User talk:122.148.227.2

May 2020
Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did to Jillian Lauren, especially if it involves living persons. Thank you. Pudeo (talk) 12:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

- Not defamatory because it is true information supported by existing text of the article and sources already cited by the page. 122.148.227.2 (talk) 02:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Jillian Lauren, you may be blocked from editing. Materialscientist (talk) 02:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC) - Making an edit after an incorrect reversion is not disruptive especially when the edit now includes explanations to prevent further incorrect reversions. 122.148.227.2 (talk) 02:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Jillian Lauren. Materialscientist (talk) 02:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * - Show cause. 122.148.227.2 (talk) 02:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Stop hand nuvola.svg Your recent editing history 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&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 don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. —  Tartan357  (Talk) 03:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


 * - Other editors have not "disagreed" - they've simply reverted without giving reasons. When I invited discussion, disagreement and the provision of reasoning I received NO response, as you can see on this user talk page and on the article talk page. I have been transparent in providing reasoning for my edits, but there has been no reasoning provided for the reversions; just mechanical, repeated reversions. There can be no one-sided "edit war"; when I have reached out to users making unreasonable reversions they have ignored me, seeking to rely on the policy against repeated edits in place of providing reasoning for their reversions. This is an abuse of process. 122.148.227.2 (talk) 04:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


 * - As the one adding content, you are the one responsible for explaining its addition well. You did not discuss your changes anywhere. Simply adding a section on the talk page and not getting an immediate response does not mean you’ve reached a consensus, especially when your edits are being reverted. More importantly, at this point, you need to calm down and consider whether this is worth fighting over. — Tartan357  (Talk) 04:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * - Passive-aggressive talk suggesting that I "calm down" will get you nowhere with me. I provided an edit summary after my edit was reverted without reason. Last time I checked random users, no matter how many barnstars they have, don't have a right to veto edits just because they feel like it. I want reasons, I give reasons, I ask for reasons in return, and all I get is smacked in the face with obstructive bureaucracy, mere policy, which is not content-relevant at all. Let's take a step back. The pattern is that the response is lightning-fast when special little guys want to revert my edits for no given reason, but when I ask for a reason, they suddenly need to take all the time in the world? That's certainly convenient for them. 122.148.227.2 (talk) 04:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It’s not passive-aggressive. It’s my advice as an outside party. You didn’t provide any edit summary the first time you made your edit, so I don’t see how you could consider your edit sourced properly. — Tartan357  (Talk) 04:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * - Such a statement is passive aggressive because it implies, rather than explicating, that the subject of the statement is not already sufficiently calm (which further implies inappropriate emotionality, reactivity, and any number of other undesirable states which can be used to suggest that a person's behaviour is not sensible or rational). Or we can take the short-cut: I know that telling people to "calm down" is a method to provoke them because I have used it myself. Why should I feel the need to provide an edit summary when the content is already featured in the article, and already evidenced by existing sources relied upon by the article? I would only provide justification if I could foresee reasoned objection. Not only could I not foresee any, but there still isn't any! Providing the edit summary after reversion is a cue to would-be reverters that they need to rebut the reasons in that summary. But nobody wants to engage with the content, just recite policy that misses the point. 122.148.227.2 (talk) 05:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I’m simply trying to help you avoid getting blocked. Content on Wikipedia must be sourced. That’s all there is to this. — Tartan357  (Talk) 05:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * - The content is already sourced. All I did was include existing, already-sourced, non-controversial content in the infobox in a relevant field where it was missing. You are talking around the point and looking at conduct instead of the substance of the issue. That is what there is to this. 122.148.227.2 (talk) 05:47, 6 May 2020 (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. Thank you. — Tartan357  (Talk) 02:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Follow up after AN3
Hey, I'm an administrator and just closed the above edit warring case. I read through the above exchange, and the other editors involved should have engaged with your comments before adding successive template warnings onto the page. At times they were also needlessly condescending and/or confrontational. With that having been said, you appear to have some misconceptions about what is and isn't considered disruptive editing on Wikipedia, as well as the general pace that discussions are expected to proceed at.

If you want to make a change to an article, you're encouraged to boldly make an edit and go for it. However, if you are reverted, even if they don't clearly state a reason, it's on you to head to the talk page and make the case for your changes. You did eventually try to do this, but by that point you had repeatedly reverted to restore your version of the article. Moreover, instead of just starting a discussion on the talk page, you opened an edit request, which is seen less as starting a discussion and more as asking another editor to make your edit for you. Wikipedia disputes over article content generally take at least a few days to resolve, and it's expected that the article's content should remain as whatever the previous status quo was before the contested edits were added. Reinstating your preferred revision is edit warring, and is a blockable offense, even if you're fundamentally right about the underlying issue, especially if you cross the line of 3 reverts in a 24 hour period, which you did.

Right now, the page has already been protected, so blocking you is not needed to avoid further edit warring. I think it would be more productive to let you start a discussion on the talk page to argue for why you think your changes are correct. If you can convince other editors that you're right, your proposed edits can even be reinstated before the page protection expires. However, you do need to recognize that further refusal to abide by Wikipedia's policies regarding edit warring will result in you being blocked from editing. If you have further questions, I would suggest that you direct them to the teahouse, our noticeboard for new editors. signed,Rosguill talk 05:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)