| Revision as of 06:12, 11 August 2020 editE-960 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users11,992 edits →August 2020← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:21, 11 August 2020 edit undoE-960 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users11,992 edits ←Blanked the pageTag: BlankingNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ==Edit warring== | |||
| ] Your recent editing history at ] shows that you are currently engaged in an ]; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the ] 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule'''—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ] (]) 13:21, 10 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| == 3RR == | |||
| You have reverted three times in 24 hours. Actually in only one hour. The timestamps read: | |||
| *Today at 1:15 PM | |||
| *Today at 1:26 PM | |||
| *Today at 1:39 PM | |||
| Care to explain how you have not violated? ] (]) 14:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :{{u|GPinkerton}}, actually, the bright-line rule is that {{tq|An editor must not perform '''more than three''' reverts on '''a single page'''}} (bolding in original). E-960 was edit warring, but didn't quite breach 3RR. | |||
| :{{u|Girth Summit}} Ah yes, the last revert was in fact the text was inserted. ] (]) 15:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{u|GPinkterton}} It's not so much the timing as the number of reverts. The insertion of the text was a ] edit, then when three separate users removed it, E-960 reverted them each time - that's three reverts in total. If they make a fourth revert without gaining consensus on the talk page, they should by now have a pretty clear of what is likely to happen. ]] 15:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :{{u|E-960}} - edit warring is disruptive, even if you think your right. Use the talk page or walk away, but if you keep edit warring you will be blocked. ]] 14:49, 10 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ], I'm concerned that this is just an attempt to kill the text, the problem is that the tone is very much inline with other sections in the article, so when an editor reverts the new content and just writes "NPOV" and does not articulate his concerns or provide recommendation on how to fix the text, than I can't do anything about it. --] (]) 15:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :{{u|E-960}}, if by 'kill the text', you mean that these three other editors don't think that it should be included, then they are entitled to that opinion. It's now your task to convince people to change their minds. If I were you, I would look for better sourcing, because on the face of it is does look like you're sourcing the material to campaigning groups rather than independent reliable sources. ]] 15:07, 10 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::], not trying to initiate a controversy, but I was part of enough edit conflicts to remember when on multiple occasion editors raised the issue of stonewalling, and successfully argued that when other editors just revert text, which includes reliable reference sources, without any legitimate justification (that in itself was grounds for the text to stay), if you can't provide a legitimate reason, than it's a case of ] and it's those editors who are disruptive to the process. --] (]) 15:15, 10 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{u|E-960}}, Mm. I can't see you being successful with that argument in this case after initiating an edit war and accusing everyone else of improper conduct. Why not just try talking to people instead of reverting them? ]] 15:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :], if you are going to revert and not engage in a meaningful discussion, its that editor that's being disruptive. --] (]) 15:37, 10 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{u|E-960}}, that view is not in line with our policy on edit warring. You inserted the text, which is fine, but another editor reverted it with a brief but explanatory edit summary - that is also fine. The best response from you at that point would have been to put a note on the article talk page, pinging the other user and asking them in a polite and collegiate manner to explain their concerns with the content; instead, you reinstated the content, and made added a rather hostile note on the talk page. When another user removed it again, you reverted them too and left an even more hostile note on the talk page threatening to report them. And you revert the third person to remove it. I'm an uninvolved administrator, and I'm telling you that what you were doing on that page was disruptive. You don't need to like that or agree with it, but you need to stop doing that if you want to edit here. ]] 17:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| == August 2020 == | |||
| ] You may be '''] without further warning''' the next time you make ] on other people, as you did at ]. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. ''.''<!-- Template:uw-npa4 --> ] (]) 06:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
| :], did you see what kind of comments that came my way? User Cabayi said ''"If you have access there's an editorial in The Times by Matthew Parris from 23 July 2005 entitled "I name the four powers who are behind the conspiracy"'' a jab that I'm a consistory theorist, or user Drmies who said ''"And please don't come here with canards about worldwide prosecution". Also throwing around the "far right-wigng" lable on conservative Christian organizations"''. Also, I guess it's OK to throw around the "far right-wing" label in connection to Christian organizations as part of a merti based discussion on the validity of a reference source, but watch out if you say that someone's comments use the same approach as bolsheviks. --] (]) 06:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC) | |||