User talk:2017DB
Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure![edit]
- Hi Dcb2012! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
-- 23:01, Tuesday, July 25, 2017 (UTC)
| Mission 1 | Mission 2 | Mission 3 | Mission 4 | Mission 5 | Mission 6 | Mission 7 |
| Say Hello to the World | An Invitation to Earth | Small Changes, Big Impact | The Neutral Point of View | The Veil of Verifiability | The Civility Code | Looking Good Together |
Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure![edit]
- Hi Dcb2012! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
-- 23:24, Tuesday, July 25, 2017 (UTC)
| Mission 1 | Mission 2 | Mission 3 | Mission 4 | Mission 5 | Mission 6 | Mission 7 |
| Say Hello to the World | An Invitation to Earth | Small Changes, Big Impact | The Neutral Point of View | The Veil of Verifiability | The Civility Code | Looking Good Together |
Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure![edit]
- Hi Dcb2012! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
-- 23:26, Tuesday, July 25, 2017 (UTC)
| Mission 1 | Mission 2 | Mission 3 | Mission 4 | Mission 5 | Mission 6 | Mission 7 |
| Say Hello to the World | An Invitation to Earth | Small Changes, Big Impact | The Neutral Point of View | The Veil of Verifiability | The Civility Code | Looking Good Together |
Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure![edit]
- Hi Dcb2012! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
-- 23:29, Tuesday, July 25, 2017 (UTC)
| Mission 1 | Mission 2 | Mission 3 | Mission 4 | Mission 5 | Mission 6 | Mission 7 |
| Say Hello to the World | An Invitation to Earth | Small Changes, Big Impact | The Neutral Point of View | The Veil of Verifiability | The Civility Code | Looking Good Together |
July 2017[edit]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on John A. McDougall. 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.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- 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; 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. Alexbrn (talk) 11:57, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at John A. McDougall 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 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 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. General Ization Talk 12:24, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]
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:2017DB reported by User:Alexbrn (Result: ). Thank you. Alexbrn (talk) 12:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
If, as you claimed in your most recent edit summary, "Revision is supported by independent sources. Elevated discussion is needed", then stop persistently reverting to your preferred version and begin that discussion on the Talk page. If you fail to do so, you will be blocked from editing. General Ization Talk 12:31, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:27, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
2017DB (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
When an allegedly established editor initiates a editing war by doing not waiting 24 hours to revert a revision back to that what that editor personally prefers, does not take the courtesy to reach a consensus on contested material, and instead initiates a editing war and in the process provides an initial statement of “weasel words…” —direct quote of editor User:Alexbrn — that reply is rife with bias and devoid of fact. Yet that editor is allowed to remain unchallenged. I am documenting this accordingly, as it is evident in this action that Wikipedia is anything but opening, inclusive, or seeks all viewpoints in reaching a neutral point of view. This unilateral barring action instead has turned into a retaliation for presentation of medical researchers published findings that do not fit the personal bias of User:Alexbrn. Why is User:Alexbrn allowed to bully and insult editors providing documented countering POVs to User:Alexbrn? Where is the neutrality in unilaterally barring me for responding to User:Alexbrn’s retaliation? In summary, I have shown User:Alexbrn made a Personal Attack which as specified ty the "Wikipedia: No Personal attacks" page, that user should be blocked. As such and in all fairness, the unsupported revisions reversions made by this user should not be allowed to persist. 2017DB (talk) 18:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Decline reason:
This unblock request addresses the behaviour of Alexbrn. That's not relevant. Your unblock request should talk about you, not about others; see WP:NOTTHEM. Yamla (talk) 19:06, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
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.
Based on your edits to my talk page, at the AN3 noticeboard and in your unblock request above, you have obviously either not read or not understood our definition of and policy concerning edit warring. I suggest you do so before you edit further after the expiration of your block. If you resume the same editing pattern after the block, you will be blocked again (generally for increasingly long periods of time). General Ization Talk 19:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
What is the forum for bias treatment to be discussed and addressed??? User:Alexbrn initiates contact with "weasel words" personal attacks but is allowed to persist????2017DB (talk) 20:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
- Check out the processes at dispute resolution. -Kieran (talk) 20:18, 27 July 2017 (UTC)