User talk:Editorgr

March 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Connor Woodman. 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 adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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. Swarm ^X 21:27, 23 March 2015 (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).

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

Request reason:

I wrote to the other person involved twice to explain my changes and received no reply. I laid out my reasons for removing their edits multiple times but each time they blanked me, ignored my message and reposted. Editorgr (talk) 11:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

In future, you should follow dispute resolution, and not continue the edit war. PhilKnight (talk) 12:48, 25 March 2015 (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.

Edit War on Conor Woodman

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Conor Woodman. 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 that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. 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.
For what it's worth I understand your point; the Scam City information is best placed in Scam City and not in Conor Woodman. However, this is still an edit war, albeit the world's slowest, and it needs to end.

NekoKatsun (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked again, this time for a longer period, for continuing the same edit war that led to the previous block. Edit-warring is unacceptable, no matter how strongly convinced you are that you are right. I also draw your attention to an edit summary used in one of the reversions of your edit-warring edit: "The fact that it is mentioned in one place where it is relevant is not a reason for not mentioning it in another place where it is relevant." The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 15:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Conor Woodman again

Just FYI, an IP is back, re-adding the content that's being warred over. I've deleted it and started a discussion on the talkpage of the article, if you'd like to be involved. Personally, I'm hoping that if IPs continue to not discuss, we can get the article semi-protected, which should put an end to the problem. NekoKatsun (talk) 19:01, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]