User talk:Hippo43/Archives/2018/June

2011 & 2015 Autumn International deletion...
Been away, just catching up on the June & November international debate. What is the criteria we are using for the June and Autumn tests? Couldn't see a decisive decision on discussion. And what is the reasoning behind the deletion of the 2015 & 2011 End-of-year tests (or what ever the name is)? Rugby.change (talk) 22:22, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mobile mundo (talk) 13:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know what noticeboard you mean, but I'm really not sure why you're starting a discussion there. Why not discuss it at the project talk page where there has been a lot of discussion about these articles? --hippo43 (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Admin and liquidation of Rangers
Please discuss your cull on the talk page first. You feel that the sources don't match the information in the article, but your removal of them is likewise based on your interpretation of what is written there, so needs a better explanation than a few words in the summary. Thanks. Crowsus (talk) 05:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for getting in touch. Rather than revert numerous edits at once, can you please try to address each point individually? You seem to have reverted without looking at each edit.
 * The sources I removed simply didn't say what they were used to support in the text. That isn't a matter of interpretation. Please don't restore sources which are misleading. There may be sources around which do say these things but I haven't found them. If you think I've got some of these wrong, can you please let me know which ones and how? Thanks --hippo43 (talk) 07:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll try to get to it later. I will look at the sources and the text and see what needs to be changed. That will be on the article talk page, there have been other experienced editors who will have looked at the information concerned and not indicated having an issue with it, however maybe they just didn't read it as thoroughly as you and it should be highlighted for them to focus on as an area of concern/dispute. In any case it would be fairer to include all interested parties in the discussion of the content to establish consensus, as was done successfully with the signing policy article. Crowsus (talk) 10:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Your recent editing history 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. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:21, 13 June 2018 (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. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:30, 17 June 2018 (UTC)