User talk:Semper et Deinceps, Nunquam Retro

Elaine Luria
Hi, thank you for your editing and content additions at Elaine Luria. I have removed inappropriate content that you restored, and I started a discussion on the article's talk page. As per WP:BRD, could you please continue the discussion there before restoring the content? Thank you. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit-warring and BRD violations on multiple pages
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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for 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 don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.


 * You need to seek consensus for new changes to articles. On multiple pages, you've added poorly sourced, poorly worded, editorialized and WP:SYNTH content. I removed a number of those changes. You should not restore those without seeking consensus on the talk page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You describe the Missoula Current, a paper created in 2015 that appears to have one reporter, as a "reputable local paper." This is not a RS, and the piece that you repeatedly cite on the page is a joke. The piece provides zero context on anything and reads like a hit piece. Snooganssnoogans (talk)


 * Ah, you literally stalked my edits over the last couple of months... you're the one who has editorialized the pages. Semper et Deinceps, Nunquam Retro (talk) 02:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)


 * "Last couple of months"??? You've had this account for one month. Please disclose any alternative accounts you've used. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:44, 18 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Ah, April and May are two months, you're really reaching. The level of harassment you give to other users is just remarkable. Semper et Deinceps, Nunquam Retro (talk) 04:03, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Did you use to edit as "Buzzards-Watch Me Work"
Your style of editing is identical, and you've edited the same pages. "Buzzards-Watch Me Work" retired amid a discussion to topic ban them (the topic ban was never implemented, possibly due to the voluntary retirement). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I've requested a sockpuppet investigation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Buzzards-Watch_Me_Work Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC)