Hi 181.118.69.203! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of
Josh Cahill several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the
edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.
All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Josh Cahill, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. ChaotıċEnby( t · c) 10:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Josh Cahill. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ChaotıċEnby( t · c) 12:10, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi 181.118.69.203,
you seem to have been casting aspersions against other editors while editing and discussing the article about Josh Cahill. Please do not accuse others of misconduct without evidence, as doing so is a personal attack. While discussing and editing articles, please focus on the content instead of editors.
You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
- adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
- comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
- follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
- comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
- refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{ Ctopics/aware}} template.
If you continue editing disruptively, such as by edit warring or keeping up the uncivil, unnecessarily personalized discussion style towards others, you may be banned from editing and discussing articles about living people, or blocked from editing, possibly without further warning – especially if this just continues after Jauerback's full page protection.
If something is unclear about this, please ask. You're now considered to be aware of these requirements.
Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (
talk)
14:12, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 | 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. |
Hi 181.118.69.203! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of
Josh Cahill several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the
edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.
All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Josh Cahill, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. ChaotıċEnby( t · c) 10:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Josh Cahill. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Points to note:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. ChaotıċEnby( t · c) 12:10, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Hi 181.118.69.203,
you seem to have been casting aspersions against other editors while editing and discussing the article about Josh Cahill. Please do not accuse others of misconduct without evidence, as doing so is a personal attack. While discussing and editing articles, please focus on the content instead of editors.
You have recently edited a page related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.
A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.
Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:
- adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
- comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
- follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
- comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
- refrain from gaming the system.
Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{ Ctopics/aware}} template.
If you continue editing disruptively, such as by edit warring or keeping up the uncivil, unnecessarily personalized discussion style towards others, you may be banned from editing and discussing articles about living people, or blocked from editing, possibly without further warning – especially if this just continues after Jauerback's full page protection.
If something is unclear about this, please ask. You're now considered to be aware of these requirements.
Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (
talk)
14:12, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
|
| 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. |