User talk:Lightningstrikers

Maybe instead of falsely claiming that I've mentioned the CDC recently, you could actually respond to questions I've asked on the talk page. Remember also I think we need dispute resolution. Thanks. Lightningstrikers (talk) 02:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See the CDC discussion today at here

I don't know what questions you are talking about, but I think I have answered all your questions until the past 10 minutes or so. You on the other hand, have not answered mine when I have tried to figure out what you really want -- after bringing up professions -- but not working on it and diverting to content you want to delete.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:00, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish. Look on the talk page. I've engaged with you and proof is on the talk page. I even suggested included a separate section in the article. I've not mentioned the CDc for a long while, yet you lied saying I have. By the way did you place any warnings on the other editors talk page. Let's try and get a resolution here that is all I'm interested in. In future please keep off this page and comment on the article page. Thank you. Lightningstrikers (talk) 03:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's calm down. I don't want to give you another warning tonight. I can post warnings here. You do not have the right to be disruptive and then say warnings cannot be posted... all of which are in your talk page history. They do not do away just because you delete them here.

Seriously, take a deep breath. Please think of what you want to accomplish and how you can do that in a constructive way.

I need another break, anyway, and don't plan on posting again re: the article or your issues until tomorrow.–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:14, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking at our dispute reslotion options. Which noticeboard would be best to use please or which form of dispute resolution? Lightningstrikers (talk) 03:16, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Occupational stress, you may be blocked from editing. –CaroleHenson (talk) 01:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at User_talk:CaroleHenson#January_2020. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. ——SN 54129 02:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Have you warned CaroleHenson too? Lightningstrikers (talk) 02:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure when she calls people liars I will certainly do so. (And no: suggesting that you are, by your actions, gaining a reputation for lying is not...) ——SN 54129 02:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is the difference saying you are a liar and you lie? Lightningstrikers (talk) 02:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've said i'm sorry to CaroleHenson. It was unacceptable calling her a liar. Thanks for the warning. Lightningstrikers (talk) 02:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One's a comment on an editor's actions, the other is a coment on them personally. The first is OK (if it's true), the second not. Anyway, I saw what you did, fair play to you. Struck the warning, clearly unnecesary! Cheers. ——SN 54129 02:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Lightningstrikers (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Lightningstrickers and Serial Number 54129. When you struck out the warning about personal attacks, Serial Number 54129, did you intend to remove the Level 3 warning regarding disruptive editing?–CaroleHenson (talk) 03:11, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, of course not. Apologies Lightningstricers, I'm afraid I have to undo my striking of that, as I accidentally refactored CH's post. But thanks again for dealing with my point. Carry on! ——SN 54129 03:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Occupational stress shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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.
Both of you have broken 3RR on this article. Meters (talk) 06:16, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the talk page there was a third editor CaroleHenson who also involved. Does not look like they have been given this warning for some unknown reason? Can you do that please. Lightningstrikers (talk) 07:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the warning too. I had no idea this was edit warring and I just read about it. I will not continue. Very surprised the other two experienced editors were involved in edit warring though. Lightningstrikers (talk) 08:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting the content is not helpful. You are replacing properly researched and cited content with uncited content that was voted 4-1 to remove.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You said earlier today that you were upset that I didn't warn you about 3RR. So, I will say now that you are exhibiting the kind of behavior that can result in being blocked. As a sign of good faith, you can fix that by returning the article to the state before you reverted it. Since things are moving in the direction you wanted, and I am doing that work to get it there, I am surprised that you are having this reaction.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:27, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've addressed why I did that on the talk page. Stop the hostility toward me. You reverted 4 times in 24 hours yesterday which I will bring up. You cannot let some poorly written lead go 'live' on the internet for readers internationally. Just wait. We were making progress. Lightningstrikers (talk) 01:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also why don't you comment on the talk page. Stay off here please. Lightningstrikers (talk) 01:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is where warnings go: So you are saying- you won't abide by the 4-1 consensus and you prefer to have incorrect uncited content in the article. Is that what I am hearing? Just trying to ensure I have this right to take it to 3RR.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:36, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have just created a new section on the actual talk page titled Working on the new lead together. I just want to get it right before it goes 'live' on the internet for readers. No I am not going against consensus at all. I'm trying to build consensus. You seem only interested in creating hostility and conflict. Please stay off my talkk page. I've asked you 4 times now. Lightningstrikers (talk) 01:40, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for violating the 3 revert rule, by so, so much (almost twenty reverts in the last three days is bonkers!). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

El_C 02:36, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]