User talk:Shark310

January 2015

Your recent editing history 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 get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's 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. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thanks for the message. To address this issue It is my understanding that wikipedia policy states:

"The issue is already very simple, when removing problematic BLP material (...removed immediately and without waiting for discussion), 3rr does not apply. There's no long list of exceptions...just this one simple concept. Reverting (in this context read: removing) Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons is something we have to do. If you've removed/reverted something 2 or 3 times in a row already and are faced with another insertion, BLP policy doesn't go away...we're bound by it before most other editing restrictions like 3rr. For those familiar with Active Directory or similar concepts, think of it as effective permissions."

I believe it further states:

"For example, if two users are edit warring over a BLP, one is removing a potentially libelous statement and the other is entering it, then the user removing it may be given the benefit of the doubt. Essentially, if the user, who is removing the potentially damaging statement(s), violates 3RR, then their violation may be exempt from any action taken."

Please let me know what your thoughts are. 🐍 00:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

It's not a blp violation. It's sourced, so therefore it can be included. The issue is should it be? I have asked for some clarifying questions about the relevance on that talkpage. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

I'm not sure whether or not you're aware, but a signature must contain a link to at least one of the editor's User page, Talk page, or Contributions page per WP:SIGLINK. Your signature currently contains none of these links; could you please change it to include at least one of them? Thanks! Ca2james (talk) 17:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Testing testing 🐍shark310 19:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - your signature is better, but not quite perfect. Because you're using the double brackets, you'd want to use this structure in your signature: [[User:Shark310|shark310]]. Alternately, you might be able to use the curly braces in your signature like this: {{U|Shark310}}. I hope that helps!

Also, just as an aside, when replying to messages on Talk pages or noticeboards, it's helpful if you indent your reply by putting one more ":" than the previous message had at the beginning of each of your paragraphs. It makes it easier to follow the conversation. Thanks! Ca2james (talk) 00:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]