Block, SkipCaptcha, rollback
131
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Undo revision 952928 by BL4NK3R (talk)
{{welcome}}
If you did not already know, please do not edit war, as you did with [[user:RedGoliath]]. Thank you.[[User:SusanP|SusanP]] 12:48, 10 January 2012 (EST)
This is your second warning for troublesome editing in 8 hours. Either contribute to the project in a constructive way or face possible blocking. This is your final warning, and I will be watching your activity. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 19:18, 10 January 2012 (EST)
:I'm confused as to exactly what you are warning me about. In your edit summary you say "2nd edit war warning in 8 hours" but I fail to see how any of my recent edits could be described as edit warring. When I saw my change to [[Age of the Earth]] had been removed again with not much in the way of an explanation, instead of engaging in an edit war and reinstating it again I raised the issue on the talk page as I assumed would be the right course of action though in hindsight I would accept my tone wasn't probably that helpful.
:Looking through your edits around the time you posted this warning, I note you've gone and undone a couple of my edits. In the first case reinstating the word liberal in the [[Gun]] article to describe those involved in the recent riots in England as a liberal riot mob. I still don't understand how exactly those involved could be described as liberal. However, that still isn't an example of edit warring even if you disagree with my view about whether the word is appropriate.
:I also note you've undone to some degree my edit to [[Liberal Democrats]] regarding the largest donor to the party, suggesting a "Liberal loophole". I again don't understand your use of the term liberal in that context. Is "liberal" just being used as a generic insult for people or things you dislike? The "loophole" is simply the main element of the law relating to political donations, that the donor is someone allowed by law to give money to a political party. That's not simply a "technicality in the rules" that the Liberal Democrats have "exploited". Anyway, I shan't undo your edit since that would actually be edit warring. If I'm so inclined I'll raise it on the talk page for discussion.
:I'd therefore be grateful if you could explain exactly what "troublesome editing" or apparent edit warring you are referring to that I should discontinue. [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] 07:59, 11 January 2012 (EST)
----
::I believe he meant talking back, and questioning our goal. In either case, here is the helpful links again.
{{warning}}
[[User:JonM|JonM]] 12:55, 11 January 2012 (EST)
:Well I have those links just above so that isn't too helpful. Perhaps you could advise what the correct way of resolving disagreements regarding content is then if it isn't to discuss those issues? I'd also be grateful if you could point out any examples where I've been "questioning our goal". [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] 13:09, 11 January 2012 (EST)