User talk:132.229.117.120

Accusation of edit warring

See my response here. 132.229.117.120 (talk) 19:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring by 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. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The point of requiring discussion is to stop the edit warring, but you have continued it with the discussion ongoing. I have blocked you temporarily for this; when your block expires, you are welcome to resume discussion on Talk:Evolutionism, but you may not continue reverting Evolutionism to your preferred version without consensus on the talk page. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

132.229.117.120 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I see that I have to acknowledge that I was wrong here. *I thought I did just 2 reverts but slipped into a 3rd. This was not my intention. *I have motivated all my reverts in the edit summary and later on the talk page. *Not all my edits (including the last ones, containing an alternative proposal) on evolutionism should be classified as reverts. *I did not make any reverts anymore after receiving a warning message on my talk page (which was almost a day ago). *Instead, from then on I continued discussion on Talk:evolutionism. This discussion is moving towards a consensus in my opinion, although some harsh words have fallen there appear to be many things on which we agree. Such a consensus was exactly the aim of my contributions, especially during the last ~20 hours. I want to continue with this. 132.229.117.120 (talk) 11:07 am, Today (UTC−4)

Accept reason:

Per below, user has agreed to stick with discussion rather than reverting. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I warned you about edit warring at 15:13 yesterday, when you'd done one insertion and two reverts. At 15:29, you reverted again on Evolutionism. I didn't block you for edit warring then because I was assuming good faith that, since you'd started a talk page discussion, you would stop reverting after that. At 23:46, you again undid the status quo to insert your preferred version - at this point, it became clear that you didn't understand that discussion REPLACES reverting, rather than just going alongside it. In total you had 3 blanket reverts and one partial revert; this is a violation of our edit warring guidelines. If you will commit to not edit warring on the article any further - not instituting any changes to it that haven't been discussed and agreed to on the article's talk page, by multiple people, and not just inserting your preferred wording, no matter how perfect you think it is - I will be happy to unblock you myself. Otherwise, we'll leave it to an uninvolved admin to review your unblock request. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:12, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your rapid response. Indeed I did not understand that inserting an alternative proposal would be considered as a continuation of an edit war. I'm committed to strive towards consensus in this discussion and I will not do any further reverts on this article until consensus is reached. To all who are involved: I apologize for this edit war. 132.229.117.120 (talk) 15:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're now unblocked. Good luck with the talk page discussion :) A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being so kind! 132.229.117.120 (talk) 15:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an IP user, identified by the user's IP address. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other IP users. Registering also hides your IP address.