User talk:Bfdulock

Thomas Aquinas
Yes. Thomas Aquinas is a saint, but "saint" is not a part of his name. Antique Rose &mdash; Drop me a line  22:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


 * "Saint" is a tiltle. Bfdulock (talk) 22:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, but not a name. Do you understand the difference between the two? Antique Rose &mdash; Drop me a line  22:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Enlighten me why you would not use a person's title.Bfdulock (talk) 23:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


 * You could use it once, but not every single time the name appears in an article. E.g. the title of his article is Thomas Aquinas, not Saint Thomas Aquinas. Please read WP:MOS. Antique Rose &mdash; Drop me a line  23:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found in English reliable sources without it, it should be included.

Edit war
Your recent editing history at Natural law shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 BRD 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 your 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. Antique Rose &mdash; Drop me a line  22:36, 26 April 2017 (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. Antique Rose &mdash; Drop me a line  23:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

3RR block
You've been blocked from editing for 72 hours due to violating the Three revert rule. Please be more careful in the future. El_C 23:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


 * You should have applied that rule to Antique Rose, not me. Antique Rose engaged in the edit war.  I simply obliged.Bfdulock (talk) 00:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * That was a mistake. You should have used the article talk page. See WP:BRD. El_C 01:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

You should be applying the rules to the person who violated the rules--in this case, Antique Rose. Clearly your bias is good reason why Wikipedia is not a good system in practice.

We were using my talk page.Bfdulock (talk) 01:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not seeing, but it doesn't matter. You should have subscribed to WP:BRD instead of edit warring to the point of violating WP:3RR. Next time, don't oblige. El_C 01:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * No, the problem began with and was continued by Antique Rose. That should be very *clear* to you.
 * It takes two to edit war. El_C 11:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)