User talk:Brain in Spain
Edit war warning on Antireligion[edit]
Your recent editing history 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; read about 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. Ramos1990 (talk) 12:07, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
- I don't see how you are in any position to make this accusation, given you have done more reverting than me, and have not used the talk page either.
- As far as I can tell, the issues have been raised multiple times on the talk page by others and have received no response except for other editors agreeing. Brain in Spain (talk) 12:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
- A tu quoque is a particularly bad response. The WP:ONUS is on you to gain consensus for any change that is (obviously) contentious. I would suggest you read this article which explains how the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle works on Wikipedia. Kleuske (talk) 12:23, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not saying "you also" I'm saying "just you". Based on the talk page, I have consensus. Brain in Spain (talk) 12:26, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
- A tu quoque is a particularly bad response. The WP:ONUS is on you to gain consensus for any change that is (obviously) contentious. I would suggest you read this article which explains how the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle works on Wikipedia. Kleuske (talk) 12:23, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
July 2023[edit]
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Antireligion have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
- ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
- For help, take a look at the introduction.
- The following is the log entry regarding this message: Antireligion was changed by Brain in Spain (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.873396 on 2023-07-05T12:19:59+00:00
Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 12:20, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. – bradv 14:28, 5 July 2023 (UTC)- I'm sorry, I don't really understand how it's within the rules to repeatedly restore unsourced comments, but against them to remove them. Could you please explain? Brain in Spain (talk) 14:36, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
- This is a collaborative encyclopedia. It is against the rules to repeatedly revert other people's edits in favour of your own. If you feel that something needs to change and other people disagree with you, you need to start a discussion on the talk page and try to reach a consensus. I know you're new here, but this was explained to you above. Take the 24 hours to review our policies on edit warring and consensus, and try a new approach when the block expires. – bradv 14:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
- Then why is it not against the rules for them to revert my edits in favor of their own? As far as I can tell, the users in question to do not participate in the discussions on the user page. Surely it's not allowed by wikipedia do just not participate in discussion, and then just revert any changes made by claiming they didn't form consensus? Brain in Spain (talk) 14:44, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
- You were reverted by 4 different editors, none of whom broached WP:3RR. I suggest reading WP:BRD as an example of how you might approach a situation like this in the future. – bradv 14:49, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
- So if a group of editors (or one editor with multiple accounts) conspire to revert any change to an article, then they can lock it down entirely?
- Also, Ramos1990 did violate the 3RR rule. Brain in Spain (talk) 14:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
- If the majority of editors agree on something then it is generally said to have consensus, and cannot be overturned by just one person. That's why discussion is important – so you can explain your position and change (or understand) the consensus. Ramos1990 did not violate 3RR, as they did not exceed three reverts in 24 hours. – bradv 15:02, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
- The majority of editors didn't agree on something. And as I said, discussion can only be had when both people are willing to participate.
- I see
- Also, isn't this a case of "Do as I say, not as I do" when you were yourself on the the Douglas Tuttle talk page refusing to work towards consensus and locking out any disagreement? Or do Admins get special privileges to break the rules? Brain in Spain (talk) 15:06, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
- I've explained this to you as well as I can. Read the policy pages linked here, and try again in 24 hours with a new approach. Regarding your second point, are you accusing me of violating WP:3RR? Because I didn't – I edited the page twice and then immediately started a discussion to let others decide. – bradv 15:15, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
- I've read the policy page, but I don't understand how that can be applied in cases where the other editors aren't willing to engage in good faith consensus building, like how you were doing in that discussion. Brain in Spain (talk) 15:17, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
- I've explained this to you as well as I can. Read the policy pages linked here, and try again in 24 hours with a new approach. Regarding your second point, are you accusing me of violating WP:3RR? Because I didn't – I edited the page twice and then immediately started a discussion to let others decide. – bradv 15:15, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
- If the majority of editors agree on something then it is generally said to have consensus, and cannot be overturned by just one person. That's why discussion is important – so you can explain your position and change (or understand) the consensus. Ramos1990 did not violate 3RR, as they did not exceed three reverts in 24 hours. – bradv 15:02, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
- You were reverted by 4 different editors, none of whom broached WP:3RR. I suggest reading WP:BRD as an example of how you might approach a situation like this in the future. – bradv 14:49, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
- Then why is it not against the rules for them to revert my edits in favor of their own? As far as I can tell, the users in question to do not participate in the discussions on the user page. Surely it's not allowed by wikipedia do just not participate in discussion, and then just revert any changes made by claiming they didn't form consensus? Brain in Spain (talk) 14:44, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
- This is a collaborative encyclopedia. It is against the rules to repeatedly revert other people's edits in favour of your own. If you feel that something needs to change and other people disagree with you, you need to start a discussion on the talk page and try to reach a consensus. I know you're new here, but this was explained to you above. Take the 24 hours to review our policies on edit warring and consensus, and try a new approach when the block expires. – bradv 14:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)