User talk:Ripanm

December 2013

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Penn State child sex abuse scandal. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
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 a version 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 you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Acroterion (talk) 05:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've clearly been edit-warring with this account and an IP that was previously warned. Please stop and discuss your edits on the talkpage: multiple editors have expressed concern about the changes you've made. Acroterion (talk) 05:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am adding pertinent information, including subtitles, additional citations, and missing information. Ripanm (talk) 05:31, 20 December 2013 (UTC)ripanm[reply]

You're also changing the lead of the article to "Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal", and you've reverted to your preferred version three times. You're clearly edit-warring, and you've made no attempt at substantive discussion of your edits, which ignore wide portions of the scandal in favor of a focus on Sandusky. If you revert again, you can expect to be reported to the edit-warring noticeboard. Acroterion (talk) 05:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've changed the name, and I will let go, but the reverts have not been so: I've been continually adding new information. Ripanm (talk) 05:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC) And organizing the sections for ease of finding information. Ripanm (talk) 05:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And removing material in favor of repeated reverts to your preferred version. It looks like another editor has referred your conduct to the edit-warring noticeboard. Acroterion (talk) 05:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To my knowledge, I haven't removed anything from the article. I've reworded poor grammer and re-organized the material into categories. Ripanm (talk) 05:49, 20 December 2013 (UTC) Oops, I spelled grammar wrong. Ripanm (talk) 06:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:08, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]