User talk:Tatt bratt

Dispute at the Permanent makeup page

Hello Tatt bratt. See Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Dispute at the Permanent makeup page for the renamed thread in which your complaint about this page is being discussed. I combined the comments of User:Dbsunde into the same thread. You are welcome to continue the discussion there. EdJohnston 01:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I did see that. I appreciate you understanding that posts that link to someone's private business are not appropriate. This is the information I have been removing that Dasante continues to post. Tatt bratt 12:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Permanent makeup talk page

The IP address that keeps trying to remove your comments is definitely in the wrong, but you might want to look to trim your comments: they look somewhat like a blog, like the IP is claiming. You don't have to change anything, but it might be better if you did. Please note, especially, that a talk page is not a forum, as you seem to think judging by your last comment. Nyttend (talk) 04:01, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I was told to bring this issue to "discussion" and so facts are presented - how would I best edit this and still be able to get the point across? The IP address continues to post isolated information and a lot of misleading and inappropriate information. I have begun to be more forceful because she won't even READ what is written, just changes back to her rants as she so accuses. Tatt bratt (talk) 04:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

December 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Permanent makeup. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. B (talk) 06:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes you are correct, and I posted this problem for intervention. I was trying very hard to use the talk page and even there, IP address person (Ms. Darby according to her previous links to her own website countless times throughout the article) would delete everything I wrote there too so I had to revert. I asked her several times to make a separate entry for what she was "using" as her main issue - I eventually did so myself by starting a new heading - "regulations" which still exists as a locked version. The situation, as I see it, is that when she used "cosmetic tattooing" in the past throughout the piece, she linked it to her own website. I believe this was going to be what she was after again by changing all the permanent makeup wording to cosmetic tattooing again. She continued to remove long-standing relevant information she didn't like and insisted that I find alternate links to support the George Burchett history (I did not post that initially although I did correct vandalism to that - someone along the way replaced George Burchett with "Molie Forster". She also continues to post a link to a brand of tattoo remover's directions for use - this is entirely inappropriate. Editor Nyttend wrote to both of us in this regard and she was blocked for 24 hours.Tatt bratt (talk) 12:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)