User talk:Seoul1989

Disruptive behavior at the Judicial Crisis Network
Your behavior at the Judicial Crisis Network page is disruptive and may constitute vandalism. Please stop. Thank you --Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 06:40, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Continued vandalism at the Judicial Crisis Network
"There is a bright line known as the three-revert rule (3RR). To revert is to undo the action of another editor. The 3RR says an editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside of the 24-hour slot may also be considered edit warring. There are certain exemptions to 3RR, such as reverting vandalism or clear violations of the policy on biographies of living persons; see below for details. The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to engage in an edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so." If you would like to discuss line-by-line edits, please join me at the Judicial Crisis Network talk page and I will be happy to discuss. Otherwise, please consider this a second warning. --Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 18:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Final warning re:vandalism at the Judicial Crisis Network
This is a final warning. I am very open to reasonable discussions of the JCN page, but repeated bulk deletions of carefully sourced factual assertions is unacceptable. --Publius In The 21st Century (talk) 04:49, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert-American politics 2
— TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:02, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Edit war at Judicial Crisis Network
I'm placing this same message on both the talk page of Seoul1989 and Publius In The 21st Century. The two of you are in violation of the Edit War policy, being involved in a slow-motion revert war at that article. I have no idea which of you has the better case for the edits in dispute, but you cannot continue to revert one another. It's time to take the dispute to Talk:Judicial Crisis Network and discuss the edits one at a time. If an editor will not discuss, consider DISCFAIL. But any additional reverts will result in a complaint to an administrator for the application of sanctions. Either discuss it and work it out through discussion or drop the stick and walk away. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 20:25, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice
Doug Weller talk 07:00, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

January 2021
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges on that page. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges.

Please do not go around reverting another editor's edits unless they are obvious vandalism. Liz Read! Talk! 05:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)