→October 2015: declined |
Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 97: | Line 97: | ||
You are blocked for your constant edit warring against multiple editors. There is no right to revert x amount of times. --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 20:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC) |
You are blocked for your constant edit warring against multiple editors. There is no right to revert x amount of times. --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 20:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC) |
||
:But the rule is the 24 hour period and three reverts? And there have been others "warring" against them, and "the other editors" (as in two) warring back? And the "multiple editors" (as in two) may very well the same person operating with a sock puppet (or at least they are in cohorts, messaging outside Wikipedia), as I proved on the talk page. Is the only way to make a change on Wikipedia a VPN? Does the truthfulness of your opinion not matter if you don't use a VPN to pretend to be multiple different editors? --[[User:Mr. Magoo and McBarker|Mr. Magoo and McBarker]] ([[User talk:Mr. Magoo and McBarker#top|talk]]) 20:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC) |
:But the rule is the 24 hour period and three reverts? And there have been others "warring" against them, and "the other editors" (as in two) warring back? And the "multiple editors" (as in two) may very well the same person operating with a sock puppet (or at least they are in cohorts, messaging outside Wikipedia), as I proved on the talk page. Is the only way to make a change on Wikipedia a VPN, like the other editor? Does the truthfulness of your opinion not matter if you don't use a VPN to pretend to be multiple different editors? --[[User:Mr. Magoo and McBarker|Mr. Magoo and McBarker]] ([[User talk:Mr. Magoo and McBarker#top|talk]]) 20:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:15, 16 October 2015
Welcome!
|
October 2015
![Stop icon](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f1/Stop_hand_nuvola.svg/30px-Stop_hand_nuvola.svg.png)
Your recent editing history at Political correctness 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. Doug Weller (talk) 12:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- I did a single undo per person (there were two). Not in a row, by the way. After that and after finding out they aren't budging, I started removing bits from my own stance to get to a concensus progressively through edits. The descriptors of my edits also greatly pointed out that I were dropping my points to appease. At this point I didn't think this was being an edit war, but rather an editing process between two disagreers - realpolitik concensus. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 22:04, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to Antifeminism while logged out. Making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of more than one account or IP address by one person. If this was not your intention, then please always remember to log in when editing. Thank you. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:11, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- For context, see the this edit and the three that follow, and the string of edits made by the same IP at Antifeminism. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
- Very early on I informed you that this is not my user account because I don't have access to the password-saving feature. I also informed you I will shortly be back on my real user account. Very neatly you forget that and paint a bad picture of me. I posted a more comprehensive view on Doug's talk page if you want to take a look. --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 22:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Note that your behavior with the IP will be included with your behavior using this account if a block is requested. Doug Weller (talk) 14:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
American Politics discretionary sanctions notification
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.October 2015
![Stop icon with clock](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/39/Stop_x_nuvola_with_clock.svg/40px-Stop_x_nuvola_with_clock.svg.png)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. NeilN talk to me 19:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- Why in the world would I be blocked for making two reverts? I mean the edit history has Aquillion having done the same just below, yet he isn't blocked? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 19:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/Appointment_red.svg/48px-Appointment_red.svg.png)
Mr. Magoo and McBarker (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I made two reverts? The latter of which done when the other person didn't even bother explaining his revert on the talk page? Another editor just below in the edit history did two reverts as well and he wasn't blocked?
Decline reason:
WP:3RR is not an entitlement to revert thrice, twice, or even once a day. Max Semenik (talk) 20:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
You are blocked for your constant edit warring against multiple editors. There is no right to revert x amount of times. --NeilN talk to me 20:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- But the rule is the 24 hour period and three reverts? And there have been others "warring" against them, and "the other editors" (as in two) warring back? And the "multiple editors" (as in two) may very well the same person operating with a sock puppet (or at least they are in cohorts, messaging outside Wikipedia), as I proved on the talk page. Is the only way to make a change on Wikipedia a VPN, like the other editor? Does the truthfulness of your opinion not matter if you don't use a VPN to pretend to be multiple different editors? --Mr. Magoo and McBarker (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)