BattleMario
July 2013
edit
Your recent editing history at Template:Nintendo developers 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.--Arkhandar (talk) 00:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
July 2013
edit Your recent editing history at Creatures (company) 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.--Arkhandar (talk) 15:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- BRD is not a policy. This means it is not a process that you can require other editors to follow.
- BRD is not a valid excuse for reverting good-faith efforts to improve a page simply because you don't like the changes. Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense.
- BRD is not for reverting changes by different editors repeatedly over an extended period to protect your preferred version or ideas. No edit, regardless of how large it is, requires any prior discussion; however, large edits and any edits that are potentially controversial are often the targets of reverts, so — in the spirit of collaborative editing — prior discussion is often wise.
- BattleMario (talk) 15:37, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Please take a look at good look at WP:BRD. In general, in Wikipedia, if you make an edit, and it's challenged, then you, as the person who wanted to make the change, starts up a discussion. So, you don't have to be seemingly offended, or aggressive, if someone suggests you do that. It's common practice. Thanks.--Arkhandar (talk) 15:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- See above. Valid edits should not be challenged because an editor doesn't like them, and BRD should not be cited as a reason to revert said valid changes. BattleMario (talk) 15:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- Who says that your edit was "valid"? There's already a discussion underway and you still seem to not be respecting that, making changes to articles without a consensus being reached. One person can't just decide that there's consensus or the validity of an edit, whether you find it silly or not. Feel free to join in on the discussion. Thanks--Arkhandar (talk) 15:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion has not received any new comments in two days, and those that have commented have all generally agreed with the changes proposed. Since you started expanding the template's list of second party developers, others have tried reverting the changes, which you have reverted every time. After I attempted to adjust the template, I relented and started a talk discussion as you requested, and both on the talk page and the outside input overwhelmingly favored changing the template. You have been the lone holdout. It seems fair to make the changes based on verifiable information. BattleMario (talk) 15:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- Once again, you can't make changes like this until a consensus is properly reached, even if you honestly think you're right. That's how Wikipedia works, and I know we do what we do to improve WP articles. This is how improvement is made, when there's a discussion between two different opinions. I hope you understand that. Thank you.--Arkhandar (talk) 16:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- The discussion has not received any new comments in two days, and those that have commented have all generally agreed with the changes proposed. Since you started expanding the template's list of second party developers, others have tried reverting the changes, which you have reverted every time. After I attempted to adjust the template, I relented and started a talk discussion as you requested, and both on the talk page and the outside input overwhelmingly favored changing the template. You have been the lone holdout. It seems fair to make the changes based on verifiable information. BattleMario (talk) 15:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
- Who says that your edit was "valid"? There's already a discussion underway and you still seem to not be respecting that, making changes to articles without a consensus being reached. One person can't just decide that there's consensus or the validity of an edit, whether you find it silly or not. Feel free to join in on the discussion. Thanks--Arkhandar (talk) 15:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)