User talk:Cameronbrooks

September 2017

Your recent editing history at Morgellons ‎ 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 are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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. Natureium (talk) 15:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Morgellons. Natureium (talk) 15:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring at Morgellons

I read the lovely warning you left me, and as you might expect was rather amused at your lack of understanding of what is going on. Consider this a warning that if you don't stop edit warring you may well be blocked from editing without further notice. -Roxy the dog. bark 15:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello Cameronbrooks. You have now reverted four times on 19 September at Morgellons. An admin would be justified in blocking you for violation of WP:3RR. You may still avoid a block if you will promise to wait for talk page consensus before reverting again. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:22, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I welcome this

Welcome what? Are you promising to stop reverting at Morgellons prior to consensus? EdJohnston (talk) 16:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I am eager to assess the consensus of the reversion in the talk page.

So you won't revert again until a majority supports you on the talk page? EdJohnston (talk) 16:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this would be only reasonable and is all I ask

September 2017

Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. Natureium (talk) 16:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring

There is currently a discussion involving your behavior at WP:AN3. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

September 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Cameronbrooks, it looks like you've stated twice now that you do not plan to revert anymore, so this block is not needed. If you do revert to a version that doesn't have consensus, then a block will be appropriate. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:32, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

Regarding your request for arbitration, the committee have declined it and it has been removed from the list of case requests. Your request was premature as not all other avenues of dispute resolution had been explored.

For the arbitration committee,

GoldenRing (talk) 16:57, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

July 2018

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Morgellons, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. QueerFilmNerd^talk 07:36, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Morgellons. Roxy, the dog. barcus 07:42, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Morgellons 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 are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:36, 12 July 2018 (UTC)