User talk:DrBonesaw
Edit warring
[edit]
Your recent editing history at Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:19, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Welcome!
|
Personal note
[edit]That's a pretty overwhelming list of resources, but generally you should try to be bold while still using your common sense. If you're interested in medicine, there's a medicine wikiproject (WP:MED) and a medical-specific sourcing guideline (WP:MEDRS). Good luck, and there's lots of different stuff to write about. Things can get pretty heated so you have to have a thick skin. I'd also recommend staying calm and lettings things go every so often... II | (t - c) 23:39, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
Automatic invitation to visit WP:Teahouse sent by HostBot
[edit]
|
Hi DrBonesaw! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |
Edit warring at Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine
[edit]Your recent editing history at Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Note the part about BRD. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
[edit]Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:42, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- Just to let you know that the results are in:
- But of course there was no violation. Nothing was violated. You need to relax and reevaluate yourself Brangifer (talk). Your pattern of creating conflict with other editors is very apparent. You're going to give yourself a stroke or something with how worked up you get over these disagreements that you constantly have with other editors on Wikipedia. This is the internet. I hope, for your sake that you aren't like this in real life...P.s.--probably a good idea to move my comment on your talk page to the bottom. Oh wait you already did. I directly quote the unnecessary message you leave on my talk page and you label it baiting. Lol, ok. Moving the comment doesn't really hide the fact that you obviously do this type of thing all the time. DrBonesaw (talk) 06:35, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- There was a violation of edit warring, which is why you received the warning and the article is now locked for four days:
- You missed violating 3RR by only one edit. You were close, and I've seen editors blocked for edit warring for fewer than four edits. You were lucky that you only got a warning.
- I don't know where you get the idea that I am all worked up over this. I'm quite relaxed. No problems here. Written language comes across differently than what it would appear face to face, so don't read too much into it. I type very fast and can easily and quickly formulate a long essay without any effort. I once quickly wrote a three page analysis of a pending court case to a judge, and her written decision to throw the case out was based on my logic, nearly word for word. You are either creating a fantasy image of how I am or how I'm feeling, or you are projecting. It is best not to speculate or comment on such things about other editors. Your comments only expose your own thoughts, and have no bearing on reality. They say more about you than they say about me. I hope you notice that, although I have been blunt, I have always been civil with you.
- BTW, you do understand that you are not supposed to post at the top of talk pages, unless your comment is the first one? That's why I moved it. If you begin to use the "new section" tab, your comments will automatically end up at the bottom. I hope that helps. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:07, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
- Oh no, a warning!
That must have really hurt when you saw that I wasn't blocked. From your behavior in the talks you are obviously the type that throws a fit when you don't get your way.
- Oh no, a warning!
- Obviously I am just projecting (hopefully your mastery of logic allows you to realize the sarcasm in that comment). Your need to articulate your serenity but then go on and describe your attributes and accomplishment only proves my point. Thanks for that Brangifer (talk). Its ok though, I realize I struck a nerve by pointing out your lack of social etiquette. The fact that other editors even pointed out your personal attacks towards me scraps the notion that you have always been civil. Not that it really bothers me--it is rather amusing that you chose to disregard it though.
- My advice to you would be to get outside and interact with some real folks. I hope that helps.DrBonesaw (talk) 18:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Indeed!
[edit]Indeed! Why have you made such a big deal out of "such a minor edit"? You've been pushing this ONE minor change since your very first edit here. In fact, you tried for more in the beginning, and now you tried for a slight bit less, and even that has been soundly rejected. I have seen plenty of SPAs throughout my years here, but I don't recall anyone so dedicated to such a minor point. You don't need to answer that. I just want you to step back and think about this. Look at the big picture and see what you haven't achieved. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
- Personal beef? Control issues? Whatever the case, if you read the conversation on the talk page you would realize that although my current edit is to the same content that I originally disputed, the edit and the reasoning behind it are very different. Oh and, Lol at your emotional investment into proving your point and policing this website in a heavily biased fashion towards people who disagree with your viewpoints.DrBonesaw (talk) 05:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)