User talk:Pernicious.Editor

Important Notice
Doug Weller talk 18:44, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Speedy tagging
You tagged Feminism and modern architecture as an WP:A7. First, it is not one of the eligible topics for A7, and, second, there is no basis for speedy deletion period. You do not have sufficient experience to tag articles for deletion. Please do not do it again.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I apologize. If you could add more information on what the rules for deletion of any kind please let me know. I'd like to be able to do so correctly in the future. Pernicious.Editor (talk) 03:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Important notice: post-1992 American politics
--Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

January 2022
Hi Pernicious.Editor! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of How to Be an Antiracist several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree&#32;at Talk:How to Be an Antiracist, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I did not do it on impulse. Your reversions have failed to substantively address my concerns. You have been nonconstructive and disingenuous. Your have reverted my contributions and others' while failing garner any support for your actions on the talk page; from what I can tell you have acted against consensus while I have gone with it. Please explain why you see yourself as the arbiter of information on that page. EDIT: I'm sorry if this came off as mean-spirited. I'm fed up with my well-intentioned edits being reverted completely. I'm sure you're just trying to help as well. Pernicious.Editor (talk) 01:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The onus to achieve consensus is on those who wish to include the disputed material. I have responded to your concerns on the article talk page. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Pengortm also sought to include McWhorter, while no one else has agreed with his exclusion. How is this not you going against consensus? Pernicious.Editor (talk) 02:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Consensus is not a majority vote. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on How to Be an Antiracist. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although 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. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:31, 17 January 2022 (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.
 * I did not go past the three revert limit. Pernicious.Editor (talk) 02:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't take that position if I were you. First, you don't need to violate 3RR to be blocked for edit-warring. Second, warnings are/should be given before you violate 3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)