User talk:Saaaaywhatnow

Port Adelaide state by-election, 2012

Your recent editing history at Port Adelaide state by-election, 2012 shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Frickeg (talk) 05:24, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

What will it take?

When ECSA indicate that the ballot paper will have independent for Sue Lawrie, will you then say something? Or do you plan to have no mouth for the rest of your wikipedia days? It does not auger well for you when an admin finally comes across this and sees how you have simply fallen silent. Timeshift (talk) 05:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I have made my point numerous times before. Saaaaywhatnow (talk) 06:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

And with what Frickeg has said, and with the refs i've found that dispute your single ref, not to mention, the only candidate affiliation list is Antony Green, you have no right to insist that you are correct. You cannot insist on your disputed changes. Timeshift (talk) 06:15, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Either way, both of you stop reverting, and stop calling a content dispute vandalism. You're both well past WP:3RR. Saaaywhatnow, please take this to the talk page. If you cannot articulate your views in response to the new material Timeshift has provided, it doesn't say much for those views. Frickeg (talk) 06:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The nominal status quo is with me as this is what applies on other wikipedia articles for australian elections. The fact he has stopped all form of communication I think nominally puts this in the vandalism category. Timeshift (talk) 06:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you, but breaking 3RR is not going to help get that maintained (the exception is only for "obvious" vandalism, which this clearly isn't). Anyway, let's take this to the talk page for now. Frickeg (talk) 06:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Look, despite what you might think, you can't impose your belief on Wikipedia unilaterally. You have to engage with people and form a consensus; that's what we do around here. So either engage with the people who have been trying to discuss this issue with you, or find some other way to spend your time. Copy-and-pasting Twinkle edit summaries doesn't make your reverts any more legitimate, by the way, or any less ban-inducing, and that's definitely where this is headed. Please just come to the table. Frickeg (talk) 10:36, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I came to the table, I stated my reasons. Timeshift wanted to impose his bias, I didn't see that a being beneficial. Timeshift wants to impose his control over the article and threatens me with a ban when I attempt a legitimate change. And then he goes and calls in his friend (you) to support his unilateral control. You can threaten me, that's fine, but all it shows is your bias and how you both unwilling come to a rational solution. Saaaaywhatnow (talk) 10:53, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not threatening you, I'm trying to warn you. In any case Timeshift is entitled to his view as much as you are; I don't believe there is bias involved. We discuss the content, not the editors. In any case, you have not responded to either my points or to Timeshift's further links. Please engage in discussion rather than reverting unilaterally, not to mention clearly breaking WP:3RR after a warning to stop (a blockable offence), and stop calling a "content dispute" vandalism when it clearly isn't. This really isn't worth getting blocked over. Frickeg (talk) 11:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

"and stop calling a "content dispute" vandalism when it clearly isn't." Then stop calling my edits vandalism.

I think you'll find I never called your edits vandalism; others may have, and I think they're wrong, but frankly, when you're clearly going against consensus and breaking WP:3RR after a warning, they're not far wrong. For the last time: please engage on the article's talk page and stop edit warring, or you'll get yourself a block, and as I said this really isn't worth that. Frickeg (talk) 11:31, 5 January 2012 (UTC)