User talk:Morphjam

December 2018
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Secure Fence Act of 2006; 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.Also, using a new account won't cause people to forget the edit-warring of your other account. Calton | Talk 03:20, 23 December 2018 (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.

Your recent editing history at Secure Fence Act of 2006 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 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 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.''One more, and this particular account gets blocked. Also, I'll file an SPI.'' Calton | Talk 09:12, 23 December 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. --Calton | Talk 00:18, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for Abusing multiple accounts. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Per a complaint at the edit warring noticeboard. You appear to be the same person as User:7rexkrilla. There is no reason for you to be operating more than one account on Wikipedia, especially when you use both accounts in the same dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 03:33, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Based on what assumptions do I appear to be the same person as Morphjam? Snooganssnoogans, discrediting other users, huh? 21:17, 25 December 2018 (UTC)