User talk:Oreb Good Bird

August 2021
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Chronic pain, you may be blocked from editing. ''You and your team of student editors are inserting offtopic content as essays, apparently to satisfy course requirements. Please stop - and tell your fellow students you will be reported to admin for blocking if you persist.'' Zefr (talk) 13:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.


 * Responding here simply so it is on record in case of any future dispute or accusation. I won't be getting into any back-and-forth argument over it.


 * The edit I made which provoked this warning was not in any way an attempt to edit disruptively. Your reasoning for removing the original content in question was: "Unnecessary, incorrectly formatted; WP:MOS".


 * As the main reason for removal referred to the formatting and linked to the MOS, I decided to fix the formatting and style issues and re-add the content under what I thought was an appropriate existing page section. My thinking was that this may address the core issues with the content, and if not I assumed my edit would be simply undone, which I was happy to accept might happen, and why I have made no further attempt to re-add it.


 * I did initially think about contacting you on a talk page to explain this, but then decided it was probably unnecessary and over-thinking things. Instead, having browsed Wikipedia's advice on editing for newbies, I decided just to be WP:BOLD. In hindsight, I can see how that was probably a mistake and I should've left some discussion note explaining the rationale behind my re-introduction of the content.


 * So, all that said, I do not appreciate being threatened with blocking for edits made in good faith, and a mistake I may have made due to being entirely new to editing Wikipedia. Especially when you have not made any attempt to communicate with me before this. It is true that I have been working collaboratively with other students on editing Chronic pain, however our work is individual, and if you have been in communication with other students of my group, I am unaware of it. Also our intention has been to contribute to Wikipedia with the assumption that anything we edit may and will probably be edited/changed/undone by other Wikipedia editors.


 * Therefore, I would remind you of the guidelines: WP:AGF and WP:DNB.


 * Thanks, Oreb Good Bird (talk) 09:55, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The history of edits by your student colleagues (and the subsequent reverts and trimming) shows that the same content was repeatedly being attempted without regard to the edit comments made for reverting them. It's clear that a common goal was held by the same group of editors, including unnamed IP editors, who had not initiated a talk page discussion on either the Pain or Chronic pain article to establish what was being introduced to the articles, or to gain consensus among other editors per WP:CON. I give credit to you for a) recognizing the disruptive editing (which just repeated content by several others, so was disruptive), b) not further edit warring, c) bringing a reasonable discussion to your talk page, and d) recognizing Wikipedia guidelines like BOLD and AGF. Part of a student's lesson in editing Wikipedia is to learn the give-and-take of edit additions and reverts, and the guides that govern them. You have apparently learned a few of these. Zefr (talk) 14:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)


 * While I still think your initial warning on my talk page was unnecessarily escalatory, I can see how the concerted editing efforts of our group could give an unfortunate impression of disruptive, bad faith editing to an outside observer. I think if I were to go back in time with the knowledge I have now, I would have posted to the article's talk page at the start to explain our group's intentions and to seek feedback on any mistakes in style and type of content. Thanks for your reply. Oreb Good Bird (talk) 08:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)