February 2024
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Led Zeppelin III. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.
Points to note:
- 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 and 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. Favonian (talk) 19:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Led Zeppelin III. - FlightTime (open channel) 13:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Why must I be the one blocked when I am the one who is sweating, explaining his changes while other editors simply undo/revert mine with no reasons given? Please go read the history of that page and see me state my case repeatedly against others who are the real disruptors, making changes and undoing edits based on their own unsourced whims? Please, I believe in fair justice. HighPriestOfSaturn (talk) 08:19, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think we all believe in fair justice, but let's just take a step back and look what the actual dispute is about. I have done significant work on Led Zeppelin, including finding reliable and authoritative sources for a lot of material, but the recent edits look like a trivial spat over some minor inconsequential detail. So my personal opinion on the matter is - Who cares? Does it really matter? I would forget all about this silly feud and find another article to edit. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- I care and it really matters to me, otherwise I wouldn't be engaged in this battle. As I've said before, there are people who are looking for this type of music, because I was once a person like this. That is the whole point of having a genre box, is it not? Whether it is trivial to you or not, does not invalidate it. I do not care how you feel about it. I have made a genre change, and have explained my position multiple times. Why then are my points being ignored? Why then do you believe Tkbrett when he continues to claim my edits to be unsourced, when I have stated multiple times that the Rolling Stone article is my source? HighPriestOfSaturn (talk) 14:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- I repeat - I would forget all about this silly feud and find another article to edit. I care being out of raspberry jam in the kitchen fridge, but I don't fight tooth and nail complaining about it on the internet. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not going to forget about it just because you and your mob have ganged up on me. Best believe that. I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be for rational and logical discussions? Well, that's what I'm having. You people think you're just going to block me and create pages for me because you think if there's a crowd of voices, mine is going to be drowned out. It's not. You will hear mine. Rest assured. I have perfect reason for what I'm doing. HighPriestOfSaturn (talk) 07:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
- I repeat - I would forget all about this silly feud and find another article to edit. I care being out of raspberry jam in the kitchen fridge, but I don't fight tooth and nail complaining about it on the internet. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- I care and it really matters to me, otherwise I wouldn't be engaged in this battle. As I've said before, there are people who are looking for this type of music, because I was once a person like this. That is the whole point of having a genre box, is it not? Whether it is trivial to you or not, does not invalidate it. I do not care how you feel about it. I have made a genre change, and have explained my position multiple times. Why then are my points being ignored? Why then do you believe Tkbrett when he continues to claim my edits to be unsourced, when I have stated multiple times that the Rolling Stone article is my source? HighPriestOfSaturn (talk) 14:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think we all believe in fair justice, but let's just take a step back and look what the actual dispute is about. I have done significant work on Led Zeppelin, including finding reliable and authoritative sources for a lot of material, but the recent edits look like a trivial spat over some minor inconsequential detail. So my personal opinion on the matter is - Who cares? Does it really matter? I would forget all about this silly feud and find another article to edit. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:27, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
Introduction to contentious topics
You have recently edited a page related to discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
- adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
- comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
- follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
- comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
- refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.
Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tkbrett (✉) 11:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. PhilKnight (talk) 15:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)