User talk:The6Big9Lebowski42

December 2023
Hi The6Big9Lebowski42! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Maddy Thorson several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree&#32;at, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:22, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Maddy Thorson 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. – dudhhr talkcontribssheher 19:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Maddy Thorson
The current consensus is to include her deadname in the article, and MOS:DEADNAME supports this. I don't see what you are missing here? We don't include the name just for navigation, we include it because it is relevant content. Please stop edit-warring; if you want to change the current consensus, you are welcome to discuss it on the talkpage. Your current pattern of editing is disruptive. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 18:58, 2 December 2023 (UTC)


 * There is no consensus on that page. The people against deadnaming just stopped responding. You need to prove it's relevant to be included. The6Big9Lebowski42 (talk) 19:01, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The general guideline for determining relevance is whether the person was notable under their previous name. Maddy Thorson clearly was, so the name is included. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 19:03, 2 December 2023 (UTC)