User talk:Mdado unidue
Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!
[edit]
- Hi Mdado unidue! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
-- 19:24, Thursday, April 27, 2017 (UTC)
Your draft article, User:Mdado unidue/sandbox
[edit]
Hello, Mdado unidue. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "sandbox".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. TKK! bark with me! 23:16, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Message
[edit]It doesn't matter if I agree or disagree with your edits, the very fact that you have continously ignored everything I have told you the past few days speaks volumes about your attitude towards Wikipedia. My issue is the fact that you have ignored every Wikipedia rule in your quest to cement your edits on a Wikipedia article. The weird thing is that you had the audacity to call me aggressive. If I'm aggressive, then what does that make you? The answer: passive aggressive. In your eyes, "it's my way or the highway". It looks like rules don't exist for you on Wikipedia. Congratulations on breaking multiple Wikipedia rules, edit warring (had you been an IP user you would have been banned ages ago), failing to understand basic Wikipedia:Etiquette, failing to understand consensus decision making and in general just having no respect for the rules implemented here on Wikipedia to make sure things run smoothly. You deserve an award for failing to understand basic Wikipedia rules. Give me one good reason why I shouldn't lodge a case about your behaviour at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or even at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring because you clearly aren't listening to a single word I'm saying. Maybe an adminstrator instructing you to follow the rules of Wikipedia will make you understand that you need to follow them. (2001:8003:4E6B:7F00:951D:EA97:FB95:BAEC (talk) 10:01, 4 March 2020 (UTC))
March 2020
[edit]
Your recent editing history at List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Transcendence (talk) 18:52, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Your recent editing history 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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Carl Fredrik talk 14:54, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- @CFCF: That's literally what I did, I opened a talk page discussion, which you yourself replied to so why are you still admonishing me on my talk page?Mdado unidue (talk) 15:22, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
- Opening the talk page discussion was good. In case you didn't notice, I placed this message on 3 editors' talk-pages separately. Just because others are doing it, or are being worse doesn't making edit warring right. I know it's easy to get sucked into it, so I would hope you avoided it in the future. Carl Fredrik talk 15:56, 29 March 2020 (UTC)