User talk:CharlesShirley/Archives/2020/January

Edit-warring on Tucker Carlson

Your recent editing history 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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.. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:54, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

@Snooganssnoogans:, where do you see that CharlesShirley was edit warring? They correctly pointed out that MrX's Tucker Carlson revert was targeting the IP editor's changes but included CS's as well. Posting this here, as well as your accusations against me here [[1]] looks like a continuation of the battleground behavior that resulted in this warning [[2]]. @Awilley: reverted that warning based on your promise to stick with a 1RR (you did) as well as a strong suggestion that you strictly follow CIVIL (you are not). The warning here and the reply to me (linked above) are just the sort of behaviors that cause problems by turning honest editorial disagreements into antagonistic arguments. Springee (talk) 17:29, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

CharlesShirley edit-warred[3][4] out long-standing text about Carlson's rape comments in violation of WP:BRD and with zero participation on the talk page. That is why he was warned about edit-warring. You're now claiming that warning others that they are edit-warring is being uncivil and a violation of my voluntary editing restrictions? Springee's comment here is an illustrative example of how some editors intend to exploit the editing restrictions that I volunteered to. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:48, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

No. This so-called warning by Snooganssnoogans means nothing. He places not reliable sourced material in articles and then immediately places an "edit warning" on the person who removed the non-reliably sourced material. It is just part of the "game" that Snooganssnoogans plays. Most folks try to ignore the childish behavior.CharlesShirley (talk) 17:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)