive 7 Created 04:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
- /Archive 08 Created 01:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
- /Archive 09 Created 05:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- /Archive 10 Created --DHeyward (talk) 08:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
- /Archive 11 created --DHeyward (talk) 03:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
- /Archive 12 created --DHeyward (talk) 09:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
- /Archive 13
- /Archive 14
Saturday 11 January18:52 UTC
Please add comments to the bottom
Belle Knox AFD #2
The second AFD for Belle Knox has been overturned and relisted. As you commented on the original AFD, you may wish to comment on this one as well. As there have been developments and sources created since the time of the original AFD, please review to see if your comments/!vote are the same or may have changed. Gaijin42 (talk)
OR noticeboard
December 2014
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Who Stole Feminism?. 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 that Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
- 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. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 12:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Please be aware that your deletion of sourced content was reverted by two editors. You're essentially edit-warring against two editors. And please stop following me as you did when you followed me to the above mention article and the Rule of Thumb article. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 12:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
You've got mail!
Hello, DHeyward. Please check your email; you've got mail!It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I've dispatched an e-mail explaining precisely what is actionably libelous about the column. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
WP:ANI
There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
I would ignore Sonicyouth86 from here on. Unless of course if he persists in trying to get you sanctioned for having the he audacity for opposing his editing. In other words, further retorts at ANI regarding this will likely do little goodli and just play into his schemes.--MONGO 15:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- That's how I took NE Ent's comment as well and struck my SPI comments as more than one editor (NE Ent at ANI and another editor on the SPI page) took issue with it. Binsternet explains his relationship with Sonicyouth86 on the SPI talk page . There's apparently a lot of wikiwars I am not familiar with including "Men's Rights movement" (didn't think it was a wiki-war). As I uncover the scorecard, it appears there is this big overarching thing that is the basis of "Mens Rights", gamergate, gender gap, feminism, radical feminism, wikipediocracy and Cultural Marxism (go have a look at that brewing disaster headed for arbcom with all the same players - it will have jumped the shark when TDA gets involved). I don't follow the noticeboards close enough to keep up with all the stuff and there is so much undertow I'm not aware of. Suffice to say, those disputes go back years so when I saw a problematic edit, it appears that the history of the other editors was long and gory (and headed for more of the same). --DHeyward (talk) 15:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
- You and I both know that those here advocating strong beliefs and opinions, even if they are right, have to meet the judges sooner or later. If he persist in trying to seek sanction against you for flimsy reasons then either an interaction ban or an Rfc may be in order.--MONGO 16:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Final Warning
Your latest comment at AN, now removed, violated policy in several ways. By linking to a place containing libelous claims, you violated WP:LIBEL "It is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that material posted on Misplaced Pages is not defamatory" as well as WP:ELNO "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research". By linking to an archive that violates copyright, you violated WP:ELNEVER "Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered contributory copyright infringement. If there is reason to believe that a website has a copy of a work in violation of its copyright, do not link to it." Archive.today does not request permission to archive pages, and since the University scrubbed it there is reason to believe they did not want it published and archived. By editing another user's comment, you violated WP:TPO "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user who wrote it or someone acting at their explicit request" and WP:CIVIL for obvious reasons.
At this point, I'm not sure if you're unaware of these policies and guidelines, or just disrupting to prove a point, but it needs to stop. This is your one and only warning before I issue a sanction to prevent further disruption. The Wordsmith 22:07, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- WTF are you talking about? My link says "file not found". Nothing I posted was libel and you can retract that accusation. Is there a two link dereference violation you've invented. I self-reverted the "citation needed" where he (and you) made unfounded claims about Amhersts retraction. That was my only change to his text. He removed my entire comment because I put CN on his claim. Please familiarize yourself with the diff function. If you think links within citations are also issues, you are venturing into ridiculousness. I am not aware that Amherst has copyrighted that material as it's not available at Amherst. In addition you are involved. You don't understand policy enough to be handing out sanctions. Don't post here again with nonsense. I will post it all at ArbCom anyway. Have a nice day. --DHeyward (talk) 22:19, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- Notice that WP:ELNEVER explicitly says "Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright", and you deliberately gave other users directions to find the material. The warning stands; do not link to that content again. The Wordsmith 22:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- And here is the Amherst retraction, indicating that it contained unsubstantiated, incorrect, and damaging claims and was retracted by the author and editorial board. Proof enough for you to stop your crusade? Also, I am not involved. As per WP:INVOLVED, "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator 'involved'."The Wordsmith 22:33, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- First retraction. That's a start. They don't claim it's defamatory or libelous or false only unsubstantiated and out of date, which I agree (but you went further than that, again without proof and defaming the article author without a source). The retraction also repeated the claim and didn't denounce it as false or list what they thought was false. Second, you just linked to an image that DD2K uploaded with claims he is the copyright holder. You know that is false and he holds no copyright to that image. You're kidding with wikilawyer warnings right? I don't mind any of the information you brought and don't plan on complaining about the image that repeats the claims you believe are defamatory. Nor will I complain about the image you linked to bearing a false copyright claim. because it's part of DISCUSSION which you seem to think only applies to you. Sorry if you think my example (which didn't link to the article and contained no statements) was a violation (It wasn't). Nor was my calling you and others out for accusing the author of committing a crime with no source. I will be providing evidence of your administrative violations to ArbCom. Yes, if you have any sense, you are "involved". --DHeyward (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- You're right on one thing: The image is incorrectly listed as an own work, and lacks an acceptable license. After taking a few minutes to think on it, it appears to be a copyvio and I will speedily delete it as such. Provide whatever you like to Arbcom, I have participated only in an administrative capacity and, like WP:ARBCC, remain uninvolved. And I'm sorry if you think i'm being excessive (I am perhaps heavy-handed in contentious areas), but I also make every attempt to be fair. I specifically recall dismissing a previous sanction request made against you because there was no evidence of violations. I'm sure you're a reasonable person, and we can still collaborate to make this topic area productive instead of toxic. The Wordsmith 23:45, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- First retraction. That's a start. They don't claim it's defamatory or libelous or false only unsubstantiated and out of date, which I agree (but you went further than that, again without proof and defaming the article author without a source). The retraction also repeated the claim and didn't denounce it as false or list what they thought was false. Second, you just linked to an image that DD2K uploaded with claims he is the copyright holder. You know that is false and he holds no copyright to that image. You're kidding with wikilawyer warnings right? I don't mind any of the information you brought and don't plan on complaining about the image that repeats the claims you believe are defamatory. Nor will I complain about the image you linked to bearing a false copyright claim. because it's part of DISCUSSION which you seem to think only applies to you. Sorry if you think my example (which didn't link to the article and contained no statements) was a violation (It wasn't). Nor was my calling you and others out for accusing the author of committing a crime with no source. I will be providing evidence of your administrative violations to ArbCom. Yes, if you have any sense, you are "involved". --DHeyward (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- And here is the Amherst retraction, indicating that it contained unsubstantiated, incorrect, and damaging claims and was retracted by the author and editorial board. Proof enough for you to stop your crusade? Also, I am not involved. As per WP:INVOLVED, "One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. This is because one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters, at length if necessary. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator 'involved'."The Wordsmith 22:33, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
- I am reasonable and I hate sanctions (the only reason I took it to AN was because you seemed to not have responded on GG sanction). I am concerned about the "chilling effect". I don't know Avono and he could have been disruptive before that and a TBan for throwing gas on the fire might have been okay. But a link to illustrate a point that was not related to the narrative about Quinn (i.e. fringe coverage) is necessary for discussion. My own view is that the image that was uploaded for discussion is okay (it would get deleted as an orphan or remain unreferenced). That had the effect of letting me see the retraction which I could not do and is important for both it's existence and wording (no, the retraction is not a reliable source for how to reference quinn's relationships). I think the spirit and compromise of WP:BLPTALK is sometimes links and pictures are needed for discussion. All the false information about Quinn is 2 clicks from Misplaced Pages anyway. All our sources eventually lead back to claims we don't publish. We provide a source that says it's false but that source has a link to the claim that it's true. Had Avono posted that link with the intention of rewriting Quinn's relationship, that would be the kind of "chilling effect" we'd want to see. But his link was posted to counter that the news coverage was narrow. At AN I pointed out the difference in the names of the link to Amherst with the link to Daily Dot (which is a source in the article). If Avono was problematic, simply restating the TBan as disruptive would have passed my own test. But just a link on a talk page that was relevant to the discussion, though not as a source, shouldn't be chilling. Just as the image upload served a discussion purpose even if the copyright claim would never stand up in an article. The problem will get handled adminstratively without a sanction and the purpose of the encyclopedia is preserved. Everyone understands why it was uploaded and no one looks to punish the uploader. I'm sorry if I was short and snippy. That's not my intent. --DHeyward (talk) 00:19, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you or discussing this calmly. I actually hope it DOES have something of a chilling effect, since if you look at the GG talk page archives there is some appalling stuff there. There's even more horrible stuff discussed and linked to in the deleted/suppressed edits. I'm sure there's Oversighted stuff too that even I can't see. If editors have to think twice about what they post for fear of sanction, then maybe there will be less disruption, less frivolous enforcement requests (like the one you were subject to) and more productive conversation. There's a reason I've started participating in discussion of sources on the talkpage, giving a statement about what policy says about a source. I want people to know the policies and apply them on their own, and then the area will be much less contentious. The Wordsmith 00:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- I think most of oversight and revdel involves claims made on WP of which were awful. I couldn't even see us repeating that retraction on WP as being extraordinarily weak. For links, oversight is limited to outing and personal information. I only know this because someone linked to an offsite message board that said stuff about me that was false that they used it to imply wrongdoing on WP. I requested oversight to remove the links that merely contain defamatory material and they are not oversighted by policy. It wasn't revdel'd because they explained that since it wasn't article space, and the attack wasn't direct, but through a link, the WP admins reviewing it would see it was an unreliable source and discount the accusation. They didn't want to upset the discussion unless the charges were on-wiki or doxxing. --DHeyward (talk) 01:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- Just so I am clear on my position here, and I also want to state that I understand your position too. It is my understanding that editors involved in the GG issues were told repeatedly to not post links that make a specific accusation concerning Quinn(we know which one/s), and other editors were sanctioned for posting the accusations and for posting the links on the article Talk page. Avono was well aware of this. But taking his explanation at face value and assuming good faith, he was asked to make sure it doesn't happen again and the TBan would be lifted. Avono refused and stated he was done with the whole GG issue. I would support a lifting of the TBan under the conditions set by the sanctioning admin, and I do understand that we can go too far getting sanctioned for posting links. But I think if we take our blinders off, this specific instance is one were we should be careful and not allow links that make the accusations as facts that we know are unsubstantiated. In any case, thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 20:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- I'm aware of SPA's making statements. I don't keep up with Gamergate article talk page except the recent case where NBSB asked me to take a specific issue with his arbcom statement to gamerGate talk as he believed it had at least some merit deserving discussion. The only background I have seen with Avono is what was presented at the sanction page. Previous history I don't think was presented. I presumed it was based on that one link. If there is disruptive history with Avono, I am not aware of it. i haven't searched for it either, though. --DHeyward (talk) 23:54, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- I think most of oversight and revdel involves claims made on WP of which were awful. I couldn't even see us repeating that retraction on WP as being extraordinarily weak. For links, oversight is limited to outing and personal information. I only know this because someone linked to an offsite message board that said stuff about me that was false that they used it to imply wrongdoing on WP. I requested oversight to remove the links that merely contain defamatory material and they are not oversighted by policy. It wasn't revdel'd because they explained that since it wasn't article space, and the attack wasn't direct, but through a link, the WP admins reviewing it would see it was an unreliable source and discount the accusation. They didn't want to upset the discussion unless the charges were on-wiki or doxxing. --DHeyward (talk) 01:10, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you or discussing this calmly. I actually hope it DOES have something of a chilling effect, since if you look at the GG talk page archives there is some appalling stuff there. There's even more horrible stuff discussed and linked to in the deleted/suppressed edits. I'm sure there's Oversighted stuff too that even I can't see. If editors have to think twice about what they post for fear of sanction, then maybe there will be less disruption, less frivolous enforcement requests (like the one you were subject to) and more productive conversation. There's a reason I've started participating in discussion of sources on the talkpage, giving a statement about what policy says about a source. I want people to know the policies and apply them on their own, and then the area will be much less contentious. The Wordsmith 00:41, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- I am reasonable and I hate sanctions (the only reason I took it to AN was because you seemed to not have responded on GG sanction). I am concerned about the "chilling effect". I don't know Avono and he could have been disruptive before that and a TBan for throwing gas on the fire might have been okay. But a link to illustrate a point that was not related to the narrative about Quinn (i.e. fringe coverage) is necessary for discussion. My own view is that the image that was uploaded for discussion is okay (it would get deleted as an orphan or remain unreferenced). That had the effect of letting me see the retraction which I could not do and is important for both it's existence and wording (no, the retraction is not a reliable source for how to reference quinn's relationships). I think the spirit and compromise of WP:BLPTALK is sometimes links and pictures are needed for discussion. All the false information about Quinn is 2 clicks from Misplaced Pages anyway. All our sources eventually lead back to claims we don't publish. We provide a source that says it's false but that source has a link to the claim that it's true. Had Avono posted that link with the intention of rewriting Quinn's relationship, that would be the kind of "chilling effect" we'd want to see. But his link was posted to counter that the news coverage was narrow. At AN I pointed out the difference in the names of the link to Amherst with the link to Daily Dot (which is a source in the article). If Avono was problematic, simply restating the TBan as disruptive would have passed my own test. But just a link on a talk page that was relevant to the discussion, though not as a source, shouldn't be chilling. Just as the image upload served a discussion purpose even if the copyright claim would never stand up in an article. The problem will get handled adminstratively without a sanction and the purpose of the encyclopedia is preserved. Everyone understands why it was uploaded and no one looks to punish the uploader. I'm sorry if I was short and snippy. That's not my intent. --DHeyward (talk) 00:19, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Olive Branch of Peace
The Wordsmith has extended an olive branch of peace.
Thanks! My issue isn't even with you, rather the users that will cite that Tban for talk page links in the future. --DHeyward (talk) 00:19, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
A cup of coffee for you!
Sorry that I misunderstood your comments on the workshop page. PhilKnight (talk) 03:05, 21 December 2014 (UTC) |
Proposed deletion of Instrument of Degradation
The article Instrument of Degradation has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- Article creator removed db-nocontent tag in violation of WP:CSD instead of contesting deletion. Minimal information remains in this article, and the only article linked here is Order of the Garter. WP:NOT#DICT
While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}}
notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}}
will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Jkudlick cs 14:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Flying droplets
Hi, just dropped back to have a look at the Siphon article. There has been some material (and a video) put in about the 'flying droplet siphon'. The intent is to apparently refute cohesion or tension and subtly re-introduce air pressure. However, I am not concerned about that issue. I have never seen a flying droplet siphon before and my question to you is, basically, is this a siphon?
I think it is being called a siphon inasmuch as a liquid is being moved from one level to another, but I see it as a pump. Just as what is called 'siphon coffee' is a pump because expansion of air under heat pushes liquid up the tube, I see a negative, or partial pressure, pump operation in the droplet siphon. From the decription it seems that when the lower column of fluid is released, it drops under gravity causing a reduced pressure in the sealed chamber above. This reduced pressure, in turn, sucks the fluid from the source container (see Figure 5 in the siphon article) like liquid through a straw. Am I right?
The droplets merely occur because the source tube tapers to a point so the liquid forms droplets at the partial pressure it is emerging from, reduce the pressure and it would hose out as a stream. Remove the taper and just have a circular pipe ending and the fluid would probably just pour out.
I'm not sure that having the flying droplet siphon is strictly a 'siphon' or that it adds to the explanation of siphon operation (in my mind gravity and in-siphon pressure effects (Bern. and Pous. equations)), in fact it may detract from clarity.
I would be happy to read your thoughts on this. Cheers, T — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobermory Womble (talk • contribs) 03:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
gg
Why did you restore it when it was already restored on the workshop page?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 09:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
- I only saw your deletion on the talk page. Apologies if it was restored by another party. The OP only had the single contribution which was inexplicably removed from a talk page. --DHeyward (talk) 09:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
Your contributed article, Instrument of Degradation
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Instrument of Degradation. First, thank you for your contribution; Misplaced Pages relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Order of the Garter#Degradation of members. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Misplaced Pages. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Order of the Garter#Degradation of members – you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.
If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Misplaced Pages looks forward to your future contributions. — Jkudlick cs 08:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Nomination of Instrument of Degradation for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Instrument of Degradation is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Instrument of Degradation until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. — Jkudlick cs 12:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Happy New Year DHeyward!
Happy New Year!DHeyward,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. Avono (talk) 21:13, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
January 2015
Your recent editing history at Anita Sarkeesian shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
I suggest you self-revert. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)