User talk:Deceptobot67
December 2013
[edit]Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edit you made to Chess.com, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make some test edits, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. — Rhododendrites talk | 19:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at chess.com. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Dark Sun (talk) 19:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
edit warring
[edit]You need to stop laying on vandal warnings for what is a content dispute. See the message I left on your adversry's talk page. Dlohcierekim 19:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Chess.com shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. 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. Dlohcierekim 19:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Both of you
[edit]Please step away from the article. You both need to not edit the article for 24 hours from now. Seek dispute resolution. Work it out amongst yourselves. If all else fails, discuss it WP:AN/I Dlohcierekim 20:00, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Deceptobot67, you are invited to the Teahouse
[edit]Hi Deceptobot67! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of Wiki brah (talk · contribs · global contribs · page moves · user creation · block log) that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC) |