User talk:Nosuchagreement

Welcome!

Hello, Nosuchagreement, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! DMySon 09:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2020

Your recent editing history at Bluebird K7 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. Dr. K. 20:02, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Wtmitchell. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Bluebird K7, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 10:15, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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:Nosuchagreement reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: ). Thank you. Dr. K. 18:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Bluebird K7. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 18:37, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You must discuss and work toward consensus

Greetings! I see that, even though you were blocked for edit warring at Donald Campbell and Bluebird K7 earlier this month, you are back to your old pattern of edits. Wikipedia operates on the basis of consensus for changes to articles. You must engage in discussion at Talk:Donald Campbell and Talk:Bluebird K7 to make changes to either of the articles. Only proceed with changes after you establish consensus through discussion.

If you continue to edit war, you may lose privileges to directly edit the articles, although you could still request changes and discuss at the articles' talk pages. —C.Fred (talk) 15:51, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, the link you attempted to add today was one you added on 5 February,[1] immediately prior to your block for edit warring. —C.Fred (talk) 17:00, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a simple, factual link about the latest development in the story. A reporting of a statement being made, and a link to that statement. The warring, if you look, stemmed from a malicious party who repeatedly undid that and subsequent edits. No offence- and I do understand the wiki policy- but how is an innocent party supposed to edit a page when people such as yourselves from wiki don't know the actual story involved and don't understand what is going on? There will be no reasoning with the other party, as it is they who are acting maliciously to suit their own ends.

"How is an innocent party supposed to edit a page..."? You explain the situation on the talk page; you cite independent reliable sources to back up that explanation; and you seek consensus among editors (multiple, not just the two of you involved in the edit war) about how the page should appear. —C.Fred (talk) 14:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The link you added fails independence, because it's from a press release. And the reliability is weak, because it's posted by an unverified party with no track record of editorial review. —C.Fred (talk) 14:49, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]