User talk:5.103.130.132

June 2018
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Rachel Dolezal. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 15:33, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
 * I have read the guideline on disruptive editing. I do not agree that my edit was disruptive. I changed a single wor, in line with the consensus previously established on the talk page. I referred to this talk page in my edit summary. I am not, to my knowledge, in a dispute with anyone, and I don't believe that this edit "establishes a pattern".
 * I apologize for not logging in, I am currently unable for technical reasons. 5.103.130.132 (talk) 16:11, 30 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Your edit did, indeed, appear disruptive as it was without a valid reason given in the edit summary for the change, that one word had been in the article for quite a while (establishing status quo), and it seemed pointy in nature. Use of the word is supported by reliable sources.  After all, Dolezal was fired from her position at a university and with the local police department for falsely claiming she was black, she was forced to resign from her position with the local NAACP for falsely claiming to be black.  If you have concerns about the word being in the article to describe what she had lied about for so long, please take those concerns to the article talk page.  And just for the record, whether you had been logged in or not, the edit still would have been reverted.  But please do sign in next time you edit.  -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 17:09, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Rachel Dolezal. 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.'' Per the WP:BRD cycle, it's on you to not revert or edit war to favor your preferred version of wording, but to start a discussion at the article talk page. You need to revert your reversion and discuss on the talk page. And if you are a registered user here with any editing history at all, you likely already know all of this. Please choose to do the right thing. So far, you've chosen to be disruptive rather than edit constructively. It's not to late for you to turn this around the right direction. -- ψλ  ● ✉ ✓ 17:20, 30 June 2018 (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.
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.