User talk:VirgilGilmour
Welcome!
|
VirgilGilmour, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]Hi VirgilGilmour! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 11 May 2016 (UTC) |
Edit-warring on Judicial Watch
[edit]Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 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.
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. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
WP:DE page specifically says that "Reverting edits by banned or blocked users is not edit warring." You are a banned user.Cite error: There are <ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).VirgilGilmour (talk) 17:23, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
- You are confused. I have not been banned. Please self-revert. You are edit-warring and using deceptive edit summaries and rationales while doing so. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:27, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
- Perhaps I am confused, but to clear things up I've reported this matter to Dennis Brown - 2¢ the administrator who banned you. I'll be happy to self-revert if you can obtain consensus on the talk page first. Cheers.VirgilGilmour (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
- I'm guessing you actually mean topic banned, and frankly, I don't remember the topic ban, so if you want action, you need to point to the actual discussion (preferably a diff) where there was some kind of sanction against the user, THEN ping me. Until then, you should assume they are not a topic banned editor, so reverting is not immune to sanction. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.(I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:17, 8 January 2018 (UTC)