User talk:14NathanAllan

June 2019[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Deus vult. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. 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. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:14NathanAllan reported by User:Chris troutman (Result: ). Thank you. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

June 2019[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Deus vult. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. -- Scott Burley (talk) 08:44, 18 June 2019 (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).

14NathanAllan (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I realize the meaning of the “three revert rule”. I am a new user and hadn’t dug into It until I was blocked. My frustration was that my edits were continuously being reverted, even though I saw them as removing inappropriate citations to the page. I didn’t realize there was a forum for discussion of issues with the page built to facilitate consensus, as I’m still learning the features of accounts pages when one has an account. I’ll use the talk forum to provide my concerns/suggestions going forward. Thank you.14NathanAllan (talk) 22:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Hello 14NathanAllan, your block expires in under 12 hours. You will be able to edit once that period is up. Sasquatch t|c 04:49, 19 June 2019 (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.