User talk:Saguy1982

3RR warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Dir en grey. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. - Cyrus XIII 00:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Please learn what constitutes as a edit war Cyrus XIII. Saguy1982 00:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Whether you think it constitutes an "edit war" or not, you are breaching the WP:3RR policy, and that is an intentional violation, given you have been warned. --Jacob ^Talk 00:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I reverted twice, and tried to move the information to more suitable locations. You are disrupting this article. Saguy1982 00:13, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Editing issues

Please be aware that it is important to adhere to the spirit of WP policies as well as the letter of the law - particularly in instances where you are being challenged by editors who may themselves have been identified by others as longterm problem editors.

That might mean momentarily stepping back from the fray and inviting other editors who are univolved in the immediate dispute to take a look at the alleged problems - rather than jumping in yourself to immediately revert changes.

Problem editors who are experienced in gaming the system will often provoke a new editor into breaking the WP:3RR or some other rule, so that they can demand that the new editor's account be blocked on a technicality. It is best not to take the bait if you find yourself in that situation.

Asking editors who have previously contributed to the relevant article might be a better approach, and also ensures that other interested parties can share their views and help build a consenus on the issue.

As long as your contributions are made in good faith you have nothing to fear from editors engaging in attempts at intimidation, wikilawyering and gaming the system.

If you have any questions about this please feel free to ask. --Gene_poole 00:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I decided not to edit that article again, due to those reasons. Judging from the history log, there are no other editors outside the situation to call upon. The only other user that seems to contribute to the article regularly, is an IP address, who appears to have had similar issues, but fell into their bait. I was also accused of being a sock puppet of that user. I'm not saying their contributions to the article are disruptive, but any change to improve it to be encyclopedic is met with bully tactics by them. The article is written in an over promotional way, and with unencyclopedic content. It is a shame, that the English version of the Wikipedia is like this. As I know other language versions don't share the same problem as much. Thank you for your comment. Saguy1982 01:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)