User talk:Gmichaeliona

I am not engaged in an edit war, simply clarifying the issue which seems to have gotten bogged down in unhelpful revisions. The material below shows an attempt to reconcile two divergent opinions. My aim is to recognize that the majority of the Anglican Communion recognizes The Diocese of South Carolina as being a part of said communion while the minority does not agree with that. Originally, I admit, that I did simply revert and did not understand Wiki culture -- but after understanding, slightly better, I took into consideration the various opinions. Thus, I believe this is a spurious claim of "reverting" which in fact was legitimate editing. Gmichaeliona (talk) 23:38, 23 April 2016 (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. Travellers &#38; Tinkers (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Jonathunder (talk) 22:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina 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 article's 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. Jonathunder (talk) 23:05, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your quote of the rules of engagement. The current revisions represent the consensus and facts of the issues at hand. Thank you for your contribution.

April 2016
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page:. 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. Katietalk 01:47, 24 April 2016 (UTC)