User talk:31.134.178.99

June 2021
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on RT America‎. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Calton &#124; Talk 14:38, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Undoing my content is a disruptive edit. I don't see you trying to reach a consensus. If I was blocked - that would more overt. Am I wrong in any of these? 31.134.178.99 (talk)

Your recent editing history at RT America‎ 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 do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. One more revert, and you'll be reported for violating the Three-Revert Rule: this means either the article will be protected from editing by unregistered accounts such as yours or you would directly blocked from editing all of Wikipedia.''

The onus for making changes lies with whoever wants the change: NOBODY has to satisfy you FIRST. So, use the article talk page.'' Calton &#124; Talk 15:23, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't see any explanations of what's going on except templates. You've done three reverts without a proper description of your point so I don't see anything to discuss and neither cannot be sure it is a person and not a bot who is is posting these templates to my page. If I was blocked - that would more overt. The onus for making removals lies with whoever wants the removal: NOBODY has to satisfy you FIRST. So, use the article talk page. 31.134.178.99 (talk) 16:17, 23 June 2021 (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. Calton &#124; Talk 00:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Continued blind reverts
Neither of other editors have explained their point, so because of their silence I cannot except sic] they changed their opinion later

YOU have to convince others; NO ONE is required to convince you, and your claim that silence means that they've suddenly agreed with you but haven't bothered to bring up their change of mind is utter, obviously bad-faith bollocks. --Calton &#124; Talk 10:08, 26 June 2021 (UTC)