User talk:Mwc.goebel

Deadmonton

117Avenue beat me to reverting your latest edit regarding Deadmonton. As he mentions in his latest edit, this has been discussed repeatedly and the consensus is that even disparaging nicknames are acceptable on Wikipedia. It is not Wikipedia's place to censor such information. Please review Talk:Edmonton/Archive 1#Nicknames and Talk:Edmonton/Archive 1#Nicknames take 2 for past discussions. There may be other past discussions that I'm missing. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 05:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why would someone want to further a stereotype that simply isn't true? I notice that on Toronto's page there isn't "Centre of the Universe" as a nickname. Nicknames for people, places, and things come and go as their relevance dictates. Edmonton simply isn't "Deadmonton", and why someone would want this on the go-to source for a user when looking up the city, I have no idea. Are you telling me that I could go edit Toronto's page right now to say "commonly known as 'The Centre of the Universe" and not a single person would have an issue and agree with me that "...even disparaging nicknames are acceptable on Wikipedia"? Edmonton is simply not "Deadmonton"; no self-respecting Edmontonian with any ounce of civic pride at all would ever refer to us as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwc.goebel (talk • contribs) 06:06, 13 August 2014 (UTC

It doesn't matter if it is true or not, it is a nickname, supported by references. Can you find reliable third party sources that use "Centre of the Universe" as a nickname for Toronto? 117Avenue (talk) 02:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mwc.goebel, though interpreted as derisive by some, "Centre of the Universe" is listed at Name of Toronto#Nicknames with reliable sources (CBC News, The Globe and Mail, etc.), though most are now deadlinks. Hwy43 (talk) 05:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR

Your recent editing history at Edmonton 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. 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. Hwy43 (talk) 05:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]