User talk:Scandevi

ABA International
It is clear that you have a WP:COI on ABA International. Also, see WP:edit warring. There is no WP:consensus for your edits. Wikiman2718 (talk) 21:01, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

November 2020
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Association for Behavior Analysis International; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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. Binksternet (talk) 15:45, 2 November 2020 (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.
 * You have been continuing the edit war of the Kalamazoo IP range Special:Contributions/2600:6C4A:797F:F9E3:0:0:0:0/64. ABAI is in the Kalamazoo area. You are clearly involved with the topic. Binksternet (talk) 15:48, 2 November 2020 (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. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:36, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring about Association for Behavior Analysis International
Hello Scandevi. You've been warned per the outcome of an edit warring complaint. You may be blocked if you revert again at this article unless you have received a prior consensus for your change on the talk page. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:03, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Can I get some guidance on this? There is a cadre of editors who added content without consensus and have made the accusation of edit warring when myself and others tried to make corrections. I've attempted to work it out in the discussion, but it is clear that there is little motivation to find consensus. At this point, I've resigned myself to accepting that opinionated content is there to stay, but now these editors are undoing all attempts to update inaccurate or outdated information and won't allow anyone to make updates to content that has nothing to do with controversial topics. Is there anything that can be done to make basic updates to the content of the article? Thank you. Scandevi (talk) 17:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * "Consensus" doesn't work the way you think it does. The majority form consensus, and it is currently against you.
 * If people (such as yourself) with a conflict of interest are at odds with the way the topic is being portrayed, they can suggest changes on the talk page. The talk page is where they can try to get consensus to go their way, by showing proof of their position, and by arguing about the weight of sources. Binksternet (talk) 20:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Please explain my perceived "conflict of interest" or knock-it off with baseless accusations. And at this point, I'm just trying to get some basic, non-controversial edits made to content that is clearly out-of-date. The snide remarks (e.g. "'Consensus' doesn't work the way you think it does") are entirely unnecessary. Scandevi (talk) 21:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)