User talk:123.243.203.94

August 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wife acceptance factor. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Binksternet (talk) 22:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

My mistake! I should not have reverted your Wife acceptance factor edits as vandalism, since you did not specifically violate the three edit rule. I should instead have reverted them in the normal way while explaining the reversion on the talk page. Cheers - Binksternet (talk) 00:23, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I felt what you did (issuing the 3RR and the warning for vandalism) was done on purpose and with malice. As a senior contributor to wikipedia I find it hard to believe you made a mistake of this nature. Your actions have been noted by not just me and neutrals but your wikipedian peers.

Despite you yourself receiving a 3RR you have continued to edit the page and in doing so violated another rule. If you look at the article as it currently stands you can see the lengths you have gone just to state your case in an unprofessional way.

Upon discussing this with your peers, they believe I have an extremely strong case for reporting your actions. Despite the words we have exchanged I am a man of peace and realise that despite the different views we have that we can find a fair solution to resolve our differences.

If none can be found, I will have to escalate the issue. Most of all, I would like an apology for your actions.123.243.203.94 (talk) 01:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I issued you the three-revert rule warning because I recalled that this was your third attempt to take out the referenced SAF bit without any explanation, which it was. My error was that you did not take it out three times in a 24-hour period; your first time was two days ago. Because of that, you were not about to violate the letter of the law at WP:3RR, but you were certainly about to violate its spirit, by continuing edit warring.

Editors are not restricted from improving an article after receiving a warning against edit warring. They are instead warned against repeated reversion of contested information. I continued to improve the article by finding more references. I ran into many more than that, too, but I feel that the SAF bit does not merit that much weight in the article. The "lengths" I went to amount to a better article.

You are free to report my actions. I feel confident that my one error in using Twinkle to warn you against a potential violation of the three-revert rule is not enough to merit blocking me "to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia", as I have acknowledged my mistake and I intend no further transgressions. Peace - Binksternet (talk) 01:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

You incorrectly issued me with a 3RR warning which was unjust and unfair. You also incorrectly warned me for vandalism which your peers have noted. You can not say that I was about to violate anything because there is no proof of that. Surely you can't tell what I'm thinking.

I don't genuinely feel you improved on the article, rather you flooded it with information that wasn't entirely relevant but only to incite a response from me. I'm sure if I was to report your errors (there were multiple) as well as your behaviour that it would NOT reflect kindly upon you.

Given your experience and your contributions, you should have handled yourself more professionally in this situation. Despite acknowledging only one of your mistakes you have not apologised directly to me which is firstly what I have asked, nor have you tried to make a valid effort here to sort out the article in question.

I will give you one last chance to do so here before I put all my energy into reporting you and resolving the problems I have faced from you. 123.243.203.94 (talk) 02:10, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:AN/I Discussion Regarding Your Recent Edits

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (See this section.) ANowlin ^talk 02:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

---