User talk:Embryoglio

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.

Hi, thanks for your contributions to the Breast article. I left comments about the current issues on the talk page about those issues. I notice that you have been reverting edits that various editors, including myself have made. I want to let you know that Wikipedia has a policy, called Wikipedia:Three-revert rule that says, among other things "The policy states that an editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single Wikipedia page within a 24 hour period.

is does not imply that reverting three times or fewer is acceptable. Users may be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day."

I do find your approach to dealing with the issues, and edit warring to be disruptive. I'm asking you to stop and find consensus with all of the other editors of the article.

Thanks again, Atom 02:54, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am familiar with the 3RR policy. If you could not tell, I read all of the main policies before I began editting. You and your ally User:I already forgot (especially the latter) are edit-warring equally or more than I am, so your warning that I will be blocked is clearly hypocritical. Since I have made only one revert, and my subsequent edits have not been reversions, and I have shifted from editting to discussion, your statement is clearly a false accusation that is meant to deceive third parties that read it. Before you jump on the opportunity to make a false accusation of violating AGF, I'll remind you that AGF does not apply after an edittor has proven a lack of good faith. I conclude that your method of dealing with conflicts is highly disruptive. I request that you cease such behavior.

Thanks again, Embryoglio 06:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments and advice. I shall give them appropriate weight and attention. I am unaware of what you mean regarding user:I already forgot, I don't think I know that editor. user:MotherAmy and I are working out the issues that concern her. After we have completed that, I would be glad to hear from you what the positive aspects of your new image are so that the contributing editors to the breast article can evaluate whether it should be included or not. Atom 22:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you could take a look at the Talk:Breast/sandbox and add the images you would like to add or remove from the article in the comments, we can try to consider your needs while finding consensus. Atom 21:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]