User talk:NetSpiker

Recent edit to Spock
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Spock, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Materialscientist (talk) 05:37, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Recent edit to Spock
Hello, and thank you for your recent contribution. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edit because I believe the article was better before you made that change. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! Tito Dutta (talk) 10:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

March 2017
Your recent editing history at Spock 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. Dr.  K.  16:02, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Several people have reverted me, but none of them have provided a valid reason or commented on the talk page, so I will continue re-adding the information until they do so. But from now on, I will only do so once per day. --NetSpiker (talk) 01:51, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


 * You cannot edit-war against multiple editors and in multiple articles for days, even if it is once per day. You can still get blocked for edit-warring if your intention is to edit-war, even if you don't break the 3 revert rule. I advise you to try to get WP:CONSENSUS for your edits, instead of edit-warring, otherwise you can get blocked. Dr.   K.  03:20, 19 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I did try to get consensus. No one replied to the discussion I've started on the talk page and no one has given a valid reason for why this information shouldn't be in the article. It is common practice on Wikipedia that the first sentence of an article shows the character's full name. I have repeatedly asked people to show me where it says in the policy that this name cannot be from a non-canon source. Since no one has done that, I have concluded that there is no such policy. If someone shows me the policy, I promise that I will stop trying to re-add this information.


 * You should also know that I own a VPN, so there's no point threatening to block me. I don't enjoy edit warring, but I can't think of what else I can do when I'm dealing with editors who keep reverting my edits without reason, but have no interest in discussing the issue. Is there some kind of mediation process for this kind of situation? --NetSpiker (talk) 03:34, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Basically threatening to get around a (possible) block via a VPN isn't helping your case. Half  Shadow  04:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry about that. I just felt really angry and frustrated when I wrote that. I only just starting editing Wikipedia as a registered user and people are undoing my hard work without providing a good reason and they're not even willing to discuss the issue. What would you do in a situation like this? --NetSpiker (talk) 04:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Trying here might be a start; an admin can helpful in a situation like this. Be prepared for the possibility that you may be in the wrong, though. Half  Shadow  05:00, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I am prepared for that and I've said before that if someone shows me a policy proving that what I am doing is wrong, I will let the matter go. Thank you for the advice. --NetSpiker (talk) 05:06, 19 March 2017 (UTC)