User talk:Mindbunny

Talkback

Hello, Mindbunny. You have new messages at Discospinster's talk page.
Message added 22:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback

Hello, Mindbunny. You have new messages at Discospinster's talk page.
Message added 23:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Women's rights in Saudi Arabia/Saudi women who have achieved professional prominence

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
3. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content 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 edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. DeCausa (talk) 14:06, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring

Indeed please stop edit warring. I looked through your history and initially I had blocked your account until I saw you weren't properly warned (initially it appeared to me you were warned, so I apologize). However, edits like this [1] which directly run opposite to a good-faith attempt to work with you show very very poorly on your behalf. Indeed, please slow down a bit and use the talk page. Thanks! Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:58, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? 1. I am reverting to the consensus version. The material DeCausa is adding had never been in the article prior to a week ago. 2) Two of my last three edits were to undo false positives by recent-change patrollers. Both patrollers admitted they are not actual editors of the article; rather they assumed it was vandalism because I hadn't copy/pasted my edit comment from the first time to the next, 3) Even counting those edits, I didn't make more than 3 edits in a 24 hour period. Mindbunny (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Uh, you haven't actually unblocked me at all. Mindbunny (talk) 16:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mindbunny, I suspect you have been caught up in an autoblock which didn't clear when your account was unblocked. Please follow the instructions on this page to get the block cleared. Sailsbystars (talk) 16:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I have found and removed your autoblock. You should be free to edit now. Please do not resume reverting or you will likely find yourself blocked again. --B (talk) 17:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Why shouldn't I continue reverting, if the material continues to be added? The added material is not part of the long-standing consensus version, and multiple reasons have been given for why it doesn't improve the article. Do I misunderstand how the consensus process works? The burden is on those who want to alter the stable version. That's not me. Mindbunny (talk) 20:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

You shouldn't keep reverting because the policy says not to. Although I agree with you that the relationship between this section and the article subject seems at best tangential, that position seems to be in the minority and you should discuss it rather than simply revert to your preferred version. The policy is not concerned as much with proving "who is right" as it is to preventing disruption to the editing process. --B (talk) 20:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

No proper reasons have been given for its deletion. All that's happened is I answered off-topic questions posed by Mindbunny. The 'long-standing' consensus point is a strange one, and implies that no new material can be added. I think there may be a genuine misunderstanding of 'consensus' and Wikipedia processes in general. Mindbunny could, for instance, review WP:BRD, but there are others that Mindbunny needs to review as well. I agree there are issues with the text (although I think there is a kernel worth having) - I was merely transfering it from another article. Mindbunny's reaction, however, is way over the top, and refusal to discuss in keeping with complaints from other editors. I think Mindbunny fundamentally misunderstands the whole editing process. DeCausa (talk) 20:34, 7 February 2011 (UTC)20:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)