User talk:114.125.133.223

December 2023
Hi 114.125.133.223! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Josh Cahill several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree&#32;at, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Chaotıċ Enby  (t · c) 10:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Josh Cahill 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; read about 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Czello (music) 12:04, 23 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Was just about to send it, thanks! Should the page be ECP to avoid the edit war continuing? Chaotıċ Enby   (t · c) 12:07, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. — Czello (music) 12:07, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Casting aspersions
Hi 114.125.133.223,

you seem to have been casting aspersions against other editors while editing and discussing the article about Josh Cahill. Please do not accuse others of misconduct without evidence, as doing so is a personal attack. While discussing and editing articles, please focus on the content instead of editors.

If you continue editing disruptively, such as by edit warring or keeping up the uncivil, unnecessarily personalized discussion style towards others, you may be banned from editing and discussing articles about living people, or blocked from editing, possibly without further warning – especially if this just continues after 's full page protection.

If something is unclear about this, please ask. You're now considered to be aware of these requirements.

Best regards, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)