User talk:ENLogic

July 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Anarchy with this edit. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anarchy&action=history page history]. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Frosted Δ 14 18:40, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Anarchy
For complicated stuff like this, it might be better to describe the problem in talk:Anarchy. Perhaps ask and wait for comments then do your edit with a "see talk" (maybe a bit more of a comment) in the edit summary. I noted that anarchy.net is 404 as well. Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Anarchy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. - Purplewowies (talk) 19:24, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you explain what you mean by your edit summary comments at Anarchy in greater detail at Talk:Anarchy? I don't fully understand. - Purplewowies (talk) 19:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, ENLogic, the dictionary definition of Anarchy is already at Anarchy. The Wikipedia, however, is not a dictionary. Please refrain from removing the lead section without explanation or discussion, and also stop edit warring as it may get you blocked! You are free to talk this over at talk:Anarchy, your or my talkpage. Cheers, benzband  ( talk ) 19:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * As Benzband has mentioned above, your contribution to Anarchy has been removed because you rewrote the article like a dictionary definition. If you weren't aware, Wikimedia Foundation has a dictionary website here. You were also removing sourced content with no explanation. If you have concerns with the accuracy of the article, discuss at the talk page rather than repeatedly removing content. If you wish to improve the article, visit Writing better articles. SwisterTwister   talk  20:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

In response to your feedback
What article are you referring to? Please respond at my talk page.

SwisterTwister  talk  19:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

&#160;

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 User:ENLogic reported by User:Purplewowies (Result: ). Thank you. - Purplewowies (talk) 20:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring and WP:3RR violation on Anarchy
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for 'edit warring and violating WP:3RR; as I noted in my edit summary, it has not been determined that your edit is incorrect, but we need to have discussion'' to warrant such removal of sourced content that is not on its face incorrect. You need to head over to the article's talk page to discuss your proposed edit. Continuous reversion of multiple other users to impose your opaque edit will have the opposite effect.''' 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 below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. 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. Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:31, 25 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you actually reading what's been said to you? You'll probably lose your talk page access if you don't.--Jasper Deng (talk) 02:59, 26 July 2012 (UTC)