User talk:M974

Not seeing were this ref mentions the topic?
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:39, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

February 2020
Your recent editing history 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. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:59, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Apologies
I'm sorry for makeing that commet telling you that it was a "fucking template. read what we are trying to tell you". I should have tried to find a better way to say it without being rude.  LakesideMiners Come Talk To Me! 19:48, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your apology. Behind every screen there is a person, and I truly appreciate the fact you've acknowledged this. MJV479 (talk) 19:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

The importance of signing posts
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment, or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button OOUI JS signature icon LTR.png located above the edit window.

Thank you. — Paleo Neonate  – 01:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

February 2020
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Monosodium glutamate; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and 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. Alexbrn (talk) 17:30, 26 February 2020 (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.

March 2020
Hello, I'm Alexbrn. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Monosodium glutamate have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the help desk. Thanks. Alexbrn (talk) 17:45, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

You currently appear to be 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. 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.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and 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.Continue doing this and you risk getting blocked. Alexbrn (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2020 (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.


 * You really have no shame do you? MJV479 (talk) 19:24, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring at Murder of Seth Rich
You just breached the 1 revert DS restriction at Murder of Seth Rich. Also, sources make it clear that the conspiracy theories about the murder are right wing in nature, this has been discussed ad nauseam on that article's talk page for years. Geogene (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@ you cant claim edit warring at one revert. It has to be at least three. MJV479 (talk) 22:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Three reverts the rule for most articles, this article is under discretionary sanctions and only allows one revert. There are actually some articles that allow 0. Geogene (talk) 22:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Murder of Seth Rich
Weird, I didn't believe you would decide to break the 1RR for a useless piece of text.

I didn't. You did.

Would you like to revert your edit now, or would you rather explain your inability to read an edit history and a calendar at the 3RR noticeboard? --Calton &#124; Talk 18:24, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@ You really came to my talk page to say this? Are you really this immature? Well enjoy your victory I suppose, you really showed me didn't you! MJV479 (talk) 18:31, 18 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Are you really this immature? 
 * I'm quoting and correcting your dumb, inaccurate -- even immature -- edit summary of your edit-warring, and *I'm* the immature one? Look up "psychological projection" when you get the chance. And yes, I DID show you, though I'm not the first and I suspect not the last.


 * User:NorthBySouthBaranof has already restored the material your second -- and ACTUAL -- 1RR violation reverted, so I'm not going to report you to the 3RR noticeboard. Try that stunt again, however, and you're not going to get the warning first, and given all the warnings already on this page it won't go well for you. --Calton &#124; Talk 04:10, 19 December 2020 (UTC)


 * @ You break it all the time. Hypocrite. I guess you think the 3RR/1RR applies to everyone but you. MJV479 (talk) 14:56, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Charles Joseph Bonaparte
Hello! Your submission of Charles Joseph Bonaparte at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:46, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The article did not qualify for DYK at all—it wasn't new, expanded, or newly made a GA. Please review the DYK criteria prior to making a future nomination. Thank you for your interest. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:46, 8 March 2021 (UTC)