User talk:SwegWrestlur
Welcome
[edit]
|
Please review WP:BRD. When your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor, the next step, if you continue to think the edit is necessary, is to Discuss it on the article talk page, not to re-revert it, which is the first step to edit warring. During the discussion, the article remains in the status quo ante.
I have started a discussion on the article talk page, which you will find here. Please make your views known there, and do not restore the material you added until there is a consensus to do so. Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:47, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
July 2018
[edit]
Your recent editing history at Alt-right 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 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. Acroterion (talk) 23:15, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- I did use the talk page and the users failed to give me any reason to have a consensus and instead plan to waste time by saying they don't agree with me so I cannot go through with my edit. Bollucks. Even in the guidelines it says that saying you disagree because you feel like it is not an argument which is exactly what it's been left to. We're done here the consensus is done because they don't have an argument.
- "I think I'm right" isn't a justificaion for edit-warring. Please self-revert and obtain consensus for your edits, or abide by consensus. You are at the threshold of edit-warring, but in my view haven't broken it yet. Acroterion (talk) 23:23, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think I'm right I am. Because the only replies I've recieved after I've refuted what they said are "you don't have a consensus" or "you haven't convinced me" or "I disagree." All of those replies are hogwash that does nothing to my argument. If you are not convinced you should be able to say why. They have not done that. I responded to their arguments. And for the record. "I disagree because I says so" isn't grounds for reverting my edits, either. Of all people the administration ought to know that.
- "I think I'm right" isn't a justificaion for edit-warring. Please self-revert and obtain consensus for your edits, or abide by consensus. You are at the threshold of edit-warring, but in my view haven't broken it yet. Acroterion (talk) 23:23, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
- SwegWerstlur's claim that they have not been given any reason for disagreement with their edit is completely untrue. Examination of the discussion at Talk:Alt-right#"Defined"_or_not? will show that they have been given clear and coherent reasons why "somewhat ill-defined" is appropriate language for the lede in describing the Alt-right movement. That they do not accept these reasons is clear, but that those reasons have been presented, and that they amount to more than "I don't like it" is also clear. I have warned them on the talk page that if they edit against a clear consensus again, I will bring them to WP:AN/I, assuming that an administrator doesn't block them before I do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:24, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
- Refute my argument then. You have not done so. I have. You need to have a leg to stand on to revert edits and that leg is not there. I told you why the article defines what it means to be alt-right and I told you why you are wrong. Where is your rebutal? It's not there! You have no argument, ergo no leg to stand furthermore no position to revert my edits. Wikipedia is not a demoncracy, I showed I am right and if you disagree show me I'm wrong. The consensus is unnecessary because you have given no compromise to be had because you have yet to respond to my argument!SwegWrestlur (talk) 22:47, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
- SwegWerstlur's claim that they have not been given any reason for disagreement with their edit is completely untrue. Examination of the discussion at Talk:Alt-right#"Defined"_or_not? will show that they have been given clear and coherent reasons why "somewhat ill-defined" is appropriate language for the lede in describing the Alt-right movement. That they do not accept these reasons is clear, but that those reasons have been presented, and that they amount to more than "I don't like it" is also clear. I have warned them on the talk page that if they edit against a clear consensus again, I will bring them to WP:AN/I, assuming that an administrator doesn't block them before I do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:24, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions alert for articles and content relating to post-1932 American politics
[edit]
This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.
For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.