User talk:70.183.60.2

Oct 22
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 do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 18 October 2022 (UTC)


 * This is why people no longer trust in Wikipedia. Consensus is not scientific. Your opinion is masquerading as fact. Its politically motivated bias and the hallmark of flailing arguments. 70.183.60.2 (talk) 14:20, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Then make a case at talk, using wp:rs to support your conclusions, and read wp:3rr, being right is not a valid reason to edit war. You might also need to read wp:rightgreatwrongs and wp:npa. Slatersteven (talk) 14:23, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The truth isn't a reason to correct something that is false? Folks like you who actually live in this online world are supposed to be relied upon to make these corrections. You know full well that citing the Guardian as a scientific source is the same as someone citing Fox News as a scientific source. But you're a coward with a control complex. 70.183.60.2 (talk) 14:30, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No, as one mans truth is another mans lie. You need to show it is the truth at talk, and get consensus that we agree its the truth. And we do not only cite the guardian. Slatersteven (talk) 14:34, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, you cite a study of 557 biology students surveyed opinions....Lol 70.183.60.2 (talk) 14:39, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * My last word, if something is cited it is cited, if you object to the cite take it to wp:rsn or wp:npov or the articles talk page and make a case. If you are unwilling to follow our procedures it might be best if you stopped editing here, as repeated refusal to obey our policies will result in a block. Slatersteven (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

And

This is your final warning, revert again and I will report you. Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC) Slatersteven (talk) 14:18, 18 October 2022 (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. Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

October 2022
Hello, I'm Jtrrs0. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions&#32;to Great Barrington Declaration have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Teahouse or the Help desk. Thanks. Jtrrs0 (talk) 15:22, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring at Great Barrington Declaration
 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Per a complaint at the noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 16:22, 18 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Lol, scared of truth, hiding behind bias. 70.183.60.2 (talk) 20:32, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The admin did not respond I will. If you want to get a talk page ban, or get your ban extended, this is the way to go about it. I suggest you sit it out, and learn from what happened and try to be less combative. Slatersteven (talk) 11:01, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hahah Oh No, You're banning me from wikipedia? Lol. Eat me dipshit. You and your goose-stepping "moderators" can keep your silly echo chamber. 70.183.60.2 (talk) 22:34, 20 December 2022 (UTC)