User talk:McMasterCarr1995
You currently appear to be 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. 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. Materialscientist (talk) 09:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
McMasterCarr1995, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]
|
Hi McMasterCarr1995! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 9 October 2020 (UTC) |
october 2020[edit]
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. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 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. --67.85.37.186 (talk) 16:14, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
October 2020[edit]
Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to 2020 California Proposition 16—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. Materialscientist (talk) 16:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Materialscientist (talk) 16:50, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that in this edit to 2020 California Proposition 16, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 16:19, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at 2020 California Proposition 16, you may be blocked from editing. InfinityJackson (talk) 05:05, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at 2020 California Proposition 16. InfinityJackson (talk) 17:02, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. Thank you. Favonian (talk) 17:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Favonian (talk) 18:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)American politics alert[edit]
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-1932 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.
— Wug·a·po·des 01:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
2020 California Proposition 16[edit]
Please discuss changes on Talk:2020 California Proposition 16, especially if you have already been reverted. In fact, under the discretionary sanctions in place, you are required to participate on the talk page. You've been blocked twice this month, and it is not encouraging to see that your first action after being unblocked was to continue the edit war. That's completely unacceptable and likely to get you blocked indefinitely. Editors are discussing how to resolve these issues on the talk page, and you're welcome to participate. — Wug·a·po·des 23:31, 17 October 2020 (UTC)