User talk:Debasish Dey

October 2014
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Shellshock (software bug). Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. IRW0 (talk) 22:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Shellshock (software bug). 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. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; 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.I would recommend that you self-revert your last change, since you are in violation of WP:3RR. IRW0 (talk) 22:11, 1 October 2014 (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.

Hi. I hope you have read the WP:3RR text and noted the bolding policies referred to in the edit summaries. Bolding text like that is normally only done to alternate names for the articles, not simply any term that redirects; otherwise we'd have to bold terms like "Wopbot", which also redirects to the page (but clearly shouldn't be bolded.) Chazelas' contribution is rightly noted by mentioning him right in the lead section. Bolding his name is simply against Wikipedia editing guidelines; there are no exceptions simply to praise certain individuals. Again, in order not to be in violation of WP:3RR, I recommend that you self-revert your own edit back to the original, non-bolded version that 3 different editors have now reverted you on. You'll no longer be in violation of the editwarring policy if you do that. IRW0 (talk) 22:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Add: many redirects are bolded, but this one should not be per WP:R, as a minor subtopic. I hope while you're blocked, you will take the time to read the editwarring and harassment policies and come back to contribute; it looks like you've contributed some good stuff in the past, so please don't let a brief block discourage you. IRW0 (talk) 23:23, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Stéphane Chazelas listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Stéphane Chazelas. Since you had some involvement with the Stéphane Chazelas redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 22:15, 1 October 2014 (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. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. IRW0 (talk) 22:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Debasish Dey, it is unfortunate that your edits have resulted in this report. Anyways, regardless of the outcome, I have this advice: in the future, you best avoid letting your emotions control your edits. I'm saying this as someone who themselves could have/should have been temporarily blocked for the exact same reason (on a different page). Sometimes, a break is necessary to collect one's emotions from going out of control. Steel1943  (talk) 22:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to add, the only reason I'm reporting you for editwarring is that you've made no attempt to engage in discussion. Actually, now you've threatened to use a proxy to "keep [my] user page updated", you definitely need a block. IRW0 (talk) 22:58, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for disruptive editing, including harassment and threatening to sock to continue harassing should you be blocked. I strongly suggest that you go do something productive for the next 24 hours as opposed to digging yourself deeper by evading your block. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 23:06, 1 October 2014 (UTC)