User talk:Pernicious.Editor

Pernicious.Editor, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Pernicious.Editor! 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 Missvain (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:01, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 18:44, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived

Hi Pernicious.Editor! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, What to do if wording does not reflect cited source?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days.

Click this link to read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, you can create a new thread.

The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy tagging

You tagged Feminism and modern architecture as an WP:A7. First, it is not one of the eligible topics for A7, and, second, there is no basis for speedy deletion period. You do not have sufficient experience to tag articles for deletion. Please do not do it again.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. If you could add more information on what the rules for deletion of any kind please let me know. I'd like to be able to do so correctly in the future. Pernicious.Editor (talk) 03:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Important notice: post-1992 American politics

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:49, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

January 2022

Hi Pernicious.Editor! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of How to Be an Antiracist several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:How to Be an Antiracist, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did not do it on impulse. Your reversions have failed to substantively address my concerns. You have been nonconstructive and disingenuous. Your have reverted my contributions and others' while failing garner any support for your actions on the talk page; from what I can tell you have acted against consensus while I have gone with it. Please explain why you see yourself as the arbiter of information on that page. EDIT: I'm sorry if this came off as mean-spirited. I'm fed up with my well-intentioned edits being reverted completely. I'm sure you're just trying to help as well. Pernicious.Editor (talk) 01:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The onus to achieve consensus is on those who wish to include the disputed material. I have responded to your concerns on the article talk page. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pengortm also sought to include McWhorter, while no one else has agreed with his exclusion. How is this not you going against consensus? Pernicious.Editor (talk) 02:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is not a majority vote. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on How to Be an Antiracist. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. 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.

Points to note:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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 and 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. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did not go past the three revert limit. Pernicious.Editor (talk) 02:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't take that position if I were you. First, you don't need to violate 3RR to be blocked for edit-warring. Second, warnings are/should be given before you violate 3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]