User talk:Petulant Clerk: Difference between revisions

July 2019

Hello, I'm Oshwah. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-06-30/Special report— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help desk. Thanks. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:46, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Oshwah, shouldn't libellous statements about living people be removed immediately? Or do different rules apply to The Signpost? Petulant Clerk (talk) 10:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost is an internal Wikipedia news project. It's peer-reviewed before being published and won't contain libelous statements that violate policy. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Oshwah, I think this is a disgusting personal attack that we shouldn't be publishing. Libel is an obvious risk, considering it's made of personal statements with no sources or background - of course it's potentially libellous. It's so far in breach of WP:BLP that I really don't know where to begin - SchroCat (talk) 10:57, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

SchroCat - Let me take another look. I just assumed because it was a signpost article that it would be up to snuff. Maybe I shouldn't have done that... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-06-30/Special report; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that 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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. 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. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 10:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Much as I agree that the clusterfuck of an "article" should not be published (for the record, you're right that it's an unbalanced personal attack), edit warring to delete it will only ever get you blocked (and probably a search to see if you've been socking from another account - not that I am in any way accusing you of that) - SchroCat (talk) 10:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

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:Petulant_Clerk reported by User:Bilorv (Result: ). Thank you. — Bilorv (he/him) _(talk) 10:54, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

July 2019

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. 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 ~~~~}}.  ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:54, 1 July 2019 (UTC)