User talk:2605:AD80:40:472:8966:8379:FF2F:85D5

January 2021[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Chad Wolf. 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 lose their editing privileges on that page. 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 result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 08:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Chad Wolf shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
RfC consensus on the first two sentences of the lead: Talk:Chad Wolf#RfC: Describing legal status in lead. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 09:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

@ProcrastinatingReader:I didn't have time to put this in the complaint @Tartan357: submitted before @The Bushranger: The Bushranger banned me. I would like this in the admin notice about RfC on Chad Wolf if able. Hello. While making my own talk for I think the first time, I discredited the archived one. After review it seems that an RfC made before the subject of the page resigned and his title change... still applies. I called the RfC old because it is that, irrelevant, and the old first sentence (while technically correct) only leads to confusion and implies a lie about Chad Wolf's current position.

Looking back I was in the wrong and an edit-war did occur. I ask that after others review and discuss this case, that Tartan357 be treated fairly as past actions deem. And hope he, and all who read this, champion for clarity on Chad Wolfs first sentence as I suggested in the talk. Thank you Tartan357 for being above mediocre. Forgive me, my passion; I will forgive you, your duty. As I hope others will. Ttyl. P.S. behind the GUI of this site is horrible to navigate.

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:2605:AD80:40:472:8966:8379:FF2F:85D5 reported by User:Tartan357 (Result: ). Thank you. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 09:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2021[edit]

Anonymous users from this IP address have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as done at Chad Wolf.

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 ~~~~}}. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address and you are an uninvolved editor with a registered account, you may continue to edit by logging in.

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.