User talk:Gmichaeliona

I am not engaged in an edit war, simply clarifying the issue which seems to have gotten bogged down in unhelpful revisions. The material below shows an attempt to reconcile two divergent opinions. My aim is to recognize that the majority of the Anglican Communion recognizes The Diocese of South Carolina as being a part of said communion while the minority does not agree with that. Originally, I admit, that I did simply revert and did not understand Wiki culture -- but after understanding, slightly better, I took into consideration the various opinions. Thus, I believe this is a spurious claim of "reverting" which in fact was legitimate editing. Gmichaeliona (talk) 23:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. Thank you. Travellers & Tinkers (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Jonathunder (talk) 22:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina 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 article's 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. Jonathunder (talk) 23:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your quote of the rules of engagement. The current revisions represent the consensus and facts of the issues at hand. Thank you for your contribution.

April 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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. Katie^talk 01:47, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

This block is unjustified because I made legitimate edits not simple reverts when possible. Additionally, if you look to the talk page you will see that I addressed, without response, the changes I made. Gmichaeliona (talk) 02:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Edit warring is not allowed, even if your edit is legitimate, even if you think you are right, even if you are still talking. You were not just edit warring a little, but a whole bunch over the course of days. This is a short block so you can come back tomorrow. You can learn the details of our edit warring policy here. HighInBC 03:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.