User talk:Voooooh

Hello, Voooooh, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

Introduction
The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page
How to write a great article
Manual of Style
Also feel free to make test edits in the sandbox.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to leave me a message or place "{{helpme}}" on your talk page and someone will drop by to help. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey Milk

I wanted to make sure you saw this. I have documented my reasons for leaving out the subheading "Outing Sipple" on Harvey Milk's article's talk page, and accommodated your preference not to use quotes. However, you again inserted "Outing Sipple" into the subheading, despite my giving reasons why this is inappropriate. If you continue to do this without discussing the changes on the talk page, you may be blocked for edit warring. Please note that a discussion is warranted before changes are made, not the comment then change you performed previously. Thank you. --Moni3 (talk) 14:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been reported for edit warring here. --Moni3 (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bold-Revert-Discuss

Hi Voooooh. Welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be a very new user, and sometimes it is harder to edit effectively when you aren't familiar with all the rules. I've noticed that you are having a bit of difficulty at Harvey Milk. Generally, changes to Wikipedia articles should reflect consensus. When someone (like you) has an issue with a piece of the article, they can first make the edit in the article. If another editor reverts that edit, that means there is not consensus for the change. At this point, no changes should be made to that discussion, and instead the two editors (and any other interested party) should discuss the issue on the article talk page. When a consensus is reached, the article can then be changed again to reflect that. This is called the Bold-Revert-Discuss cycle. It looks like Moni3 has tried to initiate a talk page discussion at Talk:Harvey_Milk#Heroic_things_.2F_Outing_Sipple; it would be really good if you could participate in that before making any other changes. Otherwise, if you continue to make changes to that section without discussion, you could be edit warring, which can result in a temporary block. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me or any other experienced Wikipedian. Happy editing! Karanacs (talk) 15:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With this edit, you are edit warring at Harvey Milk, after WP:3RR has been pointed out to you. Please stop inserting POV and use the talk page to develop consensus, and please read WP:3RR carefully. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

December 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a short time in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Caulde 17:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To expand upon the reason for a 48-hour block, it is reflecting your aversion at compromises and avoiding consensual decisions through constant reverts over several days. This is an unacceptable pratice; for the article's sake, let's hope this behaviour won't continue after the automatic de-block in 48 hour's time. You will be blocked again, perhaps for a long period, if you revert past the 3RR again. Caulde 17:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring

Strongly suggest you try discussing your edits to Harvey Milk on the talkpage instead of continuing the behaviour for which you were blocked. This will only end in a further block. Black Kite 00:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for edit warring on same article right after previous block for same thing. A week is enough time for you to sit down and read WP:Edit war, I assume?. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first.

--barneca (talk) 00:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I have other things to do.

However I will make time to report your rudeness. --Voooooh (talk) 05:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call it rudeness, so much as exasperation; four different editors have asked you not to edit war, and your response after the expriation of a previous block is to demand someone be desysoped, and resume the exact same thing. Frankly, that seems rude. Anyway, I didn't mean to be rude in return, and apologize that I let my annoyance show.

However, I really do think that if you cannot resist edit warring, and cannot take the time to learn how things work around here, then Wikipedia is not the right place for you. If you'd like help from someone about how to go about trying to change an article when someone disagrees, read all about dispute resolution here, and try that when your block is over. Ask if you have questions. But if the edit warring resumes, then yes I think this account is going to be indefinitely blocked to prevent further disruption. --barneca (talk) 16:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]