User talk:Datmof

October 2022

Hello, I'm Tamzin. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Libertarian Association of Massachusetts have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:09, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

they are constructive and return the Libertarian association of massachusetts Back to it most recent correct edit in Jun of 2022. I also added the Sub-affiliated OF LAMA all of which can be found on LPOFMA.ORG

The edits after 24 june are Vandalistic and a violation of intellectual property the name LAMA is currently boared by andrew cordio Per June 5 LP meeting and the LAMA Convention held in april. Datmof (talk) 22:34, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thank you. me and magna sorry for making you deal with us today. we are going to cool off and use the talk on lama to fix the page at a future time Datmof (talk) 01:42, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will not make further edits till a consensus can be reached. But I am not hopeful on that and honestly do not know what the next step will be? Thank you. Datmof (talk) 10:12, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Libertarian Association of Massachusetts) for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. 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 ~~~~}}. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:35, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Datmof (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I reverted to the 24 june edit by user Tartan it was the most recent correct edit and all links in that edit show the correct leadership. changes after 24 jun are vandalism by a faction that has no claim. blocked because of reversion to a previously correct data point that had all links that were correct. This is not a war and I would ask you to look at 24 jun and before edits then the radical change after by tartan. Datmof (talk) 22:47, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

I am unblocking you because I erred in blocking you without giving the correct warning. That, however, is not a license to continue edit-warring, and you should not make any further reverts on the article until consensus has been reached. In fact, it would probably be best to still just act as if you were partially blocked... But fair's fair, and I'm not going to let someone stay blocked for edit-warring by my hand when they hadn't been advised of our policy regarding that. Please don't make me block you again though. :) Good luck on finding a consensus. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 08:40, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well shit. I gave you the wrong warning above. I meant to give you this one:

Edit-warring warning

Your recent editing history at Libertarian Association of Massachusetts 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Read that warning, and let me know if you understand it and will abide by it (that would mean making no more reverts to the page for the time being). If so, I'm fine unblocking you. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:55, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

read the warning me and MAGna are working on the correct edits on the Talk page instead of warring and looks like we have settled on the correct version that will be correct.