User talk:Mrbates76

November 2014[edit]

Your recent editing history at Of Pandas and People shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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 BRD 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 your 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. MrBill3 (talk) 07:13, 16 November 2014 (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:Mrbates76 reported by User:MrBill3 (Result: ). Thank you. MrBill3 (talk) 07:25, 16 November 2014 (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:Mrbates76 reported by User:MrBill3 (Result: ). Thank you. MrBill3 (talk) 00:09, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

November 2014[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Of Pandas and People. 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. Bbb23 (talk) 00:44, 17 November 2014 (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).

Mrbates76 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

The edit I made to the page "Of Pandas and People" improved the article. Instead of saying that "intelligent design" is pseudoscience, I edited the article to say that "many people characterize" intelligent design as pseudoscience. I can't understand how this is a contentious edit. It merely underlines the point that an opposing view exists.

Decline reason:

I agree with BullRangifer's comment below. PhilKnight (talk) 06:56, 17 November 2014 (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.

You need to realize that your block is because of edit warring, and not the quality of your edit. Edit warring, even when you are "right", is not allowed. Your edits were rejected by other editors. Instead of restoring your edit, you should have started a discussion on the talk page and not edited the article (at least on that matter) again until a consensus decision had decided what to do with your edit. A thread was actually started at the bottom of the talk page by another editor, but you chose to comment in an old thread much further up on the page. Other editors did reply there, but you should have placed your comments in the new thread at the bottom, the one which addressed your edits.

You were warned multiple times, as can be seen above, but you persisted and now you're blocked. I hope you will learn from this. You cannot "force" your will here. You must cooperate with other editors, who may often have an opposing POV. Regarding the merits of your edit, when you return from your block you can continue the discussion on the talk page, but do it in the proper thread at the bottom. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:48, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

December 2014[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Of Pandas and People, you may be blocked from editing. Continued disruptive editing may lead to an additional block, a topic ban or being banned from the site. MrBill3 (talk) 21:05, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]