User talk:Bfdulock

Thomas Aquinas

Yes. Thomas Aquinas is a saint, but "saint" is not a part of his name. Antique Rose — Drop me a line 22:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

"Saint" is a tiltle. Bfdulock (talk) 22:35, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, but not a name. Do you understand the difference between the two? Antique Rose — Drop me a line 22:58, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Enlighten me why you would not use a person's title.Bfdulock (talk) 23:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

You could use it once, but not every single time the name appears in an article. E.g. the title of his article is Thomas Aquinas, not Saint Thomas Aquinas. Please read WP:MOS. Antique Rose — Drop me a line 23:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Where an honorific is so commonly attached to a name that the name is rarely found in English reliable sources without it, it should be included.

Bfdulock, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Bfdulock! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like 78.26 (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 22:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Edit war

Your recent editing history at Natural law shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Antique Rose — Drop me a line 22:36, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Antique Rose — Drop me a line 23:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

3RR block

You've been blocked from editing for 72 hours due to violating the Three revert rule. Please be more careful in the future. El_C 23:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

You should have applied that rule to Antique Rose, not me. Antique Rose engaged in the edit war. I simply obliged.Bfdulock (talk) 00:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

That was a mistake. You should have used the article talk page. See WP:BRD. El_C 01:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

Antique Rose engaged in the edit war. I simply obliged.

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. PhilKnight (talk) 00:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You should be applying the rules to the person who violated the rules--in this case, Antique Rose. Clearly your bias is good reason why Wikipedia is not a good system in practice.

We were using my talk page.Bfdulock (talk) 01:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not seeing, but it doesn't matter. You should have subscribed to WP:BRD instead of edit warring to the point of violating WP:3RR. Next time, don't oblige. El_C 01:13, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

No, the problem began with and was continued by Antique Rose. That should be very *clear* to you.

It takes two to edit war. El_C 11:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)