User talk:GymnasioArgos

Please do not accuse other editors of sabotage
You should read WP:AGF. Doug Weller talk 05:33, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why I should assume good faith when I was accused of bad faith editing. --GymnasioArgos (talk) 03:31, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

May 2019
Your recent editing history at Dog training 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 don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. – bradv 🍁  02:15, 28 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello, GymnasioArgos,


 * Bradv is quite correct. If you continue to revert edits on this article you will receive a block. Please work out your differences with other editors on the article talk page. This can seem time-consuming but it is how Wikipedia has worked for 18 years. Please be patient, Wikipedia is not in a hurry...we'd rather get things done correctly and have it take a while than be speedy and wrong. Liz Read! Talk! 03:58, 28 May 2019 (UTC)


 * This is so confusing because he's allowed to repeatedly undo my edits and accuse me of bad faith, but I'm the one who will get in trouble? I'm not initiating this. If I'm getting sanctioned for an edit war, then I expect that I will not be the only one sanctioned. It also causes me concern that I feel Bradv was the one who initiated this edit war and they're the one issuing a sanction for me standing up for the good faith and quality of my edits.--GymnasioArgos (talk) 04:03, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
 * , come discuss the actual article, at Talk:Dog training. No one's getting sanctioned here. – bradv 🍁  04:09, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

The lead should summarise the article
See WP:LEAD. So you need to propose a section in the article discussing other training methods, using only sources that discuss those training methods and show how they differ. You can't start by changing the lead. Don't even worry about the lead until the article contains the content you think is appropriate. Doug Weller talk 06:37, 28 May 2019 (UTC)