User talk:Celaena1
April 2019
[edit]
Your recent editing history at Utrecht tram shooting shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; 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 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 you 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. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- Dear Muboshgu, can you please tell me why this message was left only on my talk page, and not on the page of the opponent? Celaena1 (talk) 20:26, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- Celaena1, because the next time you revert to reinsert that material, you will have violated WP:3RR. That user is an edit behind you. Also, it appears that you are the one who isn't following protocol re: WP:BRD. You were bold, you were reverted, so you must discuss. I am glad to see that you have started to discuss it. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- Dear Mubhoshgu, The revert cycle was started by my opponent. Therefore, it would seem logical that that person would violate WP:3RR first, not me - I was the person who added factual information which was then removed without any reasons given (except the lame and nonfactual "you must reach consensus"). Since my opponent does not give any reasons or other for his POV, I can only surmise that my POV is better - because there's a reasoning behind it. Please also note that WP:BRD is only applicable if "an edit is not an improvement" and that reverting is not encouraged at all. So I'm afraid this "discussion" will lead nowhere. 20:36, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- The other editor has made two edits, and therefore cannot have violated 3RR, which required three edits. You've made four edits, three of which were reverts, so you have now violated 3RR. Who is right and who is wrong is not relevant. You're not exempt from 3RR or BRD. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:39, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- I see - you saved him from violating WP:3RR by taking over his role as opponent and also wrote me up on some board - conveniently omitting my attempts to resolve the issue and the unyielding stance of my opponent. Very clever! Well, C'est la vie. Celaena1 (talk) 20:45, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- The other editor has made two edits, and therefore cannot have violated 3RR, which required three edits. You've made four edits, three of which were reverts, so you have now violated 3RR. Who is right and who is wrong is not relevant. You're not exempt from 3RR or BRD. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:39, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- Dear Mubhoshgu, The revert cycle was started by my opponent. Therefore, it would seem logical that that person would violate WP:3RR first, not me - I was the person who added factual information which was then removed without any reasons given (except the lame and nonfactual "you must reach consensus"). Since my opponent does not give any reasons or other for his POV, I can only surmise that my POV is better - because there's a reasoning behind it. Please also note that WP:BRD is only applicable if "an edit is not an improvement" and that reverting is not encouraged at all. So I'm afraid this "discussion" will lead nowhere. 20:36, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
- Celaena1, because the next time you revert to reinsert that material, you will have violated WP:3RR. That user is an edit behind you. Also, it appears that you are the one who isn't following protocol re: WP:BRD. You were bold, you were reverted, so you must discuss. I am glad to see that you have started to discuss it. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
[edit]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Celaena1 reported by User:Muboshgu (Result: ). Thank you. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:36, 24 April 2019 (UTC)