User talk:Sergent Salt

November 2023

Hi Sergent Salt! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Mammography 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:Mammography, 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. ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:34, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Mammography. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please 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 noticeboards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Sergent_Salt reported by User:ZimZalaBim (Result: ). Thank you. ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:52, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Three-revert rule violation

Your recent editing history 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; read about 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 do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:18, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I showed that there was no reason for deleting two paragraphs that had existed for three years and I got no response. Sergent Salt (talk) 22:43, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

November 2023

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Mammography. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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 think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 22:48, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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).

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

Request reason:

The removal of a significant portion of the Wikipedia article on mammography was done for spurious reasons. Sergent Salt (talk) 08:37, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are trying to justify your violation of the three revert rule, not tell us what was wrong with violating that rule. Saying you are correct and the others are wrong is not a defense to edit warring, as everyone in an edit war thinks that they are correct. Frankly you aren't that far from a WP:NOTHERE block as you seem more interested in pushing anti-mammography views instead of collaboration to best summarize independent reliable sources. I suggest that you radically change your approach now. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 09:57, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

As I cannot answer because I am blocked, I put the link to the study here: http://www.ls.uy/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/2020-corcos.pdf You see that there are original data from national registries (Figure 1) and that the conclusion is the same as that mentioned in the Wikipedia article: This comparison supports the possibility that mammograms caused a high incidence of cancers (3) in elderly women.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergent Salt (talk • contribs)

You're missing the point. Edit warring (particularly violating 3RR) isn't acceptable no matter how right you feel you are. As 331dot said, you're trying to justify violating the 3RR. — Czello ^(music) 13:24, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Continuing to edit war straight after coming off a block is not wise. I suggest you try to get consensus on the talk page instead, as the next block could well be indefinite. — Czello ^(music) 09:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]