User talk:Waffle Runoff

This editor has decided to leave Wikipedia.

Hello, welcome to my talk page!

If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom, as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~

Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist and topic subscriptions to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.

Thank you!

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2011 Kosovo–Serbia border clashes. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not edit-warring, I'm reverting vandalism, as is User:Collect. The vandal claims to be reverting vandalism, but is in fact deleting references for POV-pushing purposes. Check the edit history for evidence. Waffle Runoff (talk) 14:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please review WP:NOTVAND. PoV pushing is not vandalism. Hipocrite (talk) 15:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, but deleting referenced content is vandalism. Waffle Runoff (talk) 15:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a good example from a minute ago. Waffle Runoff (talk) 15:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting referenced content is not vandalism. I asked you to review WP:NOTVAND. Review it now. Hipocrite (talk) 15:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed it, thank you: there's no need to issue commands like that. I stand by my assertion that the IP editor is vandalizing the page. If you disagree, then let's discuss it please. Waffle Runoff (talk) 15:11, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have just blocked the IP editor for edit warring; I'm not going to block you, due to your previous message here. Please note that a. the IP editor was not vandalising, b. you were edit warring just as much as he was and c. if you revert again you'll be blocked too. Please, discuss the issue on the article's talk page. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well to hell with this. If reverting vandalism is now "edit warring", then you can clean up this mess yourself. Good luck with that. Waffle Runoff (talk) 15:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Even ClueBot caught it as vandalism. Not really a close call when an IP has 24 reverts in a single day. Cheers - and stick around. Collect (talk) 16:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]