Hello, Cowabunga101, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum, see the Wikipedia Teahouse.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your name on
talk pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our
help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on
my talk page or place {{Help me}}
on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! –
Muboshgu (
talk)
00:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Let me rephrase myself: we shouldn't use "claim" because of the guidance at MOS:CLAIM. If it's on another page, it should be changed. Two wrongs don't make a right. Also, please don't edit war. Use talk pages for discussion. – Muboshgu ( talk) 01:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
The only explanation that comes to mind is that sheand then continued with a BLP violation. Do not do that again. – Muboshgu ( talk) 01:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Rebekah Jones 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.
You have made 5 reversions to Rebekah Jones in the past 24 hours.
🪞🦜∞
👩💻💬
22:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
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:Cowabunga101 reported by User:Muboshgu (Result: ). Thank you. –
Muboshgu (
talk)
22:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Bbb23 (
talk)
23:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC)Cowabunga101 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Oh dear. This is obviously a mistake. If you read the content of this talk page, you'll find out that I did in fact try to discuss the changes, and in the case of Parrot's continued disruption to the page, I did not receive a reply from anyone else. Neither were my edits complete "reverts", I tried to remove the bad content while keeping those changes that were remotely constructive (even if there hardly were any). The last edit that has been restored was made under the pretense that the previous version "read like a narrative, not an (sic) informative". The solution was, according to user Parrot, to move the information about the OIG's conclusion of the investigation (referring to it as a "dismissal", removing any mention of an "investigation") to the beginning of the article. This is obviously a pointless change which breaks the sequence of events - it makes no sense to introduce the subject with this information. And obviously, the article has always maintained the correct sequence of events, introducing the subject by talking about her activity in 2020. It shouldn't be that difficult to see that the changes that were being made by the user were pointless, disruptive and not constructive. The idea that taking one sentence from the middle of the paragraph and moving it to the beginning would somehow change it from being "narrative" to "informative" (whatever that means anyway) is nonsensical. Obviously, the user was trying to achieve exactly this outcome. Cowabunga101 ( talk) 05:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Edit warring does not have to involve the exact same edit each time. 331dot ( talk) 07:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
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.
Cowabunga101 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
That's a non sequitur. Did you bother to read my post? Removing disruptive or pointless edits is not edit warring either. It's too bad you don't want to follow your own website's rules. Cowabunga101 ( talk) 09:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This doesn't address the personal attacks. And yes, clear edit warring. Yamla ( talk) 12:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
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.
Cowabunga101 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I don't know how to reply to the above message by editing the source, so I'm going put this here. Like I said, removing spam is not edit warring according to your own rules. Edit warring is what the other user did. It's too bad you can't seem to understand that or be bothered to read the discussion because this should be very simple to understand. I'm not sure what "personal attacks" you're referring to either. Now my constructive edits have been removed and you're stuck with bad content (which can't be removed because that would be edit warring). Cowabunga101 ( talk) 13:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You were clearly edit-warring and making personal attacks. And the now-deleted edit summary warranted an indefinite block on its own. Acroterion (talk) 14:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
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.
Hello, Cowabunga101, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Below are some pages you might find helpful. For a user-friendly interactive help forum, see the Wikipedia Teahouse.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your name on
talk pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our
help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to ask me on
my talk page or place {{Help me}}
on this page and someone will drop by to help. Again, welcome! –
Muboshgu (
talk)
00:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Let me rephrase myself: we shouldn't use "claim" because of the guidance at MOS:CLAIM. If it's on another page, it should be changed. Two wrongs don't make a right. Also, please don't edit war. Use talk pages for discussion. – Muboshgu ( talk) 01:13, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
The only explanation that comes to mind is that sheand then continued with a BLP violation. Do not do that again. – Muboshgu ( talk) 01:37, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Rebekah Jones 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.
You have made 5 reversions to Rebekah Jones in the past 24 hours.
🪞🦜∞
👩💻💬
22:08, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
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:Cowabunga101 reported by User:Muboshgu (Result: ). Thank you. –
Muboshgu (
talk)
22:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
.
Bbb23 (
talk)
23:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC)Cowabunga101 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
Oh dear. This is obviously a mistake. If you read the content of this talk page, you'll find out that I did in fact try to discuss the changes, and in the case of Parrot's continued disruption to the page, I did not receive a reply from anyone else. Neither were my edits complete "reverts", I tried to remove the bad content while keeping those changes that were remotely constructive (even if there hardly were any). The last edit that has been restored was made under the pretense that the previous version "read like a narrative, not an (sic) informative". The solution was, according to user Parrot, to move the information about the OIG's conclusion of the investigation (referring to it as a "dismissal", removing any mention of an "investigation") to the beginning of the article. This is obviously a pointless change which breaks the sequence of events - it makes no sense to introduce the subject with this information. And obviously, the article has always maintained the correct sequence of events, introducing the subject by talking about her activity in 2020. It shouldn't be that difficult to see that the changes that were being made by the user were pointless, disruptive and not constructive. The idea that taking one sentence from the middle of the paragraph and moving it to the beginning would somehow change it from being "narrative" to "informative" (whatever that means anyway) is nonsensical. Obviously, the user was trying to achieve exactly this outcome. Cowabunga101 ( talk) 05:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Edit warring does not have to involve the exact same edit each time. 331dot ( talk) 07:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
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.
Cowabunga101 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
That's a non sequitur. Did you bother to read my post? Removing disruptive or pointless edits is not edit warring either. It's too bad you don't want to follow your own website's rules. Cowabunga101 ( talk) 09:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This doesn't address the personal attacks. And yes, clear edit warring. Yamla ( talk) 12:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
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.
Cowabunga101 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
I don't know how to reply to the above message by editing the source, so I'm going put this here. Like I said, removing spam is not edit warring according to your own rules. Edit warring is what the other user did. It's too bad you can't seem to understand that or be bothered to read the discussion because this should be very simple to understand. I'm not sure what "personal attacks" you're referring to either. Now my constructive edits have been removed and you're stuck with bad content (which can't be removed because that would be edit warring). Cowabunga101 ( talk) 13:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
Decline reason:
You were clearly edit-warring and making personal attacks. And the now-deleted edit summary warranted an indefinite block on its own. Acroterion (talk) 14:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
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.