User talk:Positive Organizational Scholar

January 2023
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Change management, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Philipnelson99 (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi, Thanks for your note. The page is dated. Plus, lots of points are not referenced at all, yet allowed. Cheers Positive Organizational Scholar (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Your recent editing history 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; read about 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 do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. MrOllie (talk) 18:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC)


 * There's no edit war going on.
 * First, I did not revert or change the edits of others - could you please look into this first? Lying is uncool.
 * Second, it's not editors - but an editor who should familiarize with Change management.
 * I was trying to add research tuff to this outdated, archaic, unrefined page that has been managed by "editors".
 * No comments. You're on no help either. Positive Organizational Scholar (talk) 18:29, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * You have been repetitively been adding the same content, and have been reverted by three different people. This is clearly edit warring. At this point you must stop trying to make this change, and secure agreement from other editors on the article's associated talk page to continue. MrOllie (talk) 18:32, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 1. Naturally, I have added SAME content I have added because someone, not familiar with CHANGE MANAGEMENT, deleted it! It
 * 2. It has not been reverted by three people but by Philipnelson99, plus maybe you - that's TWO!
 * 3. It's been my FIRST time TRYING to add value to Wikipedia but I can see this place is very hostile, negative and incompetent - you say this page is ran by "editors". Really? Change management "models" have no references. Plus, it's archaic. Ultimately, it's a MESS - under Approach, you have "Change MODELS" - and instead of models, you have reasons for failure/facotrs, etc.
 * Perhaps, as an ACADEMIC Editor, and not a Wikipedia editor, I NOW know NOBODY should be using Wikiedpia. I'm a scholar at one of the world's best universities in the world and I will ask my students not to use Wikipedia. This place is so hostile. and the way you deal with someone who's is trying to make this terrible page better is tru deleting, threatening, blocking. No comments. It's the most unprofessional place I've been to - and I will write a case study on Quality Control and Management and Wikipedia. Trying to edit Wikipedia< I now know, is a waste of time. 37.30.40.205 (talk) 21:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I have revision-deleted your edits as the text was copied in part from this article which is not licensed compatibly with Wikipedia. If you decide to return to contributing in the future, please write in your own words rather than copying text from elsewhere. Thanks, DanCherek (talk) 22:18, 22 January 2023 (UTC)