User talk:Phipperz

September 2019
Your recent contributions at Taha Malik appear to show that you are engaged in edit warring; 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 override another editor's contributions. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle. 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. Praxidicae (talk) 17:13, 19 September 2019 (UTC)


 * 3 reverts in a 24 hour period, you're probably at that limit if not over it already. Don't keep reverting, you WILL end up blocked.  Ravensfire  (talk) 17:51, 21 September 2019 (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. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you.  Ravensfire  (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Ravensfire is the one Edit-warring. He refuses to discuss or look at the prior discussion under the Talk page. What can one do? He simply makes edits without justifying properly or looking at prior discussion after the article was reviewed.


 * You need to address the issues on the WP:EWN report, not here. You should have read the link in the warning above and actually heeded them though. Wikipedia is a collaborative editing process where discussion is the right way, not reverted over and over to your preferred way.  Consensus means general agreement amongst editors, not just you saying "Nope, you are wrong and I am right!".  You need to use references to support statements and when in a dispute, understand how Wikipedia policies work.  Ravensfire  (talk) 18:02, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I am all about consensus. And I welcome contributions and working together. But you must also consider the Talk page and the discussions within it before making rash judgements and editing/cutting away. Anyway, have a nice day.


 * You assumption that I did not read the talk page before removing entrepreneur is false. I did read it, the concerns that others raised and your response.  And as I indicated in *my* response to that discussion, before your revert and despite your edit summary, was to echo those concerns and explain why, on Wikipedia, we need sources, not original research.  That happened.  I see someone making rash judgements here.  Ravensfire  (talk) 18:07, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Then help me out rather than reporting and being antagonistic. Discuss in Talk before, and let someone else chime in. Wikipedia recommends that we talk and discuss before making changes over and over again.


 * Okay, look at your own behavior. Multiple discussions on the talk page where you blew on the concerns and comments from other editors.  Your reverts today included very curt and incorrect messages (hint - again, I had commented about the entrepreneur but you didn't check first ...).  You have a VERY aggressive tone and aren't listening to the advice others have given you.  Everything you've said about sources not being needed, when fairly experienced editors are saying over and over that they are.  If you want help, then TAKE WHAT'S BEEN ALREADY GIVEN!  Take your own advice about discussion before reverting!   Ravensfire  (talk) 19:30, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I have been very civil with you. But you made edits first and then went to the talk page, where other editors had discussed with me. Then you put on unnecessary badges on the page after the article was reviewed and appropriate badges are on it about living bio, etc. I have cooperated with other editors on that. Now the page is protected as a result of you reporting me. Thanks. Anyway, take care and be good. I wish you well. Phipperz (talk) 23:54, 21 September 2019 (UTC)